In Defense of Dave: To the passing Christian

sent in by "likeafish"

I haven’t been around this web site long, but long enough to witness some of the ugliest behavior I have ever seen out of those who claim to represent the Prince of Peace. With only a handful of sites on the entire WWW dedicated to the subject of leaving the Christian faith, and perhaps thousands out there for the purpose of propagating the same, believers choose to seek this site out and attack Dave for what he is doing. And ATTACK is the operative word here. I dare say they’d burn him at the stake if they could.

So what is he doing? For one thing, contrary to what most Christians who come here perceive, he is NOT out to change anyone’s mind. He is out to free his own mind and to help others to do the same. He does not ask anyone to think what he thinks or adopt any particular take on truth other than what one finds for them self. This is difficult for a Christian to comprehend because of the theistic and dualistic perspective that guides every thought process. Everything, every idea that is not with them, that cannot be somehow subjugated or rendered neutral, is against them. Either there is a god, my god, or there is apostasy, unbelief, and everything is meaningless. One is either hot or cold, as the Lord put it, remember?

This limited epistemological framework does not allow for other possibilities, and consequently, little, if any, room for dialogue. Sure, Christians come here proclaiming their interest in what people who have left their faith have to say. They say they want to engage in conversation, sharpen their “debating skills” and listen. They often are out to prove the validity of their faith by presuming to be the one Christian who makes sure to tell them how much god loves them, while ever so kindly reminding the unbelievers that Hell awaits them.

Yet they end up complaining that they are misunderstood, that people are mean because they don’t have much patience for proselytizing, and that they are arrogant because they demand that any arguments be solid and well-reasoned and not filled with bible verses and an unimaginative repetition of things they have heard all their lives.

This place is like a library. Granted, it has a specific catalogue of material, but that is certainly not a fault. In fact, as a former theological student, I can see where this web site could be a valuable resource for materials to study regarding the Christian faith. There is nothing here to fear, unless knowledge is to be feared. But even better it is a forum in the best sense of the word. In the days of the ancient Greeks, or even Jesus and Paul’s time, cities usually had places, forums, where subjects were debated passionately. If you couldn’t hack it, if you didn’t come studied and prepared, with some skills and some imagination, then tough. Could it be that the claims of Christianity just don’t cut it in a reasoned debate anymore? Or that it doesn’t inspire imagination any longer?

Still, Christians find this place on the web to be a threat. Why is that? A faith that has lasted for 2000 years, survived the collapse of the Roman Empire, the 18th century Enlightenment (sort of) and suddenly one little old web site deserves such vitriol and hatred (yes, hatred, all you Christian readers) leveled on an almost daily basis toward Dave the webmaster for posting what he sees as a whole lot of stuff about Christianity that just doesn’t pass as loving, or even good. For what does this say about the strength of Christian convictions, of the confidence Christians have in the goodness of what they believe, or of Christianity itself? By its own standards Christianity is condemned, over and over, throughout history and by the witness of its followers who arrive and post here

In the 16th century the greatest minds in the world were all religious. In the west, they were all Christians. Let’s face it, they had to be or. . . (he draws an index finger across his throat). This web site is filled with information about why that is not the case any longer in the 21st century. The reason for bringing this up is that not once, not yet, not anywhere, not with any precision or honesty or thoughtfulness has a Christian come to this site with anything remotely resembling a well-presented theological argument for why Dave isn’t justified in speaking his mind, in working out whatever he needs to work out on his own web site that he pays for, in questioning god, the bible, the voracity of Christian claims, etc. OR offered any compelling reasons why he, or any apostate who has thought it through, should rethink their position. Furthermore, I have seen so little humility, so little graciousness, so few acts of kindness and mercy (if any at all), such a lack of love for the neighbor, and such an unwillingness of ANYONE to admit that Christianity is based upon faith and promise and NOTHING ELSE (not evidence, not proof, but faith--a word, a story, a truth claim based on religious authority) that if I were still a Christian I would be ashamed. Instead, it only confirms my own realization that Christianity is a fool’s errand and I can only feel a measure of pity and sadness for those who still cling to its delusions.

The violence in some of the responses to Dave’s site is troubling. Ye shall know them by their fruits indeed. It is disturbing to me that dissent is so feared these days that it almost seems that, not unlike the treatment of gays and illegal immigrants in the US, there are those who would hunt down anyone who thinks differently, and do whatever they can to eradicate them from sight (site?). And the Christians that come here would do so without even giving the accused a fair hearing. Most, it is clear, read very little of what is presented, and then unleash Hell. Hell, not Heaven mind you. So little love, so little time. They’re certainly not saying much for Christ’s sake.

When I was a kid, the Sunday school teachers told stories about persecuted Christians. We played games in youth group in which we hid out and had secret bible studies as if we were living in the former Soviet Union. All of this was designed to get us to think we Christians were a persecuted lot. I hear this silly notion repeated here and elsewhere by Christians. Every time government monies are blocked to fund a religious social program, or the Ten Commandments are removed from a public school, the Christians whine about persecution. They whine about it here when someone simply doesn’t agree with their poorly reasoned arguments. But who is trying to squeeze out whom? Like I said, this is one of only a handful of sites, if not the only site, that provides a forum for Ex-Christians.

Maybe it is not persecution at all. Maybe it’s just fear and panic, plain and simple. Maybe those clay feet of legend are the very foundations of the Christian faith itself. Maybe somewhere, deep down, those vituperative Christians who crash in here sense that the clay feet are cracking, and the whole thing is teetering precariously on the brink of oblivion. Maybe they know, like a man who leaves a seminary because learning is beginning to challenge his long-held beliefs, that if you think about it too much, it won’t hold water. Let’s face it, when faced with having to get out of the boat, do you try to walk on water or do you start swimming? What world are WE living in?

What is certain is that intolerance abounds these days. And even with all the information readily available on the web, so does ignorance. What is also clear is that, based upon the witness of the Christians who visit here, one could only conclude that they are, on the whole, insensitive, merciless, arrogant, smug, supercilious, fearful, neurotic, mono-maniacal, often unintelligible, seldom honest, lacking in empathy, and filled with their own self-righteousness. That’s what I see. I know many Christians—friends, family members—who do not fit these descriptions, and some others who do.

My point is that many Christians who arrive here do not obey the dictates of their own religion. They post on this site with beams in their eyes howling at Dave to remove the speck in his. They claim a loving god and can neither give a convincing argument for the claim based upon the contents of their faith nor the example of their own behavior. They call Dave hateful and promise him nothing but Hell.

So what is Dave doing? For me, he has provided a place to flush out of my mind a lifetime of religious training, indoctrination, anxiety, fear, and confusion that has plagued my existence with ideas that are irreconcilable with the person I am. What does that last statement mean? Well, it is personal, but it has to do with honoring the gifts I have and the way I have come to see the world around me, something that I could not do within the confines of Christianity. I have found that it is possible to have a sense of the good, the true and the beautiful without god. (If not, how could we ever determine god’s goodness in the first place? I digress). I realize now I am in good company in having felt restricted by the Christian faith. There is a case to be made for the idea that many, if not most creative events, inventions, and works of art in human history have, in some way, happened in opposition to Christianity. But I’m not interested in arguing that point. I still like Bach. Freethinking means I can still have that, and I can also appreciate .Buddhist poetry, or Muddy Waters. But in any of those cases, I am my own person, and I can take what I find appeals to me, what is useful, what agrees with my sense of humanity, and leave the rest behind. Christianity, if it is to be believed, and if Jesus is to be followed and the words of scripture to be put into practice, does not allow for that, in my view.

But I did not begin this essay to explain why I am no longer a Christian. My intention is to say that Dave is a person to be admired. He stands up for what he thinks against a plethora of personal, daily attacks, keeping his cool, and all the time providing for others who need a place to clear their head from their own daily assaults upon their individual psyches. Where Christianity is conformist, Dave’s site is turning over the proverbial tables in the temple and calling bullshit on the lot of it. Where it is repressive, Dave’s site sets captives free. In other words, from what I can see, even though he doesn’t buy all the truth claims of Christianity, he sure models the ethos it has made its reputation on. He uses what power he has and offers it to others so that they may find a measure of freedom for themselves.

I feel confident in using such an example because I can tell from this site that Dave has done the work. He has studied Christianity and taken it to heart. He gets it. And even though he finds 99% or even 100% of it abhorrent now, and I don’t blame him, he is also smart, sensitive, and compassionate enough, and has a sufficient sense of irony and humor enough to appreciate a compliment that is formed out the very material he has worked so hard to shake off.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”

Funny, I think Dave is a better Christian than all of you wankers.

"likeafish" is a regular participant in the Open Forums area of the site.


Anonymous said...

That was a well thought out speech to us "in-coming" christians and I do not feel threatened or attacked by this site. I do have a question though. How does you become an ex-christian?

Anonymous said...

Excuse my typo, I am not well trained at typing

webmdave said...

How does one become an ex-Christian?

Click here.

Anonymous said...


I'm brand new here, my story still isn't posted (being only minutes old). I do not know the poster of "In Defense of Dave", nor do I know Dave. I see a familiar theme here, however. It is the same experience I have with progressive blogs - the freepers (Free Republic, right wing kool-aid drinkers) show-up uninvited and leave their "opinions". There is a crusade going on in this country. Right wing conservatism is in a panic state. Recent indictments prove that they are crumbling under the weight of their own empire. Even Ralph Reed is (allegedly) caught-up in the whole Jack Abramoff affair.

I was raised fundamentalist. I served in the US Army. I was taught to hate communist. Never in my life had a communist injured me in any way. The people who were trying to teach me to hate communists, however, had. In grade school, the teachers had us diving under our desks to practice surviving a nuclear attack?!? The whole right-wing consevatism thing is, indeed, child abuse and it gets perpetuated by our institutions. Anyone else find that scaring kids with hell-fire brimstone and communist-wrought nuclear annihilation as an assualt on the psyche of these young, impressionable children, I don't know... CRUEL?

The belief in a two superpower world was engrained in me. Then the Berlin Wall fell. It was a strange feeling. I was happy that the Soviet Union was doing the "dying cockroach", but there was an unease about it. Then it dawned on me. In the speed and unyeilding way that the Soviet empire was crumbling before my eyes, it could happen to the United States - in the same way.

It probably feels that way to the fundies. They are praying for Armageddon. They have a pResident who would be happy to deliver it for them. Pat Robertson continues to spew his venom, without fear or censure. It is almost as if Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney are all embodied in the image of Nero and they are playing the fiddle while Rome burns below them.

Excuse the metaphors, but I feel like Francis Scott Keye as he became aware that "the banner still waves". Our Constitution still stands. The Constitution is still in the tender-loving care of a few patriotic Americans who have clung to power. The Neo-Cons, with the help of the christian right, have tried to turn us into a facist state, but it didn't work. They are shaking in their (jack)boots.

Reason, the good-sense, intelligence and maturity of the American public has, once again, delivered us from evil. I believe that we are on the verge of another "American Renassaince", much like the "Summer of Love" and the sixties / early seventies. McCarthy failed, Nixon failed and now King George is failing. I feel like there will be a large backlash towards this "culture of corruption" and Americans will question the role of their religious leaders. They have no credibility. They have lied, along with their Neo-Con leaders.

Killing innocent Iraqis is not "Christ-like" (christian). Lie-ing about war is not "Christ-like". Using religion to con citizens about the evils of indian gaming in one state so that indian gaming can thrive in an adjacent state is not "christ-like". War profiteering (especially for the company that you just left being CEO of to be V.P.) is not "Christ-like" Leaving people without aid for a week after a devastating hurricane and flood just because they were black, poor and Democrat, is not "Christ-like". Using money from poor parishioners to put air-conditioning units on doghouses is not "christ-like". Bagging the young,impressionable church Secretary is not "Christ-like". Hiring a Prostitute so that you can masturbate (without your wife's knowledge) while you do your "church-lady" delivery about the intolerable sins of "fornicators" from a televised pulpit is not "christ-like". The people whose names were not listed above, but you should know who they are, CANNOT really believe in the existence of God or Jesus. If they really did, they would fear for their own eternal damnation for all of the things that they did (above). WWJD - Who Would Jesus Do?

Anonymous said...

You wrote: The violence in some of the responses to Dave’s site is troubling.”

Just a few very lovely words from others on this website:

“Most of the fundies suck but there's hope...maybe.”
joel, 09.03.2004, 11:21am #

KC Jones wrote: “Hate fundies! Ridicule them! Smear them! It will give you unity! ...
Fundies! Hate fundies! And all will be well”

“Brainwashed people cannot see the truth that is right before their eyes and they will deny facts that do not agree with their beliefs.”

“Christians are, without a doubt, the most judgmental people on the face of the Earth!”

Bresson F8 wrote: “Sweet mother of Jebus! God bless you...I will say a prayer to Fetus Jesus for your soul.”

Forever and ever wrote: “Christians - Never before have so many done so little for so much.”

Hatred you say? Look in the mirror. All of you. If you want to help free people out of Christianity, make sure you attack the doctrine itself. Because when you attack people, you are no different from those fundies.

webmdave said...

This site has been online for 5 years now.

Is that the totality of the bad comments you can find? Do you really intend to lump together all of the 2200 daily visitors this site enjoys?

Are you serious?

Anonymous said...

Another anonymous idiot wrote:

"Hatred you say? Look in the mirror. All of you. If you want to help free people out of Christianity, make sure you attack the doctrine itself. Because when you attack people, you are no different from those fundies."

I don't think most of us are here to free the idiots in the world of their silly myths. I really don't care what people believe, as long as they don't push it on me.

The low IQ Jesus people seem to come here to stir up trouble. They post and re-post the same old BS, and then they are the ones who get upset and start telling us we are all going to hell. Most of the time, they post anonymously, like you.

Yes we do get sick of it, they are asking for the abuse. (Maybe to claim persecution, who knows?)

So maybe they should just slither back into their holes and pray to their non-existent God.


Anonymous said...

"Is that the totality of the bad comments you can find? Do you really intend to lump together all of the 2200 daily visitors this site enjoys?"

I didn't have time to post all of them. That would be a waste of YOUR space don't you think?

"Another anonymous idiot wrote."

An idiot? Wow another example of venomous talk. Give yourself a hand for being a good example of a fundie. I don't have to cut and paste this one.

"Most of the time, they post anonymously, like you."

They? so you are assuming that i am "they"? how do you know that for sure? the reason i am posting anonymously is because honestly, its easier - i don't have a blogger username and don't want to take the time to sign up for one.

"Yes we do get sick of it, they are asking for the abuse."

So the end justifies the means. Your mentality is - because THEY are doing it to ME, then I will do it to THEM. Your mentality is no different from fundie suicide bombers then. or those fundie Christians who shoot abortion doctors. YOU THINK THE SAME. Take great care Onanite, your hatred is grotesque and might result in repugnant actions later on.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Idiot,

So fucking what if some here profess hatred of fundies and their nasty, bigoted beliefs? We do not profess to be "holier than thou" like they do. Most of us are, however, smarter and much nicer people in general. Hate is a emotion that sometimes can't be helped, like love. Some here choose to write about those feelings.

I, personnally, would like to burn down every stinkin' church in the world. So what? I don't do it because that would be just plain wrong and is illegal. Just a nice thought. However, xian fundies often resort to violence and vandalism against those that disagree. Talk about not practicing what they preach!

You can think what you like about the folks here, but if you don't approve-go the hell away. That is the difference, isn't it? You and your fellow xians can just ignore this site. But we cannot ignore the religious right and all the other xian fanatics as they insist on being in everyone's face and trying to impose their evil on the entire nation. I wish ignoring them was as easy as not looking at a website.

On the plus side, more and more free thinkers are speaking out and working to pull the world into the 21st century. Rock on, my friends!

Regards, carol

PS. It is really easy to post a name to your comments. You must've been home schooled.

Anonymous said...

Hi Carol, my lovely child.



You know that little brown book called the Bible? IT'S A PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT !!!!!!

It has lies in it written by PEOPLE about how god created the Earth and has knowledge about every person and every thought being thought by every person that has ever breathed a living breath, you know, and this god has loving compassion, and sees to it that everything that is just and pure and good is completely watched out for and protected and cared for and some people have diseases some people win the lottery, some people are born defective, physically and mentally and some people are called to preach and some people talk to this god where as some people have never talked to this equal oportunity god, who watches over certain ones and allows some to be maimed and have their heads cut off, god allows some christians to be burned alive in wrecks and plane crashes. Yes Lourdes you should get down on you knees right now and thank this wonderful god for allowing you to witness these horrible tragic events.

The bible spelled backards = TRASH. Guess what Lourdes the bible was sent over to America on a boat with BLACK SLAVES. The American Indians never heard of God, Jesus, Heaven or Hell and why not?

Because it was written down in a BOOK from clay tablets, by men.

Does this mean that the Indians did not deserve to know about the Jesus salvation savings plan? Since they were considered savages?

NOOOOOOOOO It means that the bible is the invention of a MAN, from the OPIUM FIELDS out of the Middle East.....Arab Country, via England.

There was no a single church on American soil before 1492, did god build these churches? Noooo whitemen did.

The bible is whitemans god and fantasy book, his answers for all things unknown, whiteman's answers that the Opiumhead Arabs wrote down on clay tablets.

This is knowledge that needs to be got out to the public !!!! NOW !!!! TODAY !!!!


webmdave said...

"the reason i am posting anonymously is because honestly, its easier - i don't have a blogger username and don't want to take the time to sign up for one."

Then click the "OTHER" Button!

webmdave said...

And Mr. Anonymous who can't figure out how to click the OTHER button, because it's too hard: You are right - there are harsh things said on this site sometimes. However, it is only words. If you don't like what you read, just click away. No one - not one single person - is forcing you to read this stuff.

I wonder, do you get as upset over porn sites? Do you troll Muslim sites? Do you rebuke Christian sites that trash atheists? Do you even care about any other type of harsh language if it's not directed against Christians.

Whether you answer any of this or not, please start using the "OTHER" button, or your posts will not last long.


Anonymous said...

I'll begin this by saying that I'm a Christian. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians come onto this site and verbally harangue those who are not believers. For instance:

"What is certain is that intolerance abounds these days. And even with all the information readily available on the web, so does ignorance. What is also clear is that, based upon the witness of the Christians who visit here, one could only conclude that they are, on the whole, insensitive, merciless, arrogant, smug, supercilious, fearful, neurotic, mono-maniacal, often unintelligible, seldom honest, lacking in empathy, and filled with their own self-righteousness."

The Bible teaches us that *all* are sinners, including those of us who attack you guys, and that we shouldn't criticise people for their faults when we've got plenty of our own. Open discussions about religion where both sides respect each other's views are the proper place for Christians to engage non-believers, not one sided attacks that do little but make the church look bad.

There's so much that I could say, but no real place to start. I'll finish by saying that most people who come here and criticise you guys because of your lack of faith have problems, self-esteem probably being the most obvious. The most important commandment according to Jesus is to love God & love your neighbors. Verbally attacking a non-Christian because of their anti-Christian attitudes is *not* showing love. I feel really bad about this. I truly believe that Christianity is really not as bad as people have made it out to be. I actually left the faith when I was a teenager and came back to it as an adult, so I think that I have a bit of perspective on the issue.

If anybody wants to contact me about this, feel free to email me at That's it!

Anonymous said...


I hope that you come back. You actually left your name and did not sign in as anony-mouse!!!I am impressed and awe-struct. You may be the first real christian I have ever met! Please do not view my post as sarcastic (it's starting to sound that way to me...)

I am curious, are you Catholic? Papafriesen, as in Father Friesen? How do you view the current political situation? What about a woman's right to make decisions about her own body (abortion and birth control)? You sound like you might be a private person who likes to worship on your own, or you might be a Priest. Either way, you come here as a humble servant of Christ and I am truly impressed.

Joshua said...

As a Christian, I don't find the site offensive at all. If anything, it reminds me of how far short I fall in living up to my faith.

I appreciate the honesty, sincerity and fearlessness in questioning faith that I find here. It may be a bit over-the-top at times (such as the "tracts"), but it's no more over-the-top than some of the Christian media.

I'm still a Christian, but I thank you for having an open forum to question faith. Without searching, nobody has faith - they just have hollow tradition.

Anonymous said...

I like that the poster put in that he knew christians that aren't mean and egotistical. Personally, I think most of the things that people complain about (they push their beliefs on me, they're so stubborn) and all that jazz, thats a personality thing and shouldn't be blamed on a book.

Lets blame violence in todays youth on video games right? Nah.

You don't have to believe in god to be stupid and pigheaded, nor be atheist to be accepting and kind. I'm not really religious but I go to a bible study anyway because the people there are all different denominations and there's open debate with acceptance of challenges. And you can press me on this and say 'do they logically defend their bible' or something like that, but for the most part, they've done a LOT of research. I don't agree, but there's no animosity between us.

I forgot where I started with this so, hey! I like the site, even though I don't agree with everything ^_^


Anonymous said...

" However, it is only words. If you don't like what you read, just click away. No one - not one single person - is forcing you to read this stuff.

I wonder, do you get as upset over porn sites? Do you troll Muslim sites? Do you rebuke Christian sites that trash atheists? Do you even care about any other type of harsh language if it's not directed against Christians."

Sorry, I really don't mean to sound trite, but aren't you being a hypocrite too? If you don't like what someone posts its also your choice to ignore it. 'course, you are a big part of the site and all, but don't blame other people for defending their beliefs when you do just the same.

All people, when feeling attacked, defend themselves. In this case, defense on either side seems stupid and pointless.

I guess people on both sides here prolly feel attacked because anything that challenges ANYONES beliefs often feels like that, at least, at first. I can bet a lot of fundies are jerks here. People, PEOPLE are stupid.

Err anywho, please don't imply that anyone defending christianity doesn't just as ardently fight for atheism or islam on the christianity sites. I mean, I do...

and you can disbelieve me if you like, but whenever someone seems disrespectful it makes me sad. No one portion of society has the claims on unkindness either.

Oooh and I don't mean the articles are mean or anything, no more than an article on nuclear physics insults chemistry.

*sigh* and I suppose I went off track there at some point again. Sorry.

*hugs* But I do hope none of this offended you, though I suppose thats not likely.

Anonymous said...

As a christian I just wanted to thank Txiasaeia for saying what she said. It's sad to see christians come here and get all mad, when they shouldn't.

Anonymous said...

Sam Harris has written a wonderful book entitled "The End of Faith." I highly recommend it.

Jennifer A said...

Jesus was constantly stating to his disciples "You do not understand." Looking at some of the vitriol spouted by so called Christians, He's probably still saying it. There _should_ be intolerance among Christians- for viciousness, cruelty, ignorance and plain hatefulness. The Jesus whom I have a personal relationship was none of these things. Faith, Hope and Love, people. - Jennifer

David said...

To Jennifer A,

I'll say AMEN to that.

Dave Poole

Pastor Doug Hoag said...

I'm enjoying the responses by the Christians on this particular thread, but there is one thing we are forgetting to do, and that is, to apologize. This is what I will attempt to do now for the many ex-Christians who visit this site.

I am truly sorry.

I am sorry for the snobbishness and rigidity that is found in so many of our religious systems, and for being complicit in these very systems.

I am sorry for the violence and hatred that the church has inflicted on the world throughout its history, all done in the name of god. We have wielded the sword in vain.

I am sorry for the attitudes of exclusivity and for shutting the kingdom of god in people's faces solely because they don't conform.

I am truly sorry that the church has not sought solidarity with the human race, but instead has sought to dominate, control, and squelch minds that are truly brilliant.

I am sorry that we Christians have been, and are, way too focused on the specks in the eyes of others while ignoring the logs in our own.

I am sorry for the way we Christians have taken the greatest story in the world and have reduced it to sound bites and pious platitudes, commonly know as Systematic Theology-- actually, theology that systematically seeks to destroy the hearts and lives of those who don't comply.

I am sorry that the church has looked down its collective nose and considered itself the sole interpreter of the will of the god it worships and reveres.

I am sorry that the church has supported, encouraged, and even assisted, oppressive war machines, including that of the current administration.

I am sorry that we Christians have claimed the corner on the morality market.

Christians, we have seen the enemy. And it is us! We are being crucified, as it were, and rightly so! I have no quick solutions, but I do believe that a couple of things are in order for us.

First, we need to repent. We must decide if we are going to continue to walk on the same road we've been walking on for most of our history, or if we are going to turn around and seek another.

Second, we must stop dividing the human race into "us" and "them" (as I admit I have done in this post). Styx was right-- deep inside we're all the same! Any attempt to pretend otherwise leads to deception and a diminished humanity.

Third, we must look at the Scriptures more closely and realize that they are products of their time. It does not make us liberals to do so. We can explore deeper into the biblical narrative and begin to notice the wider canvases that the Scriptures are giving us.

Dave, you are doing a great service, no matter how much opposition you are facing!

P.S.-- Lest anyone think I'm into self-flaggelation and masochism, I'm not! I'm a Christian minister who strongly feels that Christians must explore avenues of engaging the world with fresh perspectives and lessening narrow-mindedness.

With Charity,
Doug Hoag

Pastor Doug Hoag said...

Oh, and, by the way: I'm not an ass-kisser either. Well, sometimes I am, but not today!

Steven Bently said...

Pastor Doug Haog said:

I'm sorry yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I'm sorry yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I'm sorry yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I'm sorry yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I'm sorry yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I'm sorry yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I'm sorry yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I'm sorry I took everyones money to my bank account.

I'm just sorry!

Ok I'm glad I got that off my chest, I'll see you all in church on Sunday. Don't forget to bring your wallet!

Pastor Doug Hoag said...


Yeah, but I didn't take all the money! ;)

The church in America has been a big money machine. Many congregants give because of threats, real and perceived. And then great big humongous gargantuan churches and cathedrals can be built. Another shrine to greed and arrogance!

And, yeah, I'll admit that I've been party to it. I have no excuse, except to say that, like most others, I have a family to support and bills to pay. How could any of us earn a living if it weren't for other people? Of course, it's very possible that I don't have a real job.

Now I feel much better!


P.S.-- Am I correct in assuming your unacceptance of my apology? No motive here-- it's just a question.

P.P.S.-- I would love to have someone interrupt my sermon in the middle of Easter services this Sunday and yell, "Fuck you, Pastor Hoag, you're full of shit!" God, that would be so refreshing!

P.P.P.S.-- Congregants could stop giving offerings completely, and I would say, "Good! Give it to your favorite charity!"

David said...

To Pastor Doug,

What church do you preach at?

Dave Poole

Pastor Doug Hoag said...


I'm pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in New Lenox, Illinois.

webmdave said...

Hi Doug,

Might I ask what your position on Gay marriage?

Pastor Doug Hoag said...

I think all marriages should be happy ones! ;)

Kidding aside, I've recently questioned the traditional stance on homosexuality, mainly because it doesn't fit the scope of the biblical narrative.

What appear to be condemnations of homosexuality are, historically and narrativally (sp?) speaking, condemnations of temple prostitution, of which there were both male and female. Fertility cults in the Ancient Near East were numerous. Temple prostitution was solely for the purpose of manipulating the gods and goddesses to copulate, and thus it would rain for the crops. But, you knew all of that already.

The Biblical condemnations against homosexuality have nothing to do with the orientation, but with worship.

With that, I personally have no problem with gay marriage. I recently had a gay couple in my congregation. They weren't married, but they did have a committment ceremony. They were very active in the congregation serving on the usher team. One died of cancer and it was very sad. I was slated to conduct the funeral, but at the last minute his family decided they wanted a Catholic priest. I felt dejected because I knew the guy and got to know him very well, and here's this priest who never met him before acting like he knew him. I felt sick.

Anyway, I think I overkilled your question. Did I answer it?

Steven Bently said...

Listen Mr. Hoag, I think we can communicate here, because you seem to be open minded and not afraid of words.

Ok I liked your answer to me, it seemed to be the most honest answer that I have ever received from a person claiming to be Christian since I've been on here over 2 years.

Now let me address something that concerns me about the Bible writers and Christians fear of homosexuals, now read carefully and slowly, OK?

Now the Bible writers were not what I would call educated geniuses. They thought that diseases were caused by demons and witches and spells, or unclean spirits, so anyone being homosexual would set off alarms in one's head back then as the King of Darkness, Satan!!! as well as most Christians today think, not only to homosexuals, but to Atheists also.

Now Doug please get this, please! please! Read below and think Doug, please! please!

If your almighty God will allow people to be born Siamese twins, with heads joined together, people born without arms, limbs, blind, albino, deaf, with cancer, etc. etc.

There is no reason that a person could be born with the wrong sexual preferences mentally wrong sex chromosomes with a body of a man, but mentally atracted to the same sex, Not Demon possessed!!!

The same could be said for a female born with the wrong sexual preferences mentally wrong sex chromosomes, with a body of a female, but mentally atracted to the same sex or bisexual, Not Demon Possessed! and not against a god or any god!!!

Now most all preachers here in the Bible cess pool, will say that homosexuality is chosen behavior just to be against God, it's not natural, but homosexuality is done to defile God, It's all against God.

Guess what Doug? They, them, you perhaps! Could Just Be Fucking WRONG!!!

I'm not including Atheistism in the menatlly challenged or perverted category, mainly Atheists do not hate a God or any Gods and Atheists do not do things to oppose a God or any God or to be against a God or any god.

Now Doug there is so much to learn here on this website and we can continue to communicate, as long as you do not come back on here wishing to pray for us and condemning us.

Most of the regulars here have been Christians for many years and spouted the Christian cliche's, we've heard them all and we're fucking sick of them.

Doug I think you have the capacity to communicate with us here, I hope you do not prove me to be wrong. Respectfull Yours, Ben

Steven Bently said...

typo's- attracted

respectfully yours Ben, it's getting late :-P

webmdave said...

Thanks for your open and honest answer Doug.

Pastor Doug Hoag said...

First, I received an e-mail from Marty (I forgot his last name) who wants to come to my church this Sunday and yell at me. I went to hit the reply button and accidentally deleted the e-mail. I guess I had my head in my ass. I apologize Marty, but if you read this, the church is Trinity Lutheran Church, 508 N. Cedar Rd., New Lenox, IL. Services this Sunday are at 7 and 10:30 am. We have hot breakfast after the 7 am service. If you can make it we'd love to have you! Oh, and if you want to yell at me during my sermon, can I request you not using any expletives? Of course I was being a bit facetious and engaging in a little hyperbole in my post. In fact, I would prefer you talk to me privately, and leave my minions out of it! ;)

Whew! Now onto matters at hand.

Ben, I understand your concerns. I don't seek to convert anyone. I wouldn't know what to do if I ever did. And I promise I won't pray for your eternal soul (whatever that means). I consider myself a student of life, and I search for diamonds in the rough. I truly believe that every person on this planet has hidden treasure, and I try to find them. In my way of thinking there's no such thing as human debris. I know some people who have been royally screwed and may consider themselves a waste of space. But underneath the damage there are gems.

This is not to say that I'm good at it or that I always succeed. Sometimes I get frustrated, but that doesn't change the core of who I am.

I do not think gay people are gay to thumb their noses at God. I do not believe it is a chosen lifestyle. Those who believe that it is never seem to hold heterosexuals to the same standard.

I hope that someday humanity will find ways to get rid of the checkerboard mentality which seeks to compartmentalize and pigeon-hole people, and realize that we are all in life together. I'm not a fan of boxes-- the man box, the woman box, the gay box, the six-foot nose hairs box, etc. Boxes bury treasures even deeper.

When a gem is discovered and that person learns to identify with it, I call that resurrection! It's beautiful to watch. Miraculous is a better word for it!

I believe all of this because this is what I see Jesus doing in his ministry.

Gotta run. I'll finish later!


emptycan said...

Hei, Doug,

It's quite interesting if it's ok for you and your minitry to open your name and church name like you did.

Do you teach or preach what you wrote down here to your congregation? If so, does your congregation have no problem with the teaching and still gives the donation (offering) to your church?

Or do you live a schizophrenic double life? You say something here and preach totally different thinngs there?

I am waiting for your answer...^^

Pastor Doug Hoag said...


In short answer to your question-- yes, that's what I do teach at my church. However, the issue of homosexuality doesn't come up very often. No one asks me about it. When the issue does arise, I ask people to read the texts in question more carefully.

I just had lunch with a colleague, and we started talking about Romans 1. I asked him to give me his take on it, and I'd give him mine. He said exactly what I was going to say. The issue in Romans 1 is worship and idolatry, not homosexual orientation. I felt less like a maverick after that conversation. There are other Christians like me.

I'll readily admit that sometimes I'm inconsistent in my teaching. I'll say something in one place and turn around and say the complete opposite in another place. It's not a habit-- I'm usually a straight shooter. Occasionally it is brought to my attention, and I end up eating crow.

Honestly I don't know if people accept what I say or don't. It appears that they do, although sometimes appearances can be deceiving. I generally don't encourage uniformity. Just because I say something doesn't mean that it is necessarily true or must be believed upon penalty of death. I encourage people to voice disagreements if they ever have a tough time swallowing something I said or did. I do my very best not to get defensive, but engaging and intelligent dialogue leads to patience and understanding.

Gotta run, again!

Truly Yours,

Pastor Doug Hoag said...

Continuing on in answer to Ben... I do not think that homosexuals and atheists are demon possessed or satanic. I have my own thoughts on demons and Satan, but I could get long-winded. So, instead of the War and Peace version here's the Reader's Digest Condensed version:

I believe that Satan existed at one time but does not exist anymore. He was destroyed in the lake of fire describe in Revelation, which served as a metaphor of the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple in 70 CE. The warnings about hell and damnation spoken by Jesus were mostly aimed at the religious elite. It's also interesting that Jesus called them "snakes" and "brood of vipers" (words normally associated with Satan), meaning that it was they who were the satanists!!

The metaphors of weeping and gnashing of teeth, the never-dying worms, etc. etc. became solid realities when Rome completely leveled Jerusalem and environs. Jerusalem became then an odorous extension of its own garbage dump. In short, hell!

Perhaps Jesus saw legalistic religion itself as the enemy, as being the purveyors of hell? I think so!

Perhaps in leaving the church and becoming an ex-Christian, you have unwittingly and unintentionally become a follower of Jesus?

I'd better quit before this post actually becomes War and Peace!


Steven Bently said...

Hi Doug, I was just wondering what you think about my hypotheses that I originally poste and questioned you about, please read below.

If your almighty God will allow people to be born Siamese twins, with heads joined together, people born without arms, limbs, blind, albino, deaf, with cancer, etc. etc.

Then it could be that a person could be born with the wrong sexual preferences mentally wrong sex chromosomes with a body of a man, but mentally atracted to the same sex.

The same could be said for a female born with the wrong sexual preferences mentally wrong sex chromosomes, with a body of a female, but mentally atracted to the same sex or bisexual.

Just wondering do you think this is the a reason for homosexuality?

Pastor Doug Hoag said...

I believe you're asking me if I think there's a biological component that could lead to a homosexual orientation.

I don't know, but it would appear that way. I wonder if there's a biological component that leads to heterosexuality or bisexuality. Why am I heterosexual? It certainly wasn't a decision I made one morning upon waking. It's something completely out of my control, almost as if the "choice" was made for me by numerous factors.

I think sexual orientation has many causation factors, therefore making it a very complicated issue. We should seek to understand the homosexual person, not so that we can discover clues as to why he/she has that disposition, but so that we cease treating such persons as anomalies. Myself, I don't understand the homosexual orientation, and I probably never will. But that's my burden, and I don't blame the homosexual person.

As the human race continues to evolve, it may turn out that we who are considered "normal" (whatever that might mean) are actually the anomalies.

As far as people with various birth defects-- why do we call them defects? It implies that they are defective and that the only thing to do is turn them into objects of pity or derision. My personal belief is that every person we see is God in disguise, in order that we may know ourselves and discover that there are no mistakes. The dwelling of God is with and in people, not in the sky or a distant galaxy, thrusting anathemas down on a helpless human populace. My theological views are very incarational.

I hope I answered your question, Ben, and would welcome your comments.

Pastor Doug Hoag said...


I agree with you that the Biblical authors were not exactly geniuses. They were products of their time. This is why I keep insisting that Christians understand that the Bible was not written to us citizens of 21 century America.

"You shall not covet your neighbors ox..." Well, my neighbor doesn't have an ox. In fact, I don't know anyone who has an ox. But even if I did, I don't want one. What am I going to do with an ox in suburban Chicago, ride it on the freeway?

I treat the Gospels the same way. Fundamentalist Christians interpret the Gospels as if they were written to America in general, and to them in particular. And so they prooftext and harmonize them to death, ending up with a burgoise moral system that everyone is expected to comform to.

This is a horrible approach to Scripture. But I want to suggest a different approach that is intellectually stimulating and faith affirming. I'll keep it short.

I suggest that the Bible be approached as a long and arduous narrative about a beleagured people trying to understand their situtation in terms of what God was doing and how God was involved. Remembering that the Ancient Near East was very tribal, had seen powerful and brutal empires come and go, it is very easy to see the tribal biases on the pages of the Bible. But since a nation's power was believed to be directly proportional to the power of its god(s), of course the god(s) will share their prejudices. This is why we see Yahweh portrayed as a monster and a tyrant. "Well, of course he is! Look at what we have to live through!"

I'll have to finish another time. It's getting late!

emptycan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
emptycan said...

Hei, Doug,

So your view of bible is it is an obsolete and not necessarilly pertinent book to today's people. If so, where is the authority of your xtian belief? In another word, how can you claim yourself as xtian, if you discredit the bible. Why don't you turn to agnosticist or atheist?

And I am curious of your view of other religions. Do you believe that buddhists or muslims can be also saved although they do not believe nor confess that jesus is their god?

Pastor Doug Hoag said...

Emptycan (and all interested),

Actually, I don't think the Bible is obsolete or impertinent to people today at all. The way it is fundamentalistically (is there such a word?)interpreted makes it obsolete and impertinent. When we take ancient texts and project them thousands of years into the future from when they were written and expect people to conform to the letter, the effort will quickly degenerate into slapstick. This is what I see happening in Religious Right-Wing Fundamentalism. See my previous post about coveting your neighbor's ox. Absolutely goofy!

I read the Bible as an ancient text. Why? Because that's what it is! So, how can it serve as a basis for faith today? I will make an attempt, albeit brief, to point in some direction that I hope makes some sense.

As I mentioned previously, the Bible is a lengthy narrative about a nation trying to understand its identity and relationship to its god and other nations in the Ancient Near East. As is true for all nations, they were birthed, went through some growing pains and troubling times, experienced an ascendency to power, occupied new territory, formed tribes, established a form of centralized government, had a civil war, headed off invaders, built palaces and monuments and high places (temples), was occupied and taken into exile by a foreign power, returned home to start over again. All with the mentality that their god will help them to rule the world, if not now, then someday.

Israel had such a history. I'm don't waste a lot of time going into questions whether or not the events actually happened. Those questions to me are simply becoming increasingly irrelevant. But for the sake of this post, I personally believe that most of the events actually happened. However, the more important questions to me are these-- why did this particular author decide to write this? What were the events that precipitated this writer's interpretation of what his god was doing? In doing this I begin to identify some undercurrents and contours of ancient Hebrew thought. In short, what we see in the Old Testament is that the Israelites became just like their neighbors. But they felt in their bones that their god had chosen them to be somehow different. This was their ongoing struggle.

For the sake of brevity I'll fast forward to the first century, common era.
The Jewish people were at their wits end. Their god had not done for them what he promised. Yes, they lived in the land of Israel. Yes, they had the Torah and oral traditions. Yes, they had their temple and synagogues. But the problem was simply that they were under foreign domination (Rome). Yes, the Romans were brutal. Yes, the Jews were being unfairly taxed. But that wasn't the worst thing about Rome. What was the worst thing? The Romans didn't worship the true god in this god's favorite city (Jerusalem) and its temple. Couple this with the fact that, in the Jewish worldview, the Romans were of the "wrong" hereditary stock and you begin to see a cauldron of brewing hostilities.

But the Jewish people were a hopeful people. Someday, their god would send a messiah (anointed one, king) who will free them from foreign domination, enslave the occupying powers, help them to live in Edenic like conditions, and rule the world. Their god would once again be the god of the whole earth and crowned king!

That's the very big story in a very small nutshell.

Into this seething pot comes Jesus. We can spend a lot of precious time trying to figure out if Jesus actually did this, or really did that, or if Jesus actually existed. Those are interesting questions, but I think there is one question bigger than all of these:

If Jesus existed, and if he did and said anything close to what is recorded in the canonical gospels, then what was Jesus trying to accomplish, and how was Jesus interpreting (or reinterpreting) the big story of the history of the Jewish nation?

Answer (in short)-- Jesus tells much the same story, but differently.

I'll get into this in my next post. Sorry, but I love cliffhangers!! And I have to get up early tomorrow.

So, relax and drink some alcoholic beverages!!


P.S.-- If I only had a choice between fundamentalism, liberalism, and atheism/agnosticism, I would choose atheism or agnosticism in a heartbeat! Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that we should live our lives as if God didn't exist. I think there's a vital truth contained in that gem of a quote!

Pastor Doug Hoag said...

Before I go any further with my posts, I want to make clear that I am not here as a teacher or mentor or evangelist or savior or guru or anything remotely resembling any of these. I came to learn perspectives about life. There are many things about religion that I find to be wonderful. But there are even more things about religion that I find to be rigid and suffocating to the human spirit.

And now, on with the show!

The Jews of the first century common era had various signifiers that identified them, individually and collectively, as the chosen people. This is not an exhaustive list, but Temple, Torah, land, family, monotheism were the important ones. These were the symbols that set them "apart" from anyone else. And someday God was going to glorify Israel by glorifying the symbols. This would have the effect of forcing the gentiles to submit to Israel's and God's reign over all creation during the "age to come" or "the Messianic Age".

Jesus came along and challenged the validity of the symbols. He did this in roughly two ways: 1)Deconstruction of the symbols, and 2)Reconstruction of the symbols by applying them to himself. For brevity, I'll talk about the Jerusalem Temple.

The Temple was God's House. The Holy of Holies was considered to be the center of the universe. It was essentially "God-in-a-box." Any interaction with God was to take place at the temple with priestly mediation-- animal sacrifice, incense, prayers, water rituals, wine rituals, oil rituals. It would be "world HQ" when messiah came.

Jesus trashes the place and quotes Jeremiah 7, which was a prophecy about the temple's destruction by the Babylonians. Jesus was not saying that the place needed reforming. He was saying that the whole place was going to be destroyed. Jesus acted out his message by putting the temple out of business for a couple of hours during Passover, and by extension there would come a time when it would be put out of business permanently. It happened in 70 CE.

The apocalyptic sections of the gospels are about this destruction, not about the end of the space-time continuum. In fact, the book of Revelation is merely commentary on the "doom and gloom" parts of the gospels.

And so when Jesus said, "Repent or perish", he was not warning us today that we need to stop sinning or we'll fry in hell forever. He was telling the Jews of the first century, "Run away from Jerusalem before it is sacked! Don't join the revolt, and don't stick around to protect the temple! It will be your doom!" Everything that they believed would happen to everyone else would happen to them unless they walked away. Paybacks are a bitch!

The people of God were no longer identified by adherence to the Jerusalem system. They were now identified by following Jesus, who was, incarnationally speaking, temple, torah, land, family, and God in one package made of flesh and blood. Jesus and his followers would be Israel.

I'll close with this. Do you realize what you all have done? You have done what Jesus would have done! I'm convinced that Jesus would do the same things today that he did back then, and he would be crucified (or at least kicked out on his ear). Jesus called the temple system what it was, a total manipulation of God and exploitation of people. It was a dark closet instead of the light of the world.

Yesterday was Easter. In my sermon, I gave the Bonhoeffer quote and offered this advice to the packed pews: "Leave God alone!" God is not in the business of exalting our way of life or keeping us in line. God raises the dead, and God does it all by hisself. Resurrection isn't something that will happen to dead bodies in some undefined future, or the last day of history, or the end of the world. It happens now to dead hearts as we live in this present age.

How much of the above do you have to believe? None of it. I could be completely off the wall. But I see a lot of hearts coming alive and being unburdened on this website! A very Christ-like thing to do. Well done!

With Gratitude,

P.S.-- You won't be hearing much from me anymore. But I'll be checking in occasionally to see what you're up to and maybe post a question or two.

Steven Bently said...

Hi Doug, Thank you for hanging around some, I think you are a honest and sincere person, I also think that you may be struggling with what you're trying to preach, when your innerself is rejecting what you truly know inside that most of what the bible teaches could not possibly be true. One must remember that all Middle Eastern religions sprung out of the Opium Capital of the World, and other exotic drugs also.

Doug, please read this,
Writen by Barry on his testimony April 17, 2006 very brilliant!

I couldn't help but think that these people were really gullible and unquestioning. From this seed other doubts emerged. I started to question the whole thing about Jesus. This is where my questioning led:

"God creates flawed humans. He creates an evil being to tempt these humans to do bad things. He decides he won't let these humans into heaven to be with him because they do bad things called sins. Of course, since God created everything he was the one responsible for creating sin and evil in the first place, which is probably the reason God decides to relent 4000 years later. He will send himself to Earth as his son to save everyone. So, he impregnates a young virgin and she gives birth to him. Now oddly enough God is both in heaven and on Earth at the same time. God prays to himself and calls himself father. Then God has himself tortured and brutally murdered. Now in doing this he somehow atones for the sins that he himself created. Believing that God (in the form of his son) did this for us gets us into heaven. However, if we don’t believe that God did this for us, his atonement does not apply and we are sent south to spend eternity with his nemesis."

I couldn't help but think that if I were God I would do things in a much less complicated way. Like, I would create perfect humans, so I wouldn't have to go through all that suffering. Or I would just forgive sins without requiring any blood sacrifice. Or maybe I wouldn’t bother creating humans in the first place and just create more angels to worship me.

Just plain ole common sense thinking, I love it.

So Doug, thank you for being so patient with us here, I think you may be a wannabe Atheist, but you've got so much face invested, and plus it would be hard to jump off of the golden gravy train, if I'm wrong, please do accept my apology, I mean no harm in saying this, it just appears to me that most preachers are more interested in their finanicial well being, before the god and jesus saves thing, after all, they always pass the collection plate before the preacher begins his speil, and I've never heard a preacher say, Ok everybody, please be sure to leave your wallets and money at home. Every preacher I meet on the street, they ask, what you doing these days, are you making any money? Just something to think about Doug.

I wish you all the best for your life and I hope you will come back some day and say to us, You guys shut the F**K Up, Ok this the absolute truth, I can prove the Bible is all true or Buddha, or Islam, or something, but until that time, I will stick to my unbeliefs. TC Ben

Pastor Doug Hoag said...


That's cool. I respect your position, which I hope I made clear.

I took no offense at your comments, and in a sense you're right. I do get a salary from the church, and I never tell the congregation to leave their wallets at home. We do have bills to pay, and such. And, yes, I am heavily invested in the church, emotionally speaking. But I am not seeking to leave because I'm trying to be an agent of change within the church. I want people to think about why they believe what they believe, and not just accept it just because some guy in a robe standing in a pulpit tells them what to believe.

I will continue to encourage critical reading of the Bible, while at the same time identifying and following the threads of the biblical tapestry.

I may be a closet atheist-- who knows? I've endured times of bullshit and doubt.

So, thanks for chatting, Ben and emptycan! You guys are great! Maybe we'll meet again soon!

Truly Yours,

emptycan said...

Hi, Doug,

I must apologize that I did not (actually could not) check your answer to my question. I tried to find where i commented more than several times, but I didn't find.

I appreciate your answer and admire your sermon. I just guess that most of your congregation must have advanced education to digest your teachings. ^^

Anyway, I have tarted to have a dangerous feeling of liking you...ha ha (^.^)

And I love Ben's ruthless remarks-- "you've got so much face invested, and plus it would be hard to jump off of the golden gravy train"


"I hope you will come back some day and say to us, You guys shut the F**K Up, Ok this the absolute truth"

My love to you, guys.

And...I am not sad because Doug will come back soon to say that "You guys shut the F**K Up, Ok this the absolute truth." ha ha (-.^)

Blessed life to Doug and Ben...

from totally empty head

Anonymous said...

i found this site searching the web for things to say to christians who approch me with their nonsense.
I have always wondered how people could believe in these fairy tales.
I mean so many people for so long how can everybody be so i dont want to use the word but stupid.
I had figured they were just scared of dying. Or brainwashed since youth or scared their pack will turn on them or fear of being alone
But i think i found a better terminology on one of the other pages on this website.
Its the survival instint like we cant stop breathing i guess their brains just react to it being the only way to live forever.
But any organized religion just exits out of total selfishness.
I just cant believe a person can believe and waste time and effort on crazy fairy tales from 2000 years ago.
And im statring to get mad about it
the tv evangelists and churchs sucking money from old people.
Politicions who are making decisions for us saying they believe and follow the fairy tales.
How can so many people be so stupid and scared.

Steven Bently said...

Great questions Victor, you're just using you brain in it's natural state, not brainwashed.

Religions use emotional childhood fear, a threat imposed by how you behave, but if misbehave, you must answer to the father, Paul recognized this and used it to manupilate and embellish the NT and incorperated fear as a punishment for not believing his lies. This way he found that could control masses of people and their possessions.

Thanks Victor and post some more, and check out my blog, just click below and leave your comments, just whatever ya think is fine.

Anonymous said...

The Old Testament books were written down as the Word of God and recognized as such from the moment of their writing. Beginning with the words etched into stone by the finger of God himself, God's people recognized the Lord's writing as it came to them through their leaders and prophets. The books of Moses were recognized as scripture by Israel's earliest judges and kings, who referred to them in their writings as Scripture. From the time of Samuel, the words and writings of the prophets were kept in libraries, along with the histories. The Hebrew Bible, which Christians refer to as the Old Testament, was widely accepted and agreed upon by Jews well before Jesus' time. Thus the various councils that supposedly determined what would be Scripture actually only confirmed what was already widely accepted as the Word of God.

The Old Testament was begun by Moses circa 1446 BC and was completed by 400 BC. (About 400 years before Christ, according to other Jewish writings, the voice of God "ceased to speak to them directly" and the prophets "had fallen asleep," thus the 400 years of scriptural silence prior to the birth of the Messiah.) The Old Testament is written almost entirely in Hebrew, with small portions of Daniel and Ezra in Aramaic.

The Old Testament covers the history of the nation of Israel and the nations who dealt with Israel. It begins with creation and follows the Jewish people through the flood, the Exodus, the period of the judges, the reign of the kings, and finally into exile under the Babylonian Empire. They include all the laws God's people are to observe and the nation's history, as well as prophesy.

Old Testament Documentation

Both Old and New Testament documents were copied with excruciating attention to detail. When an entire scroll had been copied by hand, one letter at a time, if one mistake was made, the scroll was destroyed. In addition, the Jewish copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures adhered to detailed requirements in copying. We looked at this list in studying New Testament documentation, but it bears a second look. (Taken from Don't Check Your Brains at the Door, Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell):

1) Each copy had to be made on a brand new writing surface and had to be prepared in a specific way;

2) Each copy had to be written in a certain number of columns of thirty-letters width, with a certain number of lines to each column;

3) Each copy had to be written in a certain color and quality of ink;

4) Not even the tiniest letter could be written from memory, as one would glance at the word "to" and write the letters "t" and "o" before glancing back at the original, but every letter was copied singly from the original;

5) No letter could connect with or overlap another letter. The distance between each letter was measured by a single hair or thread;

6) Every letter of every page and book was counted and compared against the original. The number of times each letter of the alphabet occurred in a book was counted and compared against the original. The middle letter of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the middle letter of the entire Hebrew Bible were computed and indicated in the text. If one of these calculations was incorrect, the copy was discarded.

7) The Masoretes, who were responsible for copying Biblical text from AD 500 to 950, calculated everything that could be calculated. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and middle letter of each.

"These trivialities, as we may rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text.; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Masoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot nor tittle, not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter, of the Law should pass away or be lost."

Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts

"Jews preserved it as no other manuscript has ever been preserved ... They kept tabs on every letter, syllable, word, and paragraph. They had special classes of men within their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity-scribes, lawyers, masoretes. Who ever counted the letters and syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle? Cicero or Seneca?"

Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences

The Old Testament has been shown to be reliable in at least three major ways:

1) textual transmission (the accuracy of the copying process down through history),

2) the confirmation of the Old Testament by hard evidence uncovered through archaeology, and

3) documentary evidence also uncovered through archaeology.

Information on documentary evidence and textual transmission follow:

Masoretic Text

The earliest Old Testament manuscript before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dated about AD 916, called the Masoretic Text, after the Masoretes, who from about AD 500 to 950 were responsible for preserving and editing Biblical text, as well as other Jewish writings. It was been the primary Hebrew text used for translations and transcriptions until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Masoretes are not the only Jewish group to have had charge of the scriptures and other Jewish writings, as the following list shows. Each represented a group of scholars whose entire lives were dedicated to preserving accurately the Hebrew Bible and sacred Jewish writings.

! Masoretes (AD 500-950)

! Talmudists (circa AD 100 to 500)

! Tannaim ("teachers" or "repeaters") (100 BC to AD 200)

! Zugoth ("pairs" of textual scholars)(first and second centuries BC)

! Sopherim (from the Hebrew for "scribes") were the Jewish scholars and custodians of the text between the fifth and third centuries BC.

The comparatively late date of the Masoretic Text and the lack of other preserved manuscripts is not startling, considering that earlier copies that were defective or damaged were destroyed after they were painstakingly copied. Also, repeated persecutions of the Jews resulted in the disappearance of many of their ancient manuscripts. Copyists were so accurate, and there were so many safeguards built into the copying process, that the newer document was considered as authentic as the one it was copied from. In fact, due to the fact that it was on new, undamaged materials, it was given the advantage, as the old manuscript might have become damaged or defaced. These were at once condemned.

"Thus, far from regarding an older copy of the Scriptures as more valuable, the Jewish habit has been to prefer the newer, as being the most perfect and free from damage."

Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible

Septuagint, or LXX

The Septuagint is the earliest complete Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and was completed by a group of Jewish scholars around 250 BC. The group is said to have been made up of six elders from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, numbering 72, and is supposed to have been completed in the same number of days. (Hence the title, meaning "seventy," and its abbreviation, LXX, the Roman numeral for seventy.)

The translation was necessary as the Jews, dispersed from their homeland, adopted the languages of their new lands. The Septuagint was intended for use in public services rather than for scholarly or scribal purposes, and so, though generally loyal to the original Hebrew, was somewhat liberally translated and interpreted (something like our "Good News Bible" and "Living Bible" paraphrases of today). Still, it was translated from Hebrew texts far older than our oldest manuscripts and bears witness to the accuracy of the newer translations. Also, New Testament writers at times quoted from the Septuagint. The LXX, being very close to the Masoretic text (AD 916) we have today, helps to establish the reliability of its transmission through 1,300 years.

The Septuagint bridged the religious gap between the Hebrew- and Greek-speaking people, met the needs of the Alexandrian Jews, bridged the historical gap between the Hebrew Old Testament of the Jews and the Greek-speaking Christians who would use it with their New Testament, provided a precedent for missionaries to make translations of the Scriptures, and bridged the textual criticism gap by its substantial agreement with the Hebrew Old Testament text (Geisler, General Introduction to the Bible).

Samaritan Pentateuch

Samaritans separated from the Jews during the fifth or fourth century BC after a long, bitter religious and cultural struggle. The Samaritans took with them the Scriptures as they then existed, and their manuscript of the five books of Moses is a manuscript of the Hebrew text. The earliest copy dates to about AD 1200. Again, its primary value lies in its confirmation of the historical accuracy of the Biblical text.

Aramaic Targums

These were paraphrases of the Hebrew Old Testament in the Aramaic language, compiled around AD 500.

"The great utility of the earlier Targums consists in their vindicating the genuineness of the Hebrew text, by proving that it was the same at the period the Targums were made, as it exists among us at the present day."

J. Anderson, The Bible, the Word of God


The Mishnah, AD 200, was a digest of all the oral laws from the time of Moses. It was written in Hebrew and covered traditions as well as explanations of the oral law. Scriptural quotations witness to the reliability of the Masoretic Text.

There are other important manuscripts, but these are the most important documents relating to the historical and transcriptural accuracy of the Old Testament.

Dead Sea Scrolls

Around 1946 to 1947, a shepherd looking for a lost goat threw a stone into a cave and heard the unlikely sound of shattering pottery. Upon further investigation, he discovered what became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls - some forty thousand scrolls and fragments. It was the library of the Jewish community at Qumran, and included fragments of all the Old Testament books except Esther. These copies were 1,000 years older than any yet discovered, dating at about 100 B.C. They demonstrated the amazing accuracy with which the Bible had been copied for centuries, the later copies having remarkably few changes.

From these fragments more than 500 books have been reconstructed, many of which tell us about life in the community of Qumran. Others give helpful commentaries on the Scriptures. The most important documents, however, are copies of the Old Testament text dating more than a century before the birth of Christ.

The earliest Old Testament manuscript before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls were from A.D. 900 and later. How could we be sure they were accurately transmitted from before the time of Christ? The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the accuracy of that transmission.

Among the fragments is a complete manuscript of the Hebrew text of Isaiah, dating to about 125 B.C.

The Isaiah copies of the Qumran community "proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

Gleason Archer, Survey of the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts are highly significant because they confirm the accuracy of other manuscripts dated much later. The major conclusion from the Dead Sea Scrolls was that there was no significant difference between the scrolls found at Qumran and the Masoretic Hebrew text dated 1,000 years later. This confirms the reliability of our present Hebrew text.

"Critics of the Masoretic Text charged that the manuscripts were few and late. Through the Dead Sea Scrolls, early manuscript fragments provide a check on nearly the whole Old Testament. Those checks date about a thousand years before the Great Masoretic manuscripts of the tenth century. Before the discoveries of the ... Dead Sea caves, the Nash Papyrus (a fragment of the Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy 6:4-9), dated between 150 and 100 BC, was the only known scrap of the Hebrew text dating from before the Christian era."

Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict

"We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for the,. Time and again ere now the sight has been witnessed of prisoners enduring tortures and death in every form in the theatres, rather than utter a single word against the laws and the allied documents. ... What Greek would endure as much for the same cause? Even to save the entire collection of his nation's writings from destruction he would not face the smallest personal injury. For to the Greeks they are mere stories improvised according to the fancy of their authors ..."

Flavius Josephus, First Century Jewish Historian

"After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of antiquity."

Josh McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict

posted: 7/13/2006 7:46 PM EST

Anonymous wrote:

Is the Bible Historically Accurate?

The question of the accuracy of the Bible breaks down into three separate questions.

1) Is the Bible historically and factually accurate in its original text?

2) Is the text we have today an accurate transcription of the original text?

3) Was the original text inspired by God?

The next few pages will provide some answers for the first question: the historical accuracy of the Bible, as it relates to the New Testament.

It is true that there is not historical and/or archaeological evidence to back up every fact stated in the Bible. However, it is also true that, despite countless attempts to prove the Bible false in every age since the beginning of recorded history, no one has ever been able to prove that there is one historical or factual mistake in the Bible. This is in itself a very powerful argument in favor of Biblical truth. If many events in the Bible can be proved to be accurately recorded, and none can be proved to be inaccurate, then does it not stand to reason that we must give credibility to those areas for which we have no proof?

In order to establish that credibility, we must show what proof we do have. All these issues can be explored in more depth, but a basic defense for the reliability of the New Testament follows, including support for the New Testament from writings other than the Bible (both Christian and non-Christian), support from archaeology, and a thorough look at how the integrity of the original Scriptures has been maintained through the centuries.

History and the New Testament

Many critics argue that the New Testament documents are unreliable since they were written by Jesus' disciples and supported by other Christians. They claim that there is no confirmation of Jesus or New Testament events in non-Christian sources. This claim is false, and the objection itself is ill-founded. We will examine eyewitness accounts and also non-Christian confirmation of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

Eyewitness Accounts in the New Testament

Critics often reject the authority of the Bible because it was written by people who were close to Jesus. To reject records because they come from eyewitnesses is a false premise. Those who witness an event and know the people involved personally are considered the best sources. This applies to firsthand accounts of battles, crimes, or anything else. New Testament witnesses should not be disqualified simply because they were close to the events they related.

"Suppose there were four eyewitnesses to a murder. There was also one witness who arrived on the scene after the actual killing and saw only the victim's body. Another person heard a secondhand report of the killing. In the trial the defense attorney argues: 'Other than the four eyewitnesses, this is a weak case, and the charges should be dismissed for lack of evidence.' ... Since the New Testament witnesses were the only eyewitness and contemporary testimonies to Jesus, it is a fallacy to misdirect attention to the non-Christian secular sources."

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

The New Testament authors repeatedly claim to have been eyewitnesses, and also reinforce that their listeners, too, have seen and heard these things.

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

2 Peter 1:16

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."

1 John 1:1-3

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Luke 1:1-3

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

Acts 1:1-3

"After that, he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

I Corinthians. 15:6-8

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

John 20:30-31

"'We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen-by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.'" (Peter speaking)

Acts 10:39-42

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed."

1 Peter 5:1

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

Acts 1:9

"'Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.'" (Peter speaking)

Acts 2:22

"At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. 'You are out of your mind, Paul!' he shouted. 'Your great learning is driving you insane.'

"'I am not insane, most excellent Festus,' Paul replied. 'What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.'

"Then Agrippa said to Paul, 'Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?'"

Acts 26:24-28

Critics would gladly have refuted these claims and exposed these errors, but they could not. The critics, too, were witnesses to these things, as the apostles often stated.

The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of ... first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. "We are witnesses of these things," was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of his disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.

And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early church had to reckon with. There were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, "We are witnesses of these things," but also, "As you yourselves also know" (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.

F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

In other words, they could not have lied about these things, because they would have been caught.

The eyewitness records should be considered the authoritative voice on Jesus' life and words. However, confirming evidence for Jesus can be gleaned outside the New Testament.

Supporting evidence for New Testament history

from early Christian writers outside the Bible

(taken from Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict):

Eusebius - In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius preserves the writings of Papias, bishop of Heirapolis (AD 130), in which Papius records sayings of the apostle John.

Irenaeus -Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons (AD 180) and student of Polycarp. Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna and was martyred in AD 156 at the age of 86. Polycarp had been a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus wrote,

"So firm is the ground upon which the gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own particular doctrine."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III

Clement of Rome - Clement of Rome (circa AD 95) used Scripture as a reliable and authentic source.

Ignatius - Ignatius (AD 70-110), bishop of Antioch, was martyred for his faith. He knew all the apostles and was a disciple of Polycarp. Ignatius based his faith on the accuracy of the Bible and had ample material and witnesses to support the Scriptures.

Tatian - Tatian (circa AD 170) organized the Scriptures in order to put them in the first "harmony of the Gospels," the Diatessaron.

Supporting evidence for New Testament history

from early non-Christian writers outside the Bible

(taken from Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict):

Tacitus - Tacitus was a first-century Roman, and is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world. He gives an account of the great fire of Rome, for which some blamed Emperor Nero. According to Tacitus, in response to this report, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire and tortured them. Tacitus goes on to describe the Christians:

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

Tacitus, The Annals and the Histories

The "mysterious superstition" refers to the resurrection of Jesus.

Suetonius - Suetonius was chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian (reigned AD 117-138). He confirms the report in Acts 18:2 that Claudius commanded all Jews (among them Priscilla and Aquila) to leave Rome in AD 49.

Josephus - Josephus (circa AD 37-100), a Pharisee of the priestly line and a Jewish historian, worked under Roman authority. He wrote an autobiography as well as two major works, Jewish Wars (AD 77-78) and Antiquities of the Jews (AD 94). He also wrote a minor work, Against Apion. He makes many statements that verify the historical nature of both the Old and New Testaments. Josephus supports the Old Testament canon without the Apocrypha. He lists the names of the books, identical with our thirty-nine. He grouped them into twenty-two books, corresponding with the Hebrew alphabet.

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws. ... The prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life."

Josephus, Against Apion

Josephus also refers to Jesus as the brother of James, who was stoned to death. His reference to Jesus confirms that Jesus was a real person in the first century, that he was identified by others as the Christ, and that he had a brother named James who died a martyr's death at the hands of the high priest Albinus and his Sanhedrin.

Josephus also confirmed the existence and martyrdom of John the Baptist.

Thallus - Thallus wrote around AD 52. Only fragments of his writings survive, preserved by other writers. Thallus recorded the darkness following the crucifixion, as well as the earthquake. Thallus explains the darkness as a solar eclipse, but also reports that the death of Jesus occurred during a full moon. A solar eclipse can not take place during a time of full moon.

Pliny the Younger - Pliny was a Roman author and administrator. In a letter to Emperor Trajan in AD 112, Pliny described the early Christian worship practices - how they would meet before light; sing hymns to Christ; take an oath not to do wicked deeds or to commit fraud, theft, or adultery and never to lie; then they would partake of food. This provides evidence that early Christians worshiped Christ as God and followed the practice of breaking bread together, as reported in Acts 2:42 and 46.

Emperor Trajan - In reply to Pliny's letter, Trajan instructed that Christians who were denounced and did not deny that they were Christians be punished. One accused could vindicate himself by adoring the Roman gods and be pardoned.

Talmud - Writings of the Sanhedrin record Jesus' crucifixion, the time (Passover), and the intent of the Jewish religious leaders to kill him.

Lucian - Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who wrote sarcastically about Christianity. He describes, however sarcastically, Christian beliefs and practices, including their belief in eternal life and in the resurrection of a man everyone knew to be crucified. His text confirms that Jesus was worshiped, that he introduced new teachings which his followers observed, that he was crucified, and that Christians denied false Gods.

Mara Bar-Serapion - Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian, wrote to his son sometime between the late first and early third centuries. His letter contains reference to Jesus and his execution by the Jews. He also showed that the Jews gained nothing by it, as their kingdom was abolished shortly thereafter.

Gnostic "Gospel of Truth" - There were many non-Christian (heretical) groups flourishing after the time of Christ, among them the Gnostics. "The Gospel of Truth," written circa AD 135-160, also confirms that Jesus was a historical person.

The Acts of Pontius Pilate - Though the document itself does not survive, it is referred to by Justin Martyr in about AD 150 and by Tertullian about AD 200. Both claim the Acts of Pontious Pilate mentions Jesus' hands and feet being pierced by the nails of the cross. It also mentions lots being cast over his garments. Justin Martyr also claims that the miracles of Jesus can be confirmed in this document.

Norman Geisler summarizes:

The primary sources for the life of Christ are the four Gospels. However there are considerable reports from non-Christian sources that supplement and confirm the Gospel accounts. These come largely from Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan sources of the first century. In brief they inform us that:

1) Jesus was from Nazareth;

2) he lived a wise and virtuous life;

3) he was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish King;

4) he was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later;

5) his enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called 'sorcery';

6) his small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome;

7) his disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as Divine.

This picture confirms the view of Christ presented in the New Testament Gospels.

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

The New Testament Canon

The first Christians gathered together for meetings and read the Old Testament, as Jesus had done. Those who knew Jesus would talk about him and share his teachings. Paul's letters were copied and circulated and read during gatherings. As the eyewitnesses began to die, Christians realized they must write down the facts about Jesus' life and work so they would not be lost or altered. The gospels were set down. By the second century, four were agreed upon as genuinely inspired.

The church did not decide what would be called Scripture, it merely recognized Scripture.

"A book is not the Word of God because it is accepted by the people of God. Rather, it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God."

Norman Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible

Five principles guided the recognition and collection of divinely inspired books:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?

2) Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? (Miracles, fulfilled prophesy, etc.)

3) Did the message tell the truth about God? If there was any doubt, they threw it out.

4) Did the message of the book come with the power of God/transforming power?

5) Was the book accepted by the people of God?

6) For the New Testament Canon, the primary test was apostolicity. Was it written by an apostle or was it approved by an apostle?

The rise of heretical groups and persecution combined to require Christians to establish which books were divinely inspired once and for all.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who wrote in the mid to late second century (AD 160-180) referred to the four gospels as a clearly established and accepted fact.

"For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four universal winds, and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and base of the Church and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter and kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to men, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit.

Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews (i.e. Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure (i.e., their death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neronian persecution in 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord ..., himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III

The list of New Testament books we have now was agreed upon and in use long before the councils of Laodicea (AD 363) and Carthage (AD 397) formally accepted them.

The word "canon" came from word meaning "standard." Origen in the third century called the scriptures "the rule of faith, the standard by which we are to measure and evaluate." Thus the collected Scriptures came to be called the "canon."

In AD 367, Athanasius gave the earliest list of New Testament. books that is exactly what we have today. Jerome and Augustine followed suit, and the New Testament was defined. There has been no serious questioning of the New Testament since.

New Testament Documentation

The original New Testament documents were written in AD 50 -AD 90. The earliest surviving fragments date to AD 120, and there are some 50 other fragments dating within 100 years of that time.

Approximately 5,686 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament still exist.

In addition to the Greek manuscripts, more than 19,000 manuscripts exist in other languages. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. Homer's Iliad is second, with 643 manuscripts surviving.

We believe we have accurate text for Sophocles' plays, but the earliest substantial manuscript upon which that assumption is based was written more than 1,400 years after the poet's death. Though no original manuscripts written by Paul or the other apostles have survived, the earliest complete manuscripts date to 250 to 300 years after their writing. Partial manuscripts date even closer to the composition date. Though there are minor differences in many of the manuscripts, "not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading."

(David Dockery, Foundations for Biblical Interpretation)

"The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning ... And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."

F.F. Bruce

"To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."

John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity.

"[The New Testament] is the most remarkably preserved book in the ancient world. Not only do we have a great number of manuscripts but they are very close in time to the originals they represent."

Edward Glenny

Even if there were no manuscripts available, the New Testament could be reconstructed almost in its entirety from the writings of the early church fathers. They quoted from it so prolifically that nearly every verse is accounted for. This also helps establish which New Testament books were considered scripture by the earliest Christians.

(Geisler, Greenlee)

The New Testament documents, in their original text, are historically accurate. But how do we know the Bible we have today is what was written thousands of years ago? In order to prove that this is true, we must first establish the accuracy of our earliest documents, then the accuracy of translations.

Jesus himself claims that the Law will not be lost or changed:

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth shall pass away, not one jot, not one tittle, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Matthew 5:18

(Jot (Hebrew "y" or "yodh") is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.

A tittle is the tiny mark which makes the Hebrew letters "r" and "d" different.)

But how can we know that the New Testament we read is essentially the same one penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and others, and inspired by God?

For one thing, both Old and New Testament documents were copied with excruciating attention to detail. When an entire scroll had been copied by hand, one letter at a time, if one mistake was made, the scroll was destroyed. In addition, the Jewish copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures adhered to detailed requirements in copying (taken from Don't Check Your Brains at the Door, Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler):

1) Each copy had to be made on a brand new writing surface and had to be prepared in a specific way;

2) Each copy had to be written in a certain number of columns of thirty-letters width, with a certain number of lines to each column;

3) Each copy had to be written in a certain color and quality of ink;

4) Not even the tiniest letter could be written from memory, as one would glance at the word "to" and write the letters "t" and "o" before glancing back at the original, but every letter was copied singly from the original;

5) No letter could connect with or overlap another letter. The distance between each letter was measured by a single hair or thread;

6) Every letter of every page and book was counted and compared against the original. The number of times each letter of the alphabet occurred in a book was counted and compared against the original. The middle letter of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the middle letter of the entire Hebrew Bible were computed and indicated in the text. If one of these calculations was incorrect, the copy was discarded.

"Do instructors dismiss the writings of the Greek historian Thucydides of the philosopher Aristotle or the tragedians Sophocles and Euripides as being unworthy of serious consideration because of textual problems and variant readings?

"Probably not. Yet many people think the Bible is a faulty document, when in fact none of those other works can approach the reliability of the New Testament text."

Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler,

Don't Check Your Brains at the Door

Two factors are most important in determining the reliability of a historical document: the number of manuscript copies in existence, and the time between when it was first written and the oldest existing copy. Consider the New Testament in comparison with other ancient writer's works:

Author Written Earliest Copies Time Span # of Copies

Caesar (Gallic Wars) 100-44 BC c. AD 900 c. 1,000 years 10

Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 BC c. AD 900 c. 1,300 years 7

Thucydides (History) 460-400 BC c. AD 900 c. 1,300 years 8

Sophocles 496-406 BC c. AD 1,000 c. 1,400 years 100

Catullus 54 BC c. AD 1,550 c. 1,600 years 3

Euripides 480-406 BC c. AD 1,100 c. 1,500 years 9

Aristotle 384-322 BC c. AD 1,100 c. 1,400 years 5

Homer (Iliad) 800 BC c. 400 BC c. 400 years 643

Herodotus (History) 480-425 BC c. AD 900 c. 1,350 years 8

Demosthenes 300 BC c. AD 1100 c. 1,400 years 200

Livy (History of Rome) 59 BC c. 350 (partial) c. 400 years 1 partial

to AD 17 c. 10th century c. 1,000 years 19

Pliny Secundus

(Natural History) AD 61-113 c. AD 850 c. 750 years 7

New Testament AD 40-100 AD 125 25 years 24,000+

(from Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, Don't Check Your Brains at the Door, and Josh McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict)

posted: 7/13/2006 7:48 PM EST

Anonymous wrote:

"How can you believe a Bible that is full of contradictions? It is, after all, filled with obvious discrepancies ..."

This skeptical statement assumes that the Bible disagrees with itself, and that God could not have inspired a fallible document. If the Bible did contain demonstrable errors, it would show that at least those parts could not have come from a perfect, all-knowing God Ñ this conclusion is true. But the initial premise --that the Scriptures are full of mistakes--is not true.

Certain passages at first glance appear to be contradictory, but further investigation will show that this is not the case.

Before we address specific concerns in the scriptures, let's discuss the issue of fairness. We must always begin by giving the author the benefit of the doubt. This is the rule in other literature, and there should not be different rules applied to examining the Bible. Unless we can prove the author wrong, we must assume he is correct.

Next, what is a contradiction? The law of non-contradiction, which is the basis of all logical thinking, states that a thing cannot be both "A" and "non-A" at the same time. In other words, it cannot be both raining and not raining at the same time.

One would have to demonstrate a violation of this principle from Scripture in order to prove a contradiction. Two statements may be different without being contradictory.

For example, Matthew relates how two blind men met Jesus at Jericho. Mark and Luke mention only one. However, neither of these statements denies the other.

Josh McDowell gives the following example:

"Suppose you were talking to the mayor of your city and the chief of police at city hall. Later, you see your friend,Jim, and you tell him you talked to the mayor today. An hour later, you see your friend, John, and tell him you talked to both the mayor and the chief of police.

"When your friends compare notes, there is a seeming contradiction. But there is no contradiction. If you had told Jim that you talked only to the mayor, you would have contradicted that statement by what you told John.

"The statements you actually made to Jim and John are different, but not contradictory. Likewise, many biblical statements fall into this category."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers, p. 31

Sometimes, two passages appear to be contradictory because the translation is not as accurate as it could be. A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible can immediately solve these difficulties. All languages, including Greek and Hebrew, have their peculiarities that make them difficult to translate.

For example, Paul's conversion as recorded in Acts:

"The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts 9:7, KJV

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

Acts 22:9, KJV

These statements seem contradictory, but the Greek verb for "hear" is not the same in both accounts. In Acts 9:7, the construction expresses sounds reaching the ear. It does not indicate any understanding. The construction in Acts 22:9 describes a hearing which includes mental understanding. Our English translation is simply not as expressive as the Greek, but the passage is not therefore contradictory.

Details may be left out of a biblical account. Again, this does not make the account contradictory. Something may not be explained thoroughly, but that does not make it wrong. We can speculate on the details that were omitted and offer explanations, which may or may not be accurate. However, a plausible explanation does prove that the passage is not necessarily contradictory.

"When a possible explanation is given to a Bible difficulty, it is unreasonable to state that the passage contains a demonstrable error. Some difficulties in Scripture result from our inadequate knowledge about the circumstances, and do not necessarily involve an error. These only prove that we are ignorant of the background.

"As historical and archaeological study proceed, new light is being shed on difficult portions of Scripture and many 'errors' have disappeared with the new understanding. We need a wait-and-see attitude on some problems."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers, p. 32-33

The following is a summary of principles for understanding apparent discrepancies in the Bible:

? 1. The unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable.

? 2. Fallible interpretations do not mean fallible revelation.

? 3. Understand the context of the passage.

? 4. Interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones.

? 5. Don't base teaching on obscure passages.

? 6. The Bible is a human book with human characteristics.

? 7. Just because a report is incomplete does not mean it is false.

? 8. New Testament citations of the Old Testament need not always be exact.

? 9. The Bible does not necessarily approve of all it records.

? 10. The Bible uses non-technical, everyday language.

? 11. The Bible may use round numbers as well as exact numbers.

? 12. Note when the Bible uses different literary devices.

? 13. An error in a copy does not equate to an error in the original.

? 14. General statements don't necessarily mean universal promises.

? 15. Later revelation supercedes previous revelation.

Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 47

Multiple authors theories

The Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) were supposedly written by Moses, yet many passages regarding Moses are written in the third person, rather than the first. Also, the Pentateuch contains the death of Moses. Critics assume such incongruities indicate that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. There are several reasons this need not be the case.

For one, an author need not inscribe with his own hand, especially in the case of a leader. Books could have been, and often were, dictated. As Josh McDowell points out in Evidence, what person would deny Hamurabi's authorship of Hamurabi's Code, simply because his hand did not chisel it into stone?

Second, Moses could have written of himself in the third person, as did Josephus (first century AD, The Wars of the Jews); Xenophon (fifth century BC, Anabasis) and Julius Caesar (first century BC, Gallic Wars).

It is true that the account of Moses' death was a later addition to Deuteronomy, traditionally attributed to Joshua.

"Chapter 34 is demonstrably post-Mosaic, since it contains a short account of Moses’ decease. But this does not endanger in the slightest the Mosaic authenticity of the other thirty-three chapters, for the closing chapter furnishes only that type of obituary which is often appended to the final work of great men of letters."

Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 224

Those who argue for multiple authorship of the Pentateuch identify differences in writing styles and divine names as reasons for dissecting books, chapters, and even sentences. A later editor, it is theorized, pulled together these varying accounts. The major "identified" sources follow:

? J source = Author used Yahweh (Jehovah) to refer to God

? E source = Author used Elohim to refer to God

? P source = Priestly tradition - author wrote about laws, ceremonies

? Other sources help fill in some of the gaps

Thus critics dissect which author wrote which portions of the Pentateuch, sometimes dividing a single verse between three authors.

It is theorized that the accounts of three different documents regarding the naming of Isaac have been included in Genesis. Genesis 17:17 (P-source) says Sarah laughed when told she would have a baby. Genesis 18:12 (attributed to J-source) says Abraham laughed with disbelief. Genesis 21:6 (E-source) says they laughed with joy at his birth. Thus the name Isaac, which means laughter. Critics say these three authors each had a different story to explain the origin of Isaac's name. Is it really too much to believe that both Abraham and Sarah laughed with disbelief when they were individually told that Isaac would be born, and that later they laughed with joy at his birth?

This story, as all others dissected into their respective "authors," is incomplete when divided into three different stories. No single source tells a complete or even comprehensible story.

William H. Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, gave an illustration of the arbitrary division of scripture. He took Jesus' parable of the prodigal son and subjected it to the same treatment to which the documentarians were subjecting some of the Pentateuch narratives. Here are his results (phrases in parenthesis Green attributes to a fictional "redactor"):

Repetition and alleged contradictions

Critics' assumption: Since no author would have reason to repeat the same story twice, the repetition of certain narratives (parallel accounts) indicates more than one author at work. Those that are contradictory are obviously the work of a redactor or editor who wove together two different accounts of the same story (interwoven accounts). Since he could not decide for himself which account was accurate, he included both so the reader could decide for himself.

However, this need not be the case. There are many other explanations for repeated accounts of the same incident. In many cases, the Hebrew style (also popular in many other writing styles) was to give a general account, then give a more detailed account. Some English writing styles also follow this pattern. Often, the biblical accounts are offered by different witnesses and are thus different, but not contradictory. In still other instances, the repetitions accounts are not repetitions at all, but true accounts of separate events that have similar details. Thus contradictions are natural, even necessary. Examples of each of these follow:

Repetitious accounts are sometimes different stories with similar details.

Example: Abraham's lie concerning his wife/sister;

The Bible records that Abraham told this lie two different times, and his son, Isaac, repeated the incident. Critics argue that the incident happened just once, but was recorded three times because the editor could not decide which one of his sources was accurate. However, this is not an editor's error, or proof of several authors recording the same story without accuracy. The event happened three times. Considering them variations of the same event assumes that men never make the same mistake twice, and that sons never make the same mistakes as their fathers. Bad assumption! Both Isaac and Abraham lied to a King Abimelech. This fact has been cited as proof that it is actually the same account, since it was the same king. However, not only were the same names often used for fathers and sons, but this was most often the rule for kings.

A general account followed by a more detailed account

Example: Genesis 1 and 2

Other times a story is retold (as the creation story) twice, once to introduce the subject and once to expand upon it or offer more details. We do this in our own language and culture.

Critics say Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other with two different and irreconcilable accounts of creation. Disagreements about the order of creation and the concept of God provide the main fodder for this argument. The first account of creation clearly gives the order. The second only indicates that the earth and animals had been created previous to the events discussed in chapter two. When God brings the animals that had been created before Adam, it is not an indication that Adam preexisted those animals.

Critics also argue that God is portrayed very differently in chapters one and two, thus demonstrating a different author for the two accounts. The argument goes something like this. The God of Genesis 1 is a transcendent God, as indicated by the actions attributed to him, God "called, saw, blessed, deliberated, worked, rested, created"

Genesis 2 reveals a more anthropomorphic God, God "fashions, breathes, plants, places, takes, sets, brings, closes up, builds, walks", he is much more "human" than the God in Genesis 1, thus the argument that Genesis 2 is written by a different author.

In reality, Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world. Genesis 2 details and further describes the specific creation of Adam and his immediate environment in the Garden of Eden. As for the argument that God is more "human" in chapter 2, man in his finite mind cannot express ideas about God in anything but anthropomorphisms. Calling, thinking, working, and resting are no less human qualities than breathing, planting, placing, and walking.

The two accounts of creation are not only compatible, but depend upon each other. The second chapter tells of "when the Lord God created the heavens and the earth," but says nothing about that creation, jumping straight to the creation of man.

"It must be emphasized that we do not have here an example of incompatible repetition. We have an example of a skeletal outline of creation as a whole, followed by a detailed focus on the final point of the outline--man."

Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 496

Different eyewitness accounts of the same event

Example: Four gospels

There are many examples of different accounts of the same story appearing in the Bible. The books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are full of such accounts in the lives and wars of the kings of Israel. The writings of the Prophets offer additional insights into these events.

Probably the most obvious instance of this occurring is in the four gospel accounts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all record the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. They do so from four different perspectives, differing greatly in their accounts, and also overlapping in many areas. The accounts, though different, are not contradictory.

Rarity of words/lateness of words

This subject or rare words or words thought to be of later origin was discussed in the section on archaeology. To summarize, it is hard to prove a word is late. The fact that it is used rarely or even only once does not indicate that the word was unknown. In fact, the rule is the opposite. The fact that it is found in earlier writings indicates the word is earlier than formerly thought, not that the writing is later.

"Three thousand Old Testament words appear less than six times; fifteen hundred occur but once. Certainly a greater knowledge of Hebrew literature and conversation would establish many of these as everyday Hebrew terms. Similarly, no one would argue that words like 'invasion' (1 Samuel 30:14), 'jumping' (Nahum 3:2) and 'lance' (Jeremiah 50:42) are rare in English, yet they are found only once in the English Bible."

Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 126-127

Specific "contradictions" in Scripture

Book of Judges: Account of the death of Sisera.

Judges 5:25-27 is supposed to represent Jael as having slain Sisera while he was drinking milk. Judges 4:21 says she did it while he was asleep. However, a closer reading of the former scripture reveals that it is not stated that he was drinking milk at the moment she killed him. In fact, the Judges 5 reference occurs in a poetic song extolling Jael's deed. The poetic structure leaps quite naturally from one event to the next, including Sisera's meal and later death.

Genealogies in Matthew and Luke

Both Matthew and Luke give a genealogy for Jesus. However, the family trees are not identical. Critics say this proves the gospel narratives cannot be inspired.

This apparent contradiction is most easily explained in that Matthew showed Jesus' legal lineage, through his foster father, Joseph. Luke, who makes special reference to the fact that Joseph was only thought to be Jesus' father, but actually was not, traces Jesus' lineage through Mary.

Peter's denial of Jesus

The gospels all record Peter's denial of Christ before his crucifixion. However, Mark's gospel seems to be slightly different. The others record Jesus telling Peter the denial will occur three times before the cock crows. Mark records Jesus telling Peter he will deny him three times before the cock crows twice.

So what was it? Once or twice? According to Josh McDowell and Don Stewart in their book Answers, it is quite reasonable that Christ made both statements. Mark, however, records the story in more detail. This is natural, since Mark's gospel was written under the influence of Peter.

"A possible reconstruction would be the following: Jesus reveals to Peter that before the cock crows, Peter will deny him three times. Peter, as was his way, probably objected loudly to this idea that he would deny his Lord. Jesus then in turn repeats his earlier prediction, along with a further note that before the cock crows twice, Peter will deny him three times."

Josh McDowell, Don Stewart

Time of Christ's crucifixion

Mark records Christ was crucified in the third hour (Mark 15:25), while John records Pilate presenting Jesus to the Jews in the sixth hour, then turning him over to be crucified (John 19:14).

According to Jewish reckoning, the third hour was 9 a.m. Thus the sixth hour would have been noon.

The most reasonable possibility is that John is using a different method of reckoning time than Mark. The Romans calculated the day from midnight to midnight. Thus John's sixth hour would have been 6 a.m., the time of the last trial and sentencing, giving time for the events leading up to the crucifixion, which Mark places around 9 a.m.

According to Josh McDowell, there is good evidence that John used the Roman method of computing time. In John 20:19, the evening of the day Jesus rose from the dead is considered part of that same day. For the Jews, the new day would begin with sunset.

Was Jesus in the tomb three days?

According to Matthew 12:40, Jesus prophesied that, just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so he would be three days and three nights in the earth.

However, Christ was crucified and buried on Friday and resurrected on Sunday. This accounts for two partial days, one full day, and two nights.

Mark 8:31 records Jesus as saying he would be raised after three days. In Matthew 16:21, he says he will be raised on the third day. These expressions were used interchangeably.

According to Josh McDowell (Answers), Matthew 27:63 gives weight to the idiomatic usage of these interchangeable phrases. After the Pharisees tell Pilate of the prediction of Jesus, "After three days I will rise again," they ask for a guard to secure the tomb until the third day.

The expression "one day and one night" was an idiom the Jews used to indicate a day, even only part of a day. This is evident in 1 Samuel 30:12-13 and Genesis 42:17.

"The phrases 'after three days' and 'on the third day' are not contradictory, either to each other or with Matthew 12:40, but simply idiomatic, interchangeable terms, clearly a common mode of Jewish expression."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, (Answers, p. 181-182)

The death of Judas

According to Matthew, Judas hanged himself. Through Mark, Peter tells us he fell and was crushed by the impact of falling head first. But Matthew does not say that Judas did not fall; and Peter does not say that Judas did not hang himself. And Peter did not say that Judas died by falling head first. He says that his body eventually fell headlong and burst apart. This could have occurred long after he died.

Here's Josh McDowell's possible reconstruction (from Answers): Judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he had hung there some time, the limb snapped or the rope gave way and the body fell down the ledge. Such precipices are extremely common in the Hinnom valley.

Did Matthew know his prophets?

Matthew relates how Judas threw his thirty pieces of silver into the sanctuary before committing suicide, and how the money was used by the priests to buy a potter's field. Matthew concludes by saying that this action fulfilled what the prophet Jeremiah had said.

The prophecy appears in Zechariah 11:12-13.

Various solutions have been offered. One, that Matthew is referring to an oral prophecy that was not written down, or a written prophecy that has since been lost and was not included in the canon. Another, that a copyist made an error, and the original text read "Zechariah."

But a more probable solution is that Jeremiah was the first book in the ancient rabbinic order of prophetic books, according to the Talmud. Matthey was quoting from a collection of books, collectively referred to by the title of the first book, "Jeremiah." The same thing occurs in Luke 24:44, where Psalms is used to refer to the entire third division of the Hebrew canon.

Perhaps the best explanation is that Matthew is combining two prophecies, one from Jeremiah and one from Zechariah, and mentions the major prophet in reference. Jeremiah mentions buying the field (32:6-8). Zechariah adds the details of the thirty pieces of silver and the money thrown on the temple floor.

"There do occur in the Bible different perspectives of the same event, different emphases in retelling incidents and other apparent discrepancies. There have been difficulties in translating the original Hebrew or Greek text. There have been a host of misinterpretations of biblical passages. Nonetheless, when twentieth-century Christians open the Bible, they are reading the inspired, preserved, reliable Word of God. 'The grass withers,' said Isaiah, 'and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever' (Isaiah 40:8)."

Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, Don't Check Your Brains at the Door, p. 47)

posted: 7/13/2006 7:49 PM EST

Anonymous wrote:

Inspiration of Scripture
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Is the Bible Divinely Inspired?

Inspiration can be defined as the mysterious process by which God worked through human writers, employing their individual personalities and styles to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant writings. (Norman Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible)

Inspiration inevitably leads to inerrancy. Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs, properly interpreted, will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether this has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences. The Bible claims to be inspired by God, and is thus inerrant in its original writing

"The bottom line is that the Bible has been breathed by God. He used men to write out exactly what he wanted them to write. He kept them free from error but at the same time used their unique personalities and styles to convey exactly what he wanted."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

The Claims of Scripture

Scripture itself claims to be inspired by God. Other sacred writings also claim inspiration, but history and prophesy bear out the truth of the Bible's claim.

Many verses make this claim, including countless uses of the phrases "Thus says the Lord," "This is what the Lord says," and others. A few verses follow:

"But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry.

Zechariah 7:12

(Prophets continually referred to other writings as having divine authority. This is only one example.)

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

Hebrews 4:12

"He (Jesus) said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.'"

Luke 24:44

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path. I have taken an oath and confirmed it, that I will follow your righteous laws."

Psalm 119:105

"And we have the world of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Peter 1:19-21

"When Moses went and told the people all the Lord's words and laws, they responded with one voice, 'Everything the Lord has said we will do.' Moses then wrote down everything the Lord and said."

Exodus 24:3-4

Many times, as in the following verse, God commanded his prophets to write his words. (See also Jeremiah 36:28; Isaiah 8:1; Habakkuk 2:2; among others.)

"Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness."

Isaiah 30:8

In John 10:35, Jesus refers to the writers of Scripture, "to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken."

These are only a few verses that show the Scriptures themselves claim to be Scripture--inspired by God and written at his request. This holds for the original writings, not the inspiration of copyists, though we covered the amazing accuracy with which the Scriptures have been transcribed through the centuries in the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament.

"Although only the autographs (original writings) are inspired, it may be said nevertheless that all good copies or translations are adequate."

Josh McDowell, The New Evidence the Demands a Verdict

"The Bibles we have today are accurate transmissions of what existed two thousand years ago. We simply have a translation in our current language of the God-breathed Scriptures that were originally written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.

Josh McDowell, The New Evidence the Demands a Verdict

What we have is, for all practical purposes, the inspired word of God.

Other than the Bible's own claims, there are supports that it is God's word.


The unity of the Bible bears witness to its divine inspiration. Despite the fact that it was written over a period of about 1,500 years by more than 40 authors, there is one unfolding story of God’s plan of salvation for mankind. It is one astoundingly continuous work.

Testimony of Early Christians

We also have the testimony of early church. We know from Scripture and from other sources that these words were considered the Word of God from the time they were first set down. In the case of the New Testament writings, we have other writings of the day referring to the letters of Paul and Peter, as well as the Gospels, as Scripture.

The Jewish People

One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God and proof of his Word is the existence of the Jewish people.

About 4,000 years ago, God promised Abram, "I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great; so you shall be a blessing: And I will bless those that bless you and the one who curses you I will curse: and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." (Gen. 12: 2, 3)

"And the Lord said to Abram, Now lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever." (Gen. 12: 14, 15)

In other words, God promised to Abram:

? 1. A great nation

? 2. A great name

? 3. Being a blessing to all nations

? 4. A land which shall forever belong to his descendants

Several hundred years later, the nation numbered in the millions. They were about to enter the land of promise when God gave them some promises and warnings. He warned (Deuteronomy) against disobedience. He promised he would use other nations to remove them from that land if they were unfaithful to him. He predicted that they would be scattered across the whole earth as strangers in unfamiliar lands and that they would find no rest from their wanderings. God also promised he would bring them back into their own land.

What has been the verdict of history? The children of Israel fell into idolatry and were removed from their homeland. In 606 BC King Nebuchadnezzar took the people captive to Babylon and returned in 588-586 BC to burn the city and temple.

God allowed his people to return to their land in 537-536 BC, or after 70 years (Ezra 1). The removal from their homeland occurred a second time in AD 70 when Titus the Roman destroyed the city of Jerusalem and scattered the people.

For almost 1900 years, the Jews wandered about the earth as strangers who were persecuted from every side, until World War II, when six million Jews were put to death in concentration camps. In 1948, Israel was re-established as a nation, and Jews began returning to their homeland from all ends of the earth. Since then, they have survived the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Holy Day War.

Through all that time, the nation neither perished nor lost its national identity. History has demonstrated that any people who leave their homeland will, after about five generations, lose their national identity by being absorbed into the new culture, but the Jews remained a distinct entity. They have survived, while the nations that persecuted them (Moab, Ammon, Edon, Philistia, and many others) have either been completely destroyed or completely lost their identity.

"Have you ever heard of a Swedish Moabite? A Russian Philistine? A German Edomite? An American Ammonite? No! These people have been totally absorbed into other cultures and races. However, have you ever heard of a Swedish Jew? A Russian Jew? A German Jew? An American Jew? Yes! As prophesied, they have not lost their identity."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

Prophecy Confirms Divine Inspiration

Fulfilled prophecy serves as some of the most convincing proof that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

"The purpose of prophecy is to let us know that God exists and that he has a plan for this world. But the foretelling of people, places, and events hundreds of years before their occurrence, the Bible demonstrates a knowledge of the future that is too specific to be labeled a good guess. By giving examples of fulfilled prophecy, the Scriptures give a strong testimony to their own inspiration."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

"I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. For I knew how stubborn you were; the sinews of your neck were iron, your forehead was bronze. Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you so that you could not say, 'My idols did them; my wooden image and metal god ordained them.' You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them ?

"From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew of them.' You have neither heard not understood; from of old your ear has not been open."

Isaiah 48:3, 5

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son ...'

Romans 1:1-4

Fulfilled prophecy as proof of the Bible's inspiration/accuracy

"And we have the world of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Peter 1:19-21

"According to Deut. 18, a prophet was false if he made predictions that were never fulfilled. No unconditional prophecy of the Bible about events to the present day has gone unfilled. Hundreds of predictions, some of them given hundreds of years in advance, have been literally fulfilled. The time (Dan. 9), city (Mic. 5:2) and nature (Is. 7:14) of Christ's birth were foretold in the Old Testament, as were dozens of other things about his life, death, and resurrection (see Is. 53). Numerous other prophecies have been fulfilled, including the destruction of Edom (Obadiah 1), the curse on Babylon (Isaiah 13), the destruction of Tyre (Ezekiel 26) and Nineveh (Nahum 1-3), and the return of Israel to the land (Isaiah 11:11). Other books claim divine inspiration, such as the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and parts of the [Hindu] Veda. But none of those books contains predictive prophesy. As a result, fulfilled prophecy is a strong indication of the unique, divine authority of the Bible."

Norman Geisler, William Nix,

A General Introduction to the Bible

Micah predicted that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Zechariah predicted that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, that he would be betrayed by a friend for thirty pieces of silver, that his hands and feet would be pierced, that his bones would not be broken. Specific details, not vague generalizations that could be interpreted to fit many situations. And they all came true with 100 percent accuracy.

"Even a casual awareness of the prophecies concerning the Messiah must convince all but the most biased reader of the truth of the Bible."

Josh McDowell, Don't Check Your Brains at the Door

The chances of that happening by coincidence, according to Peter Stoner in Science Speaks, are 1 in 10 to the power of 157, or the number 10 followed by 157 zeros. You can't imagine a number that big or a probability that small.

"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Peter 1:21

Prophecy -- Where prophesied Fulfillment
Jesus would be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 -- Matthew 1:28-25
Of the tribe of Judah Genesis 49:10 -- Luke 3:23, 33
Descended from Jesse Isaiah 11:1 -- Luke 3:32
Of the house of David Jeremiah 23:5 -- Luke 3:31
Born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 -- Matthew 2:1
Preceded by a messenger Isaiah 40:3 -- Matthew 3:1-2
Enter Jerusalem on a donkey Zechariah 9:9 -- Luke 19:35-37
Betrayed by a friend Psalm 41:9 -- Matthew 26:48-50
Betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12 -- Matthew 26:15
Silent before his accusers Isaiah 53:7 -- Matthew 27:12
Hands and feet pierced Psalm 22:16 -- Luke 23:33;John 20:25
Crucified with thieves Isaiah 53:12 -- Matthew 27:38
Interceded for his persecutors Isaiah 53:12 -- Luke 23:34
Garments parted Psalm 22:18 -- John 19:23
Lots cast for garments Psalm 22:18 -- John 19:24
Gall and vinegar offered to him Psalm 69:21 -- Matthew 27:34
His bones not broken Psalm 34:20 -- John 19:33
His side pierced Zechariah 12:10 -- John 19:34
He was buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9 -- Matthew 27:57-60
His resurrection Psalm 16:10 -- Acts 2:31

posted: 7/13/2006 7:52 PM EST

Anonymous wrote:

Archaeology is the study of non-perishable debris, the rubbish man has left behind him that has survived the ravages of time. The task of the archaeologist is to take what remains from a society and reconstruct what the artifacts tell us.

Early digs were driven by the hope of finding buried treasure. Today, scientific methods are used to recover and study the remains of the past in order to better understand the ancient people and their lives.

Archaeology without history gives us only a sequence of cultural development. History gives us the chronology, events, people, places. Archaeological finds of the past one hundred years have verified much of the Bible's history. So far, the findings have verified, and in no case disputed, the historical biblical record.

While archaeology can not prove the Bible is the Word of God, it can illustrate the accuracy of many biblical passages and shed light on various passages in the Bible. You are on solid ground arguing that archaeology confirms the historical accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible, that it can illuminate formerly obscure passages. You are on shaky ground to claim it proves divine inspiration or revelation.

"One cannot stress too strongly the importance of the Bible giving an accurate historical picture. Christianity is a historical faith which claims that God has broken into history with many mighty acts. ... If the biblical writers were incorrect in their historical picture, serious doubt would then be cast upon their trustworthiness in areas which couldn't be verified. ... [But] if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their accounts of the things that transpired, it then follows that they cannot be ruled out of court because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

Archaeological Support for the Bible

From Genesis to Revelation, there is not a book in the Bible that can not draw support from the field of archaeology. There are libraries of books devoted to the subject, and archaeologists are constantly digging up new revelations. Some of the highlights follow. Information has been drawn from several sources, including: Josh McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict; Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers; Bryant Wood, archaeologist, Association for Biblical Research, as read on the web at; The Oxford Bible Atlas; and Roberta Harris, Exploring the World of the Bible Lands. Other sources are cited as they are listed.

Biblical scholars once believed Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because it had been proven that writing was not in existence at the time of Moses. Therefore, it had to be of later authorship. Then, the "black stele" was discovered, containing the detailed laws of Hammurabi. It preceded Moses' writings by at least three centuries.

The Ebla Archives

One of the greatest archaeological finds in this century, Ebla was discovered in northern Syria in the 1970s. Excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of Ebla, uncovered a palace which yielded some 15,000 clay tablets dating circa 2300 BC. Though most have not yet been translated, those that have demonstrate that the ancient site was once the prestigious city of Ebla, which ruled the Near East as the seat of a great empire. It is located in the modern-day city of Aleppo in North Syria. Its existence coincides with the time of the biblical patriarchs. The tablets provide an abundance of background material and biblical place names.

Among other things, the tablets mention Sodom and Gomorrah, previously thought by some to be mythical cities. The Ebla archives also preserve place names such as Hazor, Megiddo, Jerusalem, Lachish, Dor, Gaza, Ashtarot, and others. Personal names and common names of the time are also recorded, and correspond with the names we read from that time in biblical history.

Many words deemed "late words (600 BC) or Aramaisms (words influenced by Aramaic) can now be determined to be ancient. If they were used in Ebla in 2300, then they can hardly be lately developed.

Critics have long said Canaan was a word not used at the time of Moses and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. Another word, "tehom" ("the deep") was said to be a late word (around 600 BC) and to prove a late writing of the creation account. Both the land of Canaan and the word "tehom" were found on the Ebla tablets, which predated Moses by some 800 years. Kitchen wrote of the Ebla archives:

"The lessons here are - or should be - clear. Set against two thousand years of history and development of the West Semitic dialects, the whole position of the dating of the vocabulary and usages in biblical hebrew will need to be completely re-examined."

K.A. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World

The Ebla archives also verify pagan religious practices of the time, also recorded in the Bible: the existence of temples, belief in certain gods, offerings, etc.

Old Testament Rulers and Empires

Many scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries thought there were no Hittites at the time of Abraham because there were no records of them outside the Old Testament. The Hittites were thought to be biblical legend. Wrong again. Archaeological research has since uncovered evidence revealing more than 1,200 years of Hittite civilization. The capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey in 1906.

The Sumerian King List is an ancient tablet listing kings who reigned for long periods of time. The tablet records a great flood, after which there was a break in which no kings reigned, and when they were reinstated their reigns were much shorter. This corresponds with the Bible's record that the human life span was shortened following the flood.

Scholars once claimed that no Assyrian King Sargon ever lived, because the Bible was the only record of such a person (Isaiah 20:1). Then his palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event recorded in Isaiah 20-his capture of Ashdod-was recorded on the palace walls.

According to recorded history, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. The Bible, however, records a King Belshazzar, who reigned during the time of the prophet Daniel. Critics thought this was a biblical error, until tablets were found showing Belshazzar as Nabonidus' son, who served as co-regent with his father. Thus Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Daniel 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall-the highest available position. (Bryant Wood, archaeologist, Association for Biblical Research;

Sodom and Gomorrah

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was thought to be mythical until evidence revealed the existence of these cities as centers of commerce in the area where the Scriptures describe them. The biblical description of their demise seems to be no less accurate. Evidence points to earthquake activity, and bituminous pitch, which would be explained by the brimstone hurled down on those cities that had rejected God. There is even evidence that the layers of sedimentary rock were molded together by intense heat, and evidence of burning has been found on Mount Sodom. Secular archaeologists have suggested that an oil basin beneath the Dead Sea ignited and erupted. Whether or not this is true, "Such an explanation in no way subtracts from the miraculous quality of the event, for God controls natural forces. The timing of the event, in the context of warnings and visitation by angels, reveals its overall miraculous nature." (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)


Excavations of Jericho between 1930 and 1936 revealed something so startling that John Garstang and two other members of the archaeological team prepared and signed a statement describing what was found. In reference to these findings, Garstang says:

"As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over their ruins into the city. Why so unusual? Because the walls of cities do not fall outwards, they fall inwards. And yet in Joshua 6:20 we read, 'The wall fell down flat. Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.' The walls were made to fall outward."

John Gartsang, The Foundation of Bible History, Joshua, Judges

Bryant Wood, writing for Biblical Archaeology Review, includes a list of collaboration between archaeological evidence and biblical narrative as follows:

1. The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5, 7, 15; 6:5, 20).

2. The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:1; 3:15; 5:16).

3. The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodsheds (Joshua 6:1).

4. The siege was short (Joshua 6:15).

5. The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20).

6. The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17, 18).

7. The city was burned (Joshua 6:24).

Saul, David, and Samuel

Saul's fortress at Gibeah has been excavated. One noteworthy find was that slingshots were one of the primary weapons of the day. This relates not only to David's victory over Goliath, but to the reference of Judges 20:16 that there were 700 expert slingers who "could sling a stone at a hair and not miss."

Upon Saul's death, Samuel tells us that his armor was put in the temple of Ashtaroth (a Canaanite fertility goddess) at Bet She'an, while Chronicles records that his head was put in the temple of Dagon, the Philistine corn god. This was thought to be an error because it seemed unlikely that enemy peoples would have temples in the same place at the same time. However, excavations have revealed that there are two temples at this site that are separated by a hallway: one for Dagon and the other for Ashtaroth.

One of the key accomplishments of David's reign was the capture of Jerusalem. Problematic in Scripture was that the Israelites entered the city by way of a tunnel that led to the Pool of Siloam. However, that pool was thought to be outside the city walls. Excavations in the 1960s revealed that the wall did indeed extend well past the pool.

The site of Solomon's temple can not be excavated due to its nearness to the Muslim holy site The Dome of the Rock. However, Philistine temples built in Solomon's time fit the design, decoration, and materials described in the Bible. One ornament with the inscription "belonging to the Temple of Yahweh" has been recovered and is in the Israel Museum.

The excavation of Gezer in 1969 ran across a massive layer of ash that covered most of the mound. Sifting through the ash yielded pieces of Hebrew, Egyptian, and Philistine artifacts. Apparently, all three cultures had been there at the same time. This puzzled researchers greatly until they realized that the Bible confirms exactly what they found. "Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife." (1 Kings 9:16)

A remarkable inscription from the ninth century BC that refers to both the House of David and to the King of Israel was discovered in 1994. This was the first time the name of David had been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible. The inscription refers not simply to a David, but to the House of David, the dynasty of the great Israelite king. It is possibly the oldest extra-biblical reference to Israel in Semitic script. It proves that both Israel and Judah were important kingdoms at this time.

Other Examples of Extra-biblical Confirmation of Biblical Events

(from Bryant Wood)

¥ Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.

¥ Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27) to Sargon II, king of Syria, as recorded on his palace walls.

¥ Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.

¥ Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.

¥ Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.

¥ Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37) as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.

¥ Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24: 10-14) as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.

¥ Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16) as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

¥ Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

¥ The existence of Jesus as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.

¥ Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

Tombs and Burial Sites

Burial sites of many people from the Bible have been found. Just as a tombstone today is used as "concrete" evidence of a person's life and death, so the tombs and sepulchers of the past can be used to determine the life and significance of those they contain.

The tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem has been identified since the first century as that which is now beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. In the 1800s, the Garden Tomb was identified as the temporary resting place for the body of Christ. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is generally accepted as the correct location.

Caiaphas was high priest from AD 18-36. He was the leader of the conspiracy to crucify Jesus. After his arrest, Jesus was detained at Caiaphas' house overnight. Caiaphas interrogated Jesus and handed him over to Pilate to be tried. Caiaphas continued to persecute the early church and the disciples (Acts 5:28-29). The Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a part just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Archaeologists examined the tomb and found twelve ossuaries (receptacles for bones) containing the remains of 63 individuals, including those of Caiaphas. This remarkable discovery was the first to provide the physical remains of an individual named in the Bible.

Caesar Augustus ruled the Roman empire from 27 BC to AD 14. He issued the census decree that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. The remains of Augustus' tomb exist today in the middle of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore.

The Bible says that Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob were buried in Hebron, in a cave called the Cave of Machpelah, purchased by Abraham (Genesis 23). Traditionally, this cave has been located below the Haram el-Khalil ("sacred precinct of the friend of the merciful one, God") in Hebron, today a Muslim mosque. References as early as the second century BC testify that this is the authentic location of the burial place of the patriarchs. The cave was explored by the Augustine Canons in 1119, at which time they claim to have found the bones of the patriarchs.

Kings of Judah were buried within the city of David. At the southern end of the city, south of the Old City of Jerusalem, there are two monumental tunnel tombs which many scholars believe are the tombs of David and Solomon. They have been damaged by quarrying, so no identifying inscriptions have survived. One king of Judah, Uzziah, was an exception to the burial custom. As a leper, he was not buried near the other kings, but "near them in a field" (2 Chronicles 26:23). In 1931, an inscription was found on the Mount of Olives dating to the first century AD: "Here were brought the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah - do not open." His bones had apparently been moved from the field and transferred to a yet more remote location.

Cyrus the Great ruled the Persian empire from 559 to 530 BC and is best know for his capture of Babylon in 539 BC, predicted by Isaiah some 160 years earlier. Cyrus was buried in a simple gabled stone tomb outside his capital of Pasargadae in modern Iran. According to the historian Strabo, this inscription once graced the structure, "Oh man, I am Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, who founded the empire of Persia, and was king of Asia. Grudge me not therefore this monument."

Darius I the Great was king of the Persian empire from 522 to 486 BC. He gave permission to renew the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 6:1-12). His monumental tomb is cut into a cliff near the Persian capital of Persepolis, Iran. There are three other tombs there, thought to be those of the Persian king Xerxes (485-465 BC; married to Esther); Artaxerxes (465-424 BC; king while Ezra was a scribe and Nehemiah was a cupbearer; authorized Nehemiah to rebuild the city walls); and Darius II (423 to 405 BC; perhaps the Darius mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22?). However, aside from the tomb of Darius I, there are no accompanying inscriptions, so these identifications are uncertain.

Statues and Other Likenesses

Carvings and statues provide further evidence of the existence of biblical characters. Such likeness have been discovered for twelve Old Testament figures and six from the New Testament. These include (also taken from Bryant Wood):

¥ Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, 1504-1450 BC (Pharaoh of Egypt, possibly during the Exodus)

¥ Shishak, the Egyptian king who plundered the Temple during the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25-26)

¥ Jehu, king of Israel, who took power in a bloody coup; the only surviving likeness of a king of Israel or Judah (2 Kings 9:1-10, 36)

¥ Hazael, king of Aram, enemy of Israel (1Kings 19:15, 17; 2 Kings 8:7-15, 28-29; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 12:17-18; 13:3, 22, 24, 25; Amos 1:4)

¥ Tiglath-Pileser III, king of Assyria, who invaded Israel (2 Kings 18:19, 29; 16:7, 10; 1 Chronicles 5"6, 26; 2 Chronicles 28: 20)

¥ Sargon II, king of Assyria, who defeated Ashdod and completed the siege of Amaria and took Israelites into captivity (Isaiah 20:1)

¥ Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who attacked Judah but was unable to capture Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:13 - 19:37)

¥ Tirhakah, king of Egypt, who opposed Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:9)

¥ Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, who succeeded his father Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37)

¥ Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon, whose messengers Hezekiah showed the royal treasury, much to the indignation of Isaiah (2 Kings 20:12-19)

¥ Xerxes I, king of Persia, who made Esther his queen (Esther; Ezra 4:6)

¥ Darius I, king of Persia, who allowed the returning exiles to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:24 - 6:15; Haggai 1:1, 15)

¥ Augustus, Roman emperor, 27 BC to AD 14, when Jesus was born (Luke 2:1)

¥ Tiberius, Roman emperor, AD 14 to 37, during Jesus' adulthood and crucifixion (Matthew 22:17

¥ Claudius, Roman emperor, AD 41 to 54, who ordered the Jews to leave Rome (Acts 11:28; 17:7; 18:2)

¥ Herod Agrippa I, ruler of Judea AD 37 to 44, who persecuted the early church (Acts 12:1-23; 23:35)

¥ Aretas IV, king of the Nabateans, 9 BC to AD 40, whose governor in Damascus attempted to arrest Paul (2 Corinthians 11:32)

¥ Nero (referred to as Caesar in the New Testament), Roman emperor, AD 54 to 68, whom Paul appealed to (Acts 25:11, 12, 21; 26:32; 28:19; Philippians 4:22)

Many man-made structures also have been excavated, some of which follow (courtesy Bryant Wood; also Josh McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict):

¥ The palace at Jericho where Eglon, king of Moab, was assassinated by Ehud (Judges 3:15-30)

¥ The east gate of Shechem where Gaal and Zebul watched the forces of Abimelech approach the city (Judges 9:34-38)

¥ The temple of Baal/El-Berith in Schechem, where funds were obtained to finance Abimelech's kingship and where the citizens of Shechem took refuge when Abimelech attacked the city (Judges 9:4, 46-49)

¥ The Pool of Heshbon, likened to the eyes of the Shulammite woman (Song of Songs 7:4)

¥ The royal palace at Samaria where the kings of Israel lived (1 Kings 20:43; 21:1, 2; 22:39; 2 Kings 1:2; 15:25)

¥ The Pool of Samaria where King Ahab's chariot was washed after his death (1 Kings 22:29-38)

¥ The water tunnel beneath Jerusalem dug by King Hezekiah to provide water during the Assyrian siege (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30)

¥ The royal palace in Babylon where King Belshazzar held the feast and Daniel interpreted the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5)

¥ The royal palace in Susa where Esther was queen of the Persian king Xerxes (Esther 1:2; 2:3, 5, 9, 16)

¥ The royal gate at Susa where Mordecai met with Halthach, Xerxes' eunuch (Esther 4:6)

¥ The foundation of the synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus cured a man with an unclean spirit (Mark 1:21-28) and delivered the sermon on the bread of life (John 6:25-59)

¥ The house of Peter at Capernaum where Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and others (Matthew 8:14-16)

¥ Jacob's well, where Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman (John 4)

¥ The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a crippled man (John 5:1-14). This site was recorded nowhere except in the New Testament, but can now be identified in the northeast quarter of the old city. Traces of it were discovered in the course of excavations near the Church of St. Anne in 1888.

¥ The Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a blind man (John 9:1-4)

¥ The tribunal at Corinth where Paul was tried (Acts 18:12-17)

¥ The theater at Ephesus where the riot of silversmiths occurred (Acts 19:29)

¥ Herod's palace at Caesarea where Paul was kept under guard (Acts 23:33-35)

¥ The pavement. For centuries there has been no record of the court where Jesus was tried by Pilate (named Gabbatha, or the Pavement, John 19:13). William F. Albright, in The Archaeology of Palestine, shows that this court was the court of the Tower of Antonia, the Roman military headquarters in Jerusalem. It was left buried when the city was rebuilt in the time of Hadrian, and was not discovered until recently.

¥ The Pilate Inscription. A Latin inscription discovered in 1961 contained four lines, three of which were readable: "Tiberium, Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea." This inscription clarifies the title of Pontius Pilate as "prefect" at least during a time in his rulership. Tacitus and Josephus later referred to him as "procurator." The New Testament calls him "governor" (Matthew 27:2), a term which incorporates both titles. This inscription is the only archaeological evidence of both Pilate's name and this title.

¥ Three coins mentioned in the New Testament have been identified: the "tribute penny" or "denarius," equivalent to a day's wages; the 2/5 ounce silver coin that developed from the shekel (used in Judas' thirty pieces of silver, Matthew 26:14-15); and the "widow's mite" (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), small copper coins worth only a fraction of a penny.

Luke as a Historian

Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, has been attacked by scholars as an inaccurate historian. However, discoveries over the last century have vindicated Luke, proving him right to the smallest detail. Many of the fallacies formerly believed of Luke's writings follow:

At one time, it was conceded as fact that Luke was entirely wrong about the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Critics argued that there was no census, and that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home. They also argued that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time, but became governor around AD 6.

Archaeological discoveries show that the Romans did have a regular enrollment of taxpayers and held censuses every fourteen years, a procedure begun during the reign of Augustus.

Archaeologists also discovered an inscription fount in Antioch ascribing to Quirinius the governorship of Syria around 7 BC. Thus he was governor twice, in AD 6, as recorded by Josephus, and during the time of the early Roman census during which Christ was born. Luke does not ignore the later census conducted by Quirinius, but mentions it is Acts 5:37

An Egyptian papyrus was also discovered which gives directions for the conduct of a census. It reads: "Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them."

Archaeologists at first believed Luke's implication wrong that Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia, and that Iconium was not (Acts 14:6). They based their belief on the writings of Romans such as Cicero, who indicated that Iconium was in Lycaonia. However, in 1910 Sir William Ramsay found a monument that showed that Iconium was a Phrygian city. Later discoveries have confirmed this.

Archaeological finds have identified most of the cities mentioned in the Book of Acts. The journeys of Paul can thus be accurately traced.

"In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error."

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

Luke also references Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene, who ruled in Syria and Palestine (Luke 3:1) at the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry in AD 27. The only Lysanias known to ancient historians was killed in 36 BC, thus it was assumed that Luke was in error. However, an inscription found at Abila near Damascus confirms the existence of "Lysanias the Tetrarch" and is dated between AD 14 and 29, perfectly supporting Luke's record.

Excavations revealed the theater at Ephesus at which Luke records a riot (Acts 19:23-29). Luke also records a riot in Jerusalem because Paul took a Gentile into the temple (Acts 21:28). Greek and Latin inscriptions have been found that read: "No foreigner may enter within the barrier which surrounds the temple and enclosure. Anyone who is caught doing so will be personally responsible for his ensuing death."

Luke's word choice was often called into question, too. His reference to Phillippi as a district of Macedonia was considered an error, as were his references to Philippian rulers as praetors, civil authorities of Thessalonica as politarchs, and use of the title proconsul for Gallio. All of these "errors" of Luke have since been verified by inscriptions or other archaeological finds. His use of the term "politarch," once considered conclusive evidence of Luke's unreliability, has since been vindicated. More than a dozen inscriptions have been unearthed in recent years which make use of that ancient Greek title.

"The Acts of the Apostles is now generally agreed in scholarly circles to be the work of Luke, to belong to the first century, and to involve the labors of a careful historian who was substantially accurate in his use of sources."

Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. ... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Historian

Dead Sea Scrolls

The most famous biblical archaeological discovery of the past century, the Dead Sea Scrolls, did much to confirm the accuracy of transcription of the Bible since its original writings. The scrolls merit mention as an archaeological find. The following pages, written by Dr. Will Varner and taken from

"Problems still exist, of course, in the complete harmonization of archaeological material with the Bible, but none so serious as not to bear real promise of imminent solution through further investigation. It must be extremely significant that, in view of the great mass of corroborative evidence regarding the biblical history of these periods, there exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point."

Morris, The Bible and Modern Science, 95

"In every period of Old Testament history, we find that there is good evidence from archaeology that the Scriptures speak the truth. In many instances, the Scriptures even reflect firsthand knowledge of the times and customs it describes. While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics.

"In fact, while thousands of finds from the ancient world support in broad outline and often in detail the biblical picture, not one incontrovertible find has ever contradicted the Bible."

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclepedia of Christian Apologetics, 52

"This great antiquity of the Bible histories in comparison with those of other writings, combined with the evolutionary preconceptions of the 19th century, led many scholars to insist that the Bible histories also were in large part merely legendary. As long as nothing was available, except copies of ancient manuscripts, for the evaluation of ancient histories, such teachings may have been persuasive. Now, however, it is no longer possible to reject the substantial historicity of the Bible, at least as far back as the time of Abraham, because of the remarkable discoveries of archaeology."

Henry M. Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, 300

"Archaeology has not yet said its last word; but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge."

Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 279

posted: 7/13/2006 7:53 PM EST

Anonymous wrote:

The Christian faith centers on the figure of Jesus Christ. Belief in Jesus, his deity, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection are essential to salvation.

It follows that Jesus would be the focal point for attack from Christianity's critics. Attacks come from a variety of angles and involve several myths concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

Jesus was fully human. He was born to a Jewish family and lived his life in the lands surrounding Jerusalem. He cried, slept, worked, and was hungry. He knew anger, sadness, and was even near despair on the night before his death. He was also fully divine, equal with the Father, and given all authority in heaven and on earth.

This section will focus on refuting the most common attacks against the figure, character, deity, and resurrection of Jesus by answering the following myths:

Myth #1: Jesus never existed.

Myth #2: It is impossible to know the truth about Jesus since he lived so long ago.

Myth #3: Jesus was not born of a virgin.

Myth #4: Jesus never claimed to be God.

Myth #5: Jesus was just a good teacher or prophet.

Myth #6: Jesus did not rise from the dead.

"This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without sciences and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times."

Philip Schaff, historian, Exposing the Myths about Jesus

Myth # 1: Jesus never existed.

There is no scholarly ground to stand on when it comes to a claim that, historically, Jesus never lived. Many Christian and non-Christian sources reference Jesus, demonstrating that he lived, performed miracles, gathered a following, angered the Jews by claiming to be the Messiah, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate about AD 30. Even non-Christian histories report his supposed resurrection and the growth of the Christian sect that followed. They also purport that Jesus was worshiped as God by the early church.

The New Testament contains twenty-seven separate documents which were written in the first century AD and contain the story of the life of Jesus and the beginnings of th Christian church. These facts were recorded by eyewitnesses. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, born AD 37, also records the existence of Jesus. Cornelius Tacitus (AD 112), a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus Christ while writing about the reign of Emperor Nero. He wrote of the existence of Christians in Rome and referred to Christianity when alluding to the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in AD 70. This history has been preserved by Sulpicius Severus. Other references to Jesus and his followers occur in the writings of the Roman historian Seutonius (AD 120).

"The testimony, both Christian and non-Christian, is more than sufficient to lay to rest any idea that Jesus, in fact, never existed. In light of the evidence, it is absurd to hold such a view."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

Myth #2: It is impossible to know the truth about Jesus since he lived so long ago.

Refer to sections in this book on documentary support for the New Testament and historical reliability of the New Testament.

In short, between biblical and other historical accounts, we have as much or more information about Jesus than about most other historical figures. These accounts come from eyewitnesses and were written and circulated when Jesus' followers and critics were still alive to refute any errors. The extant manuscript copies are far closer to the original writings than any other document of antiquity, so there is no reason to doubt their authenticity.

"We know more about the life of Jesus than just about any other figure in the ancient world. His birth, life and death are revealed in much more detail than most ancient figures whose existence is taken for granted by historians."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

Myth #3: Jesus was not born of a virgin.

One argument against the virgin birth is that the Hebrew word in Isaiah's prophesy, "almah," can mean "young woman" as well as "virgin' (Isaiah 7:14). But the Greek "parthenos" used by Matthew and Luke must mean "virgin."

The virgin birth is set down in the Bible as historical fact. (See Luke 1:26-37; Matthew 1:18-24)

There are several reasons why the virgin birth was a necessity. The Bible teaches that the Word who became flesh was with God from the very beginning (John 1:1). The pre-existence of Christ is testified many times in the New Testament (John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-16). When Jesus came into the world, he was not a newly created individual such as we are, but the eternal Son of God. To be born required divine intervention (McDowell, Answers).

Another reason was because of his sinless nature. To be a perfect sacrifice, he must himself be perfect and without sin. The New Testament teaches that from the day he was born until the day he died, Jesus was without sin. Had he be born of a human father, he would have inherited the sin nature that contaminates our race. A miraculous birth was thus necessary (McDowell, Answers).

"Moreover, if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, he would not have been able to claim the legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been fathered by Joseph, he could not rightly inherit the throne of David, since he was a relative of the cursed line."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

The Bible records that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus' birth, and records that he was known not to have fathered Jesus and that people assumed Mary had an illicit relationship. Even Joseph assumed this, and reasonably decided to break off their betrothal. He knew, as well as we do today, that a virgin conceiving a baby was a biological impossibility. And yet Joseph changed his resolve when an angel visited and told him of the miraculous nature of the conception.

"Some have attempted to account for the virgin birth by tracing it to Greek or Babylonian mythology. They argue that the Gospel writers borrowed this story from the mythology of their day. This view does not fit the facts, for there is not any hero in pagan mythology for which a virgin birth is claimed, and moreover it would be unthinkable to the Jewish mind to construct such a story from mythology.

"Many deities among the Greeks, Babylonians, and Egyptians were reported born in an unusual manner, but for the most part these beings never actually existed. The accounts are filled with obvious mythological elements which are totally absent from the Gospel narratives. They are reports of a god or goddess being born into the world by sexual relations between some heavenly being and an earthly woman, or by some adulterous affair among the gods and goddesses."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

"All these various stories of supernatural conceptions and births, which we meet within folklore and the history of mythology, have this one point in common--they serve to point not so much to the similarity as to the complete contrast and dissimilarity which exist between the Christian birth-story and the tales which are current in various pagan circles."

Dr. Thomas Thorburn, A Critical Examination

Myth #4: Jesus was just a good teacher or prophet.

The good teacher myth takes many forms. Jesus was a good teacher, a prophet, a good man who was misunderstood. These forms all share one major aspect--they deny Christ's deity. If Jesus can be labeled as a "good teacher," that classes him with Moses, Zoroaster, and Mohammed and dismisses his Lordship and divinity.

But Jesus himself said "Before Abraham was, I AM." He shared glory with the Father before the world began. He claimed the power to read men's minds and hearts and to forgive sins. He claimed to have come down from heaven. He claimed the power to raise himself from the dead, and witnesses confirmed his resurrection.

If he claimed all those things and they were not true, he was not a good teacher at all, but a liar or a lunatic. Either that, or his disciples made up the whole rap and put words in his mouth, making them liars or lunatics.

"Logically, if Jesus was not divine, as the records unequivocally claim he was, we are reduced to three, and only three, interpretations of the New Testament data:

1. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God but knew he was not. He was a charlatan.

2. Jesus thought he was the Son of God, but actually was not. He was a lunatic.

3. Jesus never actually claimed to be the Son of God, though his disciples put this claim in his mouth. So the disciples were charlatans, lunatics, or naive exaggerators."

John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity

Was Jesus a liar or charlatan?

Jesus took pains to warn against lying, and said that those who lie are the devil's children (John 8:44). Would he then have lied concerning his own character and purpose?

"The idea of Jesus as a charlatan--as an intentional deceiver who claimed to be something he knew he was not--has never had much appeal, even among fanatical anti-religionists. Jesus' high ethical teachings and noble personal character have made such an interpretation extremely improbable."

John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity

William Lecky, the great nineteenth-century historian and a non-believer, wrote of Jesus:

"[The character of Jesus] has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

W.E.H. Lecky, History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne

Was Jesus a lunatic?

Did Jesus honestly misunderstand his nature and believe himself to be something he was not? Could a human be sane and think of himself as the eschatological Son of Man who would come again at the end of the age, with the heavenly host, to judge the world?

No. A person who believed that of themselves would either have to be correct or insane. And so, some might argue, Jesus was a lunatic.

"Some paranoids manifest ideas of grandeur almost entirely, and we find patients whose grandeur is very largely of a religious nature, such as their belief that they are directly instructed by God to convert the world or perform miracles."

Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Psychiatric Study of Jesus

"We cannot avoid the conclusion that Jesus was deranged if he thought of himself as God incarnate and yet was not."

John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity

"Yet, in view of the eminent soundness of Jesus’ teachings, few have been able to give credence to the idea of mental aberration."

John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity

As psychiatrist J.T. Fisher asserted in 1951:

"If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene--if you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the excess verbiage--if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison. For nearly two thousand years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here ... rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimum mental health and contentment."

J.T. Fisher and L.S. Hawley, A Few Buttons Missing

One can't have it both ways. Jesus' teachings can't exhibit optimum soundness while the teacher is a lunatic who does not understand his own nature.

Did Jesus' disciples paint a false portrait?

Could not Jesus' followers, in either an intentional or unintentional attempt to put him in the best possible light, have painted a false portrait of him? Jews had been waiting for a Messiah. Is it not possible that this desire for a Messiah led to the deification of Jesus?

These theories quickly fall apart upon closer examination.

"First, all types of Jewish messianic speculation at the time were at variance with the messianic picture Jesus painted of himself , so he was a singularly poor candidate for deification. Second, the apostles and evangelists were psychologically, ethically and religiously incapable of performing such a deification. Third, the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection, the great attesting event for his claims to deity, could not have been manufactured."

John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity

Jesus' attitudes toward the Gentiles, toward freedom from the yoke of the law, were not at all what was expected of the Messiah.

"Zealot activists expected the redeemer to appear sword in hand and to lead the people against Rome's military power. ... Most apocalyptic visionaries, on the other hand, expected redemption in the shape of a cosmic cataclysm, out of which would emerge a new world with the chosen people marching toward final salvation at the head of a transformed mankind."

Jewish scholar S.W. Baron,

Social and Religious History of the Jews

Jesus hardly fulfilled the messianic expectations of his day. Freedom from Rome. Reuniting of the Jewish people. A Jewish king returned to the throne. In fact, the Pharisees were his chief opponents, for he continually set himself above the law and refused to be bound by legalistic tradition. He disagreed with the Sadducees, who did not believe in angels or in the resurrection of the body.

So if anyone deified Jesus, it must have been his own disciples. They, too, were Jews. It took them a long time to believe that this Jesus, so different from what was expected, was the Messiah. When he was crucified, they doubted it anew. They were down-to-earth people--fishermen, tax collectors, and the like. To purport such a fantastic lie, they would themselves have had to be liars or psychotics.

Instead, we see a group of men gathered in a locked room following the crucifixion, all scared lest they, too, be arrested. They were scattered the night of the arrest, scared for their lives. Then something happened, and suddenly these frightened disciples of a crucified teacher went forth boldly and preached the gospel despite constant threats to their freedom and lives. All but one died for their faith in Jesus, and the one who was not martyred died in exile. These few disciples brought Christianity to the world. Could they have done so knowing it was a lie? There are those who would die for a cause. And doubtless many have died for a lie. But would a man deliberately give his life, knowing it was for a lie?

This change in the disciples and their subsequent relentless spreading of the message is one of the strongest arguments for the truth of the resurrection.

Myth #5 Jesus never claimed to be God.

This is a common argument, despite heavy evidence to the contrary. Even a cursory glance at the gospels reveals that just the opposite is true: Jesus made many claims that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, equal to the Father. His disciples clearly regarded him as the Christ, and all the New Testament books refer to this claim as fact and even offer prayers to God the Father and Jesus the Son without discriminating between the two. Even Jesus' enemies were well aware of his claim to be God, and it was for this "blasphemy" that he was ultimately put to death. Indeed, had it not been true, it would have been blasphemy of the highest degree.

Jesus forgave sins (example, Mark 2), again blasphemy for anyone but God. He used the term "Son of Man" in reference to himself, one of the Old Testament's most lofty ascriptions to God's Messiah.

Among the religious leaders throughout history, Jesus Christ is unique in claiming to be God in human flesh. It is a misconception that other religious leaders made similar claims. Buddha did not claim to be God, nor did Moses. Muhammad did not identify himself as Allah, and Zoroaster did not claim to be Ahura Mazda.

But Christ claimed that he existed before Abraham (John 8:58), that he was equal with the Father (John 5:17-18), that he had the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7) (something the Bible teaches only God can do, Isaiah 43:25). The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3) and the one who holds all things together (Colossians 1:17). Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

Jesus' enemies wanted to stone him for blasphemy, "because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God" (John 10:33).

The following scriptures are just a sample of several in which Christ's deity is claimed and affirmed.

John 20:28 records Thomas' confession upon seeing Jesus' hands, feet, and side, "My Lord and my God!"

"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".

Paul, Philemon 2:10-11

"Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?'

'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'

The high priest tore his clothes. 'Why do we need any more witnesses?' he asked. 'You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?'"

Mark 14:61-64

"Therefore go an make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus, Matthew 28:19-20

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his word. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

Jesus, John 14:9-11

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Jesus, John 14:6

Clearly, Jesus did claim to be divine, and his disciples came to believe as well. History shows that the earliest Christians, too, prayed to Jesus as to the Father, sang songs of worship to him, and regarded him as one with God.

"Other teachers adhered to a set of teachings and principles. Jesus did not just claim to be teaching mankind the truth; he claimed that he was the truth (John 14:6)."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

"Anybody who would dare to make such claims would have to be either out of his mind or a liar, unless he was God. Jesus clearly claimed all these things and more. If he is God, as he claimed, we must believe in him, and if he is not, then we should have nothing to do with him."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

All right, so Jesus claimed to be God. Why should anyone believe such a claim?

The Bible gives miracles and fulfilled prophecy as convincing proof that Jesus was who he said he was. But the primary sign was the resurrection. When the religious leaders asked for a sign, Jesus said, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). In John 2:19, Jesus was again asked for a sign. He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up ... but he spoke of the temple of his body."

Jesus' ability to raise himself from the dead separates him from everyone else in history. Thus anyone wishing to refute the case for Christianity must explain away the resurrection.

Myth #6: Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Christ's resurrection from the dead is an essential element to the Gospel message. Without it, the rest is meaningless. Jesus himself recognized that it would serve as proof of his deity:

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Matthew 12:38-40

The resurrection set Jesus apart from everyone who ever lived and confirmed that he was the Son of God.

... who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul, Romans 1:4

And the apostles recognized the importance of the resurrection as central to the faith.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the de4ad are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:12-191

More recently, Michael Green said it like this:

"Christianity does not hold the resurrection to be one among many tenants of belief. Without faith in the resurrection there would be no Christianity at all. The Christian church would never have begun; the Jesus movement would have fizzled out like a damp squib with his execution. Christianity stands or falls with the truth of the resurrection. Once you disprove it, and you have disposed of Christianity."

Michael Green, Man Alive

Those who have set out to discredit the resurrection use different theories to try to explain it away. Those theories follow.

The "swoon theory"--Jesus wasn't really dead

The swoon theory supposes that Jesus didn't really die. He merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought him dead, but he later recovered and the disciples thought he rose from the dead. Some have even suggested Jesus arranged to be drugged on the cross so that he could feign death and recover from the beatings, exposure, trauma, and loss of blood.

This makes no sense. Prisoners occasionally died from the beating preceding crucifixion. Jesus went through such a scourging. If it was a plot, it was an extremely foolish one, for he could not have expected to survive the beating and crucifixion. After the beating, he was so weakened he could not carry the cross to Golgotha. In fact, the Bible records that he collapsed. Death by crucifixion followed, and Frederick Farrar attempts to describe what such a death was like:

"Death by crucifixion seems to include all that pain and death can have of horrible and ghastly--dizziness, cramp, thirst, starvation, sleeplessness, traumatic fever, tetanus, shame, publicity of shame, long continuance of torment, horror of anticipation, mortification of untended wounds--all intensified just up to the point at which they can be endured at all, but all stopping just short of the point which would give to the sufferer the relief of unconsciousness.

"The unnatural position made every movement painful; the lacerated veins and crushed tendons throbbed with incessant anguish; the wounds, inflamed by exposure, gradually gangrened; the arteries--especially at the head and stomach--became swollen and oppressed with surcharged blood; and while each variety of misery went on gradually increasing, there was added to them the intolerable pang of a burning and raging thirst; and all these physical complications caused an internal excitement and anxiety, which made the prospect of death itself--of death, the unknown enemy, at whose approach man usually shudders most--bear the aspect of delicious and exquisite release."

Frederick Farrar

During this torment, Jesus was pierced in the side with a spear. Following hours of this sort of treatment, Jesus was removed from the cross after a Roman centurion certified he was dead. There was some surprise that he died so quickly, and as a result his legs were not broken, as was the custom to hasten death.

"The disciples of Jesus may not have been as sophisticated as twentieth century man in the realm of scientific knowledge, but they surely knew the difference between someone who was dead and someone who wasn't."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

To suppose that Jesus not only survived that experience, but then walked whole and unharmed out of the sealed tomb to proclaim that death was conquered, is beyond ludicrous. It must also be considered that, where other criminals might hope to escape closer inspection (though they could not hope to escape death), this man, whose claims that he would rise again were widely known, would have had to have been most certainly dead before the Romans would have handed over his body.

The bodysnatchers theory -- Someone stole the body

The Bible itself mentions this myth. After the resurrection, some of the soldiers who had been guarding the tomb went to the chief priests and reported what had happened. Matthew reports:

When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "you are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Matthew 28:12-15

Many factors make this story impossible to believe. The stone, for example, most likely weighed a couple of tons. The women, on their way to the tomb Sunday morning, wondered aloud who would roll the stone away for them (Mark 16:3). It would have required several men and a great deal of noise to remove the stone.

The chief priests had requested a detachment of soldiers from Pilate (from four to sixteen men) to guard the tomb. These would have been trained fighting men, under Roman law penalized by death for failing their mission or falling asleep at their post.

Christ was publically put in the tomb on Friday. On Sunday morning, the body was missing. If he did not rise from the dead, then someone took the body. There are three groups that could have taken the body: the Romans, the Jews, or the disciples.

The Romans would have had no reason to steal the body, since they wanted to keep the peace in Palestine.

The Jews would not have taken the body, because the last thing they wanted was a proclamation of the resurrection. In fact, they asked for the Roman guard (Matthew 27) to make sure no one stole the body.

The disciples of Jesus had no reason to steal the body, and if they did, they later died for something they knew to be untrue.

"Those who entertain the stolen body myth suppose that a group of disciples, who days before had run like scared bunny rabbits, confronted a guard of heavily armed, battle-trained Roman soldiers. They either overpowered them or snuck past them in their sleep to move a two-ton stone up an incline without waking a single man. Then, so the thinking goes, the disciples carted off Jesus' body, hid it somewhere and, over the course of the next several decades, endured ridicule, torture, and martyrdom to spread a lie--what they knew to be a lie--throughout the known world.

"On the contrary, however, that is too much to believe."

Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, Don't Check Your Brains at the Door

The wrong tomb theory -- The tomb was empty because it was not the right tomb

There are actually a few who cling to the theory that the women went to the wrong tomb, and that's why Jesus' body was not there.

This point hardly deserves an answer. However, some of the more obvious flaws in this theory follow.

First, the women went together, and the two Marys had been there already.

Second, there were angels awaiting them, with a message: "Jesus is not here, he is risen." Did the angels, too, visit the wrong tomb?

Third, Peter and John, not believing the women's testimony, ran to the tomb themselves, and they, too, found it empty. Did they, also, run to the same wrong empty tomb? It's starting to seem coincidental that all these witnesses happened upon the same "wrong tomb" ...

Fourth, the stone and Roman seal marked Jesus' tomb and would not have been present at the wrong one.

Fifth, the chief priests and Romans would have been all too happy to point out the mistake and locate the right tomb, and the body.

The fact of the matter is ...

The facts just don't support any other theory than the truth--Jesus did rise from the dead and appear to his disciples.

The accounts of his appearances are recorded for us by eyewitnesses to whom Jesus appeared alive over a forty-day period after his public crucifixion. (Acts 1:3)

Writing about AD 56, the Apostle Paul mentions that more than 500 people had witnessed the resurrected Christ at one time and most of them were still living when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:6). This is a challenge to those who might not have believed, since Paul is saying that there are many people yet living who could be interviewed to find out if Christ had indeed risen.

Not only is there evidence to support the resurrection, but there is also a severe lack of evidence to support any alternative explanation. So many people in Jesus' day opposed him and wanted to destroy his following. All they would have had to do was produce a body. They could not. By far the most logical explanation is the one the Bible presents: They could not disprove the resurrection because it actually happened. They could not produce a dead body because there was not one--Jesus rose from the dead, and that fact is attested by historical evidence and eyewitness accounts.

"The theories attempting to give an alternative explanation to the resurrection take more faith to believe than the resurrection itself."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

Myth #7: There are contradictions in the four resurrection accounts.

If the Gospels were placed in four parallel columns, a number of apparent differences would be highlighted. However, these ultimately help confirm the truthfulness of the accounts, rather than refute them. None of the four gospels give all the details. There would be no need for four gospels if they did. And it would appear contrived and suspicious.

Only Matthew records the first appearance to the women. Only Luke records the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Mark and John record the appearance of Mary Magdalene. Only John records the appearance of the Lord in the upper room when Thomas was absent, and the appearance on the Sea of Galilee.

This is to be expected. No four witnesses would write up the same description of the same event, detail for detail. If they did, there would be obvious collusion.

The main points are agreed upon by every witness. Additional details do not discredit the account, but increase its credibility. The details do not contradict each other, but work together to create a bigger picture.

One apparent contradiction concerns the time the women came to the tomb. Mark's account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun. John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark. However, there would have been a walk of quite some distance from Jerusalem or Bethany, and in order to reach the tomb at sunrise, the women would have had to leave while it was still dark.

Another area which appears contradictory concerns the angels at the tomb. Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women. Luke and John report two angels at the tomb. However, Matthew and Mark do not say that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that one angel spoke to the women.

"Though they report some of the details differently, the Gospels agree in all important points. The accounts are in harmony on the fact that Jesus was dead and buried; that the disciples were not prepared for his death, but were totally confused; that the tomb was empty on Easter morning; that the empty tomb did not convince them that Jesus had risen; that Mary thought the body had been stolen.

"The gospel writers also concur that the disciples had certain experiences which they believed to be appearances of the resurrected Christ. That normative first century Judaism had no concept of a dying and rising Messiah is a historical fact.

"The disciples proclaimed the resurrection story in Jerusalem, in the place where Jesus had been killed and buried. All these facts considered together constitute a powerful argument for the validity of the resurrection story."

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers

"In these fundamental truths, there are absolutely no contradictions. The so-called variations in the narratives are only the details which were most vividly impressed on one mind or another of the witnesses of our Lord's resurrection, or on the mind of the writers of these four respective Gospels.

"The closest, most critical examination of these narratives throughout the ages never has destroyed and can never destroy their powerful testimony to the truth that Christ did rise from the dead on the third day, and was seen of many.'

Wilbur Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ

posted: 7/13/2006 7:54 PM EST

Anonymous wrote:

The aforementioned articles of proof can be found at This proof is meant to provide you with information that can serve as grounds for why faith is very reasonable for the believer who chooses to follow Christ. Contrary to what many of you may think, these writings are posted not to win a "moral battle", but to win brothers and sisters in Jesus. Of course there is no physical proof of the soul nor the spiritual realm that God exists in. However, if there was, would there be anything called faith? Your works will not please God, but faith will because faith comes to those who seek Him, and if you "seek you shall find." In the end, it is everyone's ow choice to believe and some people will never believe no matter how much proof there is to support our loving Creator and Saviour. All that can be done is the presentation of evidence. God is the one who tugs at your soul although many of you believe this doesnot exist. Many of you may feel that Christianity interrupts your style of living or many of you may have left the faith because you felt God let you down. God always promises to be there for those who believe in Him and try earnestly to live the way Jesus did. He promises to walk with you through hard times, not eliminate them. How then would a person mature? Please take my comments with peace in mind. I'm not trying to start fights, but rather to do my job as a Christian by trying to help the non-believer believe.

Roger O'Donnell said...

The 'Truth' is a damned strange beast, ask any three people who say they've seen it and you'll get four different and contradictory answers... and none of them right....

J. C. Samuelson said...

"The aforementioned articles of proof can be found at"

You should've left them there. What a waste of space. A link to the article would've been enough, though would probably be just as unwelcome.

"...some people will never believe no matter how much proof there is..."

What you've posted here does not constitute proof, or even good evidence. Each point has been refuted dozens of times here and elsewhere.

You know, I think an article is in the offing...

Anonymous said...

I have to say that I'm largely disappointed by this article and this website as a whole. I specifically came looking to find some well reasoned objections to the God of Christianity, but rather I have in the main found objections to Christians.

I suggest that a better approach to rebutting Christianity is to actually try and refute the Christian fundamentals. Any real Christian will have their faith routed in Biblical teachings and history rather than their confidence in what the church is doing, done or will do.

As many people have done on this site, people come across 'sinful' Christians. I don't see how this is relevant in helping people come out of the church unless part of the church doctrine is that Christians are perfect. In fact my research finds that the Bible has a lot to say about why Christians fail to be perfect. In fact much of the new testament is given to the Apostle Paul Correcting poor Christian teachings, attitudes and morals.

To be brutally honest I can see why Christians will be angry at this website. Not so much for the support that you're trying to bring but for the scorn that's shown and the lack of real critical analysis.

For instance you would do well to at least distinguish between Catholic and Protestant teachings when constructing arguments. I often see a lot of articles that refer to papal teachings, crusades or things done by the Roman church and then tie them to a modern American setting (which is largely protestant). This kind of thing will frustrate any Christian or any keen scholar and only add to the impression that you're more for the sensational argument than the real debate.

webmdave said...


There are a considerable number of websites that fulfill your stated intellectual requirements.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the intent of this site. You may have noticed that the site is not entitled "Rebut-Christianity-in-the-most-intellectual"

The intent of this site is to give people who are escaping the iron mind-grip of a powerful cult a place to rant, rave, de-program and meet with others who have escaped Christianity's silly magical thinking.

The average die-hard Christian is impervious to intellectual arguments, anyway -- "There is not many wise among you ... the wisdom of the world," etc., yada, yada...

Christian conversion is primarily an emotional experience and the main reason most Christians tenaciously cling to their myth is also rooted soundly in feelings and emotion.

Perhaps a little provoked anger will help actually think outside the box a bit and eventually help them break free.

Perhaps not. Again, de-converting people is not the reason this site exists.

Regardless, those who have broken free, or are breaking free of mind-control, appreciate a place to come and explore the first steps of a completely new way of thinking.

Besides that, not everyone has the privilege of holding a doctorate and a proud position in academia. In fact, when it comes to slavering religiosity, very few have been able to get much above the level of mental childhood.

Thanks for the critique. If you have something less denigrating to contribute, please feel free to come back.

Oh, and it's a big Internet. You are always welcome to create your own site and help people your own way.


Anonymous said...

Hi all,

I am a christian, and I am just a passing by. Just wanted to say that it takes great courage to speak out against what everyone accepts as the norm. I think christians are afraid that the norm will become or is becoming more and more anti-christian. I do believe that is the reason for attacks from a lot of christians.

I do not agree with attacking this site, or any other site of this nature for that matter. What is encouraging is that there are people here that dares to ask questions. I believe that a person with a question can be taught. I am in no way implying that I would like to do the teaching, in fact to read to much of these comments would make me rather depressed, not because I will be threaten by them, but because I'd rather be doing something else (I do not like hate speech - from christians and ex-christians). I think this is the point that I want to make. There is a perspective that christians are supposed to be the 'nice people'. The most dangerous people I know claims to be christians (insert a politicians name here). People see me as a nice person. If I then decided to become an ex-christian, people will still think that I am a nice person. The opposite will also be true. If a nasty non-christian becomes a 'christian', then he will still be a nasty christian.

I do believe that christians should act in a certian manner, but a lot of people’s opinion between "saved and not saved" is who "said the sinners prayer, and who didn't". Of course christianity is and should be much more than that. I say christianity is because of the people I view as christians, not because of people who claims to be christian.

As a final thought I want to say thank you for the people who are posting on this site, not because I will agree with what you say, but because it takes courage to say it.

freethinker05 said...

Mr.J.Thanks so much for your kind words; And would you give us your thoughts about how elhefe1968 came in here being so rude to us non-believers? Thanks again, Mr.J.
Best Regards, Roger...A/A

Anonymous said...

Cannot find a post by elhefe1968. Is it in a different topic, or maybe removed? Posting a link would be nice.


Anonymous said...

There are many things said about many things on this planet. Rodney King said it best..."Can't we all just get along?" As a human being born on this planet along with other Human beings I know we are going to disagree about almost any subject. If we are honest with ourselves (and deep down if we look in the mirror at ourselves we will be) we know that we will disagree at some point. We as human beings are made up of flesh, bone, nerves, muscles, etc. Our thoughts are usually guided by our emotions and sometimes (more than not) we speak what is deep inside of us. At times it may come out harsh, other times, soft but it will come out. Ideas lead us to do and say things but does that mean that all ideas should be silenced? Of course not! That would be both foolish and madness. At best we are not always going to get along with each other, but we should respect each other. Whether you believe (know the definition?) in God, Jesus, Buddhism, zen, islam, or any of the hundreds of beliefs expressed today...all of need to know one thing, Respect each other. Don't trash each other. Really what is important here is how we respect one another. There have been many leaders and religious leaders that have come on the scene..some good and some bad. To, for instance, put all christians in as the bad guys for what some "professing" christians have said or done is quite disrepectful. It is a shame that they have come in on your site and said things and then do it in the name of God. But at the same time it is also those who profess no belief in God, some of those, who have done just as much equally. It is human nature to see what a few do and then decide that all of a particular group are that way. Again emotions run high and long! Think! research! Decide! because when your life is almost over, and it will be, it is you who will be alone with your decision.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

I'm sorry.

No, I am. I'm sorry that people are people. I'm sorry that both sides fight and spit and tear and flame and drag each other down into the mire of hatred, of cruelty, of bitterness, of ungrace, of slander and murder. It would be useless to draw up the list of shameless horrors of either side and compare them, and it doesn't matter which is longer.

We are all people. We are all spiteful, selfish, mean, and cruel, and the label we cling to in a sad attempt to justify it doesn't help.

I came here looking for more information about the sack of Magdeburg, a city I visited two years ago and completely fell in love with. I heard the terrible story of its past the first time while sitting in the courtyard of the Magdeburger Dom, and I could almost feel the pain and blood in the grass. It is a shame and a blot on my faith, one of far too many, and we who believe in divine love must live with it.

If I may offer a thought: it is not Atheists or Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or Taoists or Animists or Agnostics who loot and kill and burn and rape and censor and imprison and oppress. It's people. And they will find any excuse to do it.

But you know and I know that people are also capable of extraordinary good. We know that we can build each other up, repair the things destroyed, create incredible art, and build societies where speech is free. We can give and we can love, and we can heal, if we're willing.

Freedom of thought, freedom to think clearly and debate honestly, to treat each other with respect and love, is not bound by faith, nor does faith exclude it. To accuse someone of bigotry merely because they believe or don't believe in a God or gods is bigotry itself. I think if we are honest, we know we can all use less of that.

Please delete the insults. We can do so much better than that.

Anonymous said...

Wow, ex-Christians running into possible or supposed to be Christians all slamming eachother. That's my slam too I suppose. The site is hardly offensice to anyone with maturity period. Your post....kind real onesided pointing at everyone else for being onesided too. Though it contained some good thoughts. What is really the only shame is if someone gets sidetracked by "believers" in a religion rather then considering the religion or its claims in my opinion. Seems to be a lot of that around here, but I'm still glad to have stumbled upon the side. Good idea for making some money Dave, if Dave is the owner.

Best regards to all.

Anonymous said...

Wow again..... Great post Andrea just above my anonymous and terribly typoed comments above.

Pageviews this week: