Arguments Against Christianity
An
excerpt from
the online
hypertext Human Knowledge:
Foundations
and Limits by Brian Holtz
Since Feb 2003 I have posted a standing
challenge for any Christian apologist to present an argument for
Christianity that is as succinct and as self-contained and as
powerful as the argument below. As of Apr 2004, none have
accepted this challenge.
Evidence
For Christianity
Since Christianity
is the most prevalent
belief
system among humans, it deserves special attention. The best
evidence
for the Christian doctrine of a divine
Jesus
is:
- Epistles c.50-60CE
- Paul's letters broadly confirm the
teachings
and miracles of Jesus, and specifically his resurrection [1
Cor 15].
- Gospels c.60-90CE
- The veracity of the gospel accounts
is
supported
by their mutual aggreement and their inclusion of embarrassing and
vivid
details.
- The gospels are unanimously
persuasive
that Jesus
died, and report many vivid accounts of encounters with the risen Jesus.
- The gospels describe in vivid
detail
Jesus' miracles
(many healings, three reanimations, etc.) and their acceptance
throughout
Judea and Galilee.
- Extra-biblical evidence
- The 1st-century Jewish historian
Josephus confirms
the historicity of Jesus by mentioning him as the brother of the
martyred
James.
- Non-Christian writers like Josephus
and
Celsus
agree that Jesus was known for his "feats" and "wonders".
- Christianity as a movement survived
even in Palestine
among the people who would have had the best available opportunity for
refuting its claims.
Arguments
Against Christianity
There are at least
eight insurmountable
problems within the extant evidence that
each independently refute the Christian
doctrine of a divine
Jesus:
- Jesus' endorsement of the murderous
immorality of Yahweh in the Torah;
- Jesus' doctrine of "eternal punishment"
in the "eternal fire" of Hell;
- Jesus' failure to claim actual divinity;
- Jesus' failed prophecy of his imminent
return;
- Jesus' failure to competently
reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce,
circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an
eyewitness;
- Jesus' failure to perform miracles the
accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing,
misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;
- Jesus' failure to attract significant
notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous
history of
first-century Palestine;
- Jesus' failure to recruit
- anyone from his family,
- any acquaintance from before his
baptism,
- a majority of Palestinian Jews, and
even
- some of those who heard his words and
witnessed his alleged miracles.
An omnipotent
omniscience benevolent deity
competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected
all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that
Christian doctrine is false. The
reasons not
to believe the
Christian
doctrine of a divine
Jesus can be divided into
four categories:
- the alternative naturalistic
explanations of the existing evidence;
- the missing evidence needed to prove
such
divinity;
- the implausibility of such divine
activity; and
- the cascading implications of
accepting
such
evidence.
In addition, the
Christian gospels themselves
are suspect because of their sources, contradictions, and apologetics.
Naturalistic explanations. Jesus
of
Nazareth was a faith healer and self-proclaimed divinely-special savior
who tried to reform his native Jewish religion. However, the evidence
about
Jesus is less likely to have resulted from divinity
than from misinterpretation, exaggeration, rationalization, delusion,
deception,
and mythologizing. Indeed, perhaps the greatest weakness of the claims
for Jesus' divinity is the gospels' reliance on and vouching for the
Old
Testament, a patchwork of folklore, legends and myths about a tribe
whose
patriarch Abraham turned to monotheism because of fertility
problems. Jesus
was a Jewish prophet who affirmed Jewish law [Mt
5:17-18; Lk
2:27,39; Jn
10:35], observed the Jewish calendar [Lk 4:16, Mt 24:20], and
preached
about the God of Israel [e.g. Mk 12:29] in Jewish synagogues [Mk 1:21,
1:39, 6:2; Mt 4:23, 9:35, 13:54; Lk 4:15, 4:44, 6:6, 13:10, 19:47; Jn
6:59,
18:20] exclusively for Jews [Mt 10:5, Mt 15:24]. Jesus no doubt
echoed the Torah theme that "all nations" would witness the majesty of
Israel's God, but his only command to actually convert and baptize "all
nations" is in a post-Easter speech alleged only in one gospel [Mt
28:19]
(and in an appendix later added to Mark [16:15]).
Miracles.
In the gospels Jesus heals the sick (possession, blindness, skin
disorder,
bleeding, fever, paralysis, withered hand), revives the recently
deceased,
calms a storm, multiplies food, and walks on water. The miracles
ascribed
to Jesus seem not to have been very convincing [Mt
11:20, Lk
10:13, Jn
6:66, 10:32,
12:37,
15:24],
and seem explainable by a combination of conventional faith healing,
exaggeration,
and mythologizing. The three people Jesus allegedly reanimates [Mk 5/Lk
8; Lk 7; Jn 11] might not actually have been clinically dead, and the
gospels
report not a single indication supporting such a diagnosis. Any cases
of
blindness, paralysis, or demonic possession cured by Jesus could have
been
psychogenic. Jesus apparently admits [Lk
11:24-26] that his cures for demonic possession are often not
permanent,
and in the synoptic gospels there is only one mention [Mt 21:14] of a
cure
being performed in Jerusalem. The one case of congenital blindness is
recorded
as disputed, and only in the latest gospel [Jn 9].
God?
The
Christian doctrine of the "trinity", attempting to reconcile Jewish
monotheism
with Jesus' self-revelation, holds that Jesus 1) is both fully human
and
fully divine, and 2) is God (in a different "person"). The former is a
contradiction, and the latter has no scriptural basis. In the gospels
Jesus
never claims identity with God or even explicit divinity, but rather a
divinely special status as "the Son of God" and the "Anointed One"
(Hebrew:
messiah; Greek: christos). Jesus repeatedly distinguishes himself from
God:
- Why do you call me good? No one is
good--except
God alone. [Mk 10:18, Lk 18:17, Mt 19:17]
- No one knows about that day or hour,
not
even
the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [Mk 13:32]
- And everyone who speaks a word
against
the Son
of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy
Spirit
will not be forgiven. [Lk 12:10]
- Father, if you are willing, take this
cup
from
me; yet not my will, but yours be done. [Lk 22:42-43]
- Father, into your hands I commit my
spirit. [Lk
23:46]
- the Father judges no one, but has
entrusted all
judgment to the Son [Jn 5:22]
- By myself I can do nothing; I judge
only
as I
hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him
who sent me. [Jn 5:30]
- I do nothing on my own but speak just
what the
Father has taught me. [Jn 8:28]
- I came from God and now am here. I
have
not come
on my own; but he sent me. [Jn 8:42]
- If I glorify myself, my glory is
nothing;
it
is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom ye say that He is your God.
[Jn 8:54]
- I did not speak of my own accord, but
the
Father
who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. [Jn 12:49]
- The words I say to you are not just
my
own. Rather,
it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work [Jn 14:10]
- If you loved me, you would be glad
that I
am
going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [Jn 14:28]
- I love the Father and do exactly what
my
Father
has commanded me. [Jn 14:31]
- Though I have been speaking
figuratively,
a time
is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell
you plainly about my Father. [Jn 16:25]
- I am not saying that I will ask the
Father on
your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you [Jn 16:26-27]
- I am returning to my Father and your
Father,
to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]
- As the Father has sent me, I am
sending
you.
[Jn 20:21]
When Jesus'
opponents say his assumption of
authority
could be interpreted as a claim of divinity, all three synoptics agree
[Mk 2:10, Mt 9:6, Lk 5:24] that Jesus merely asserted "authority on
earth",
and none intimates that his accusers concluded he was affirming their
accusation.
In the one instance in the gospels [Jn 10:33ff] in which Jesus'
identity
with God is explicitly discussed, Jesus cites a Psalm [82:6] as a
precedent
for his metaphor, and hastily retreats to his formulation of being
"God's
Son", adding vaguely that "the Father is in me, and I in the Father".
However,
1 Jn 2:15 says this is true of anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is
the
Son of God, and Jesus used the same mutual inclusion poetry about him
and
his disciples [Jn 14:20]. When at another time [Jn 5:18ff] the
Jews
characterized the "Son of Man" title as "making himself equal with
God",
Jesus answered not by claiming identity but by drawing distinctions:
- the Son can do nothing by himself
- the Father loves the Son
- the Father judges no one, but has
entrusted all
judgment to the Son
- the Father sent the Son
- the Father has granted the Son to
have
life in
him
- the Father has given him authority to
judge
- I seek not to please myself but him
who
sent
me
Thus Jesus retreats
the only two times he is
accused of claiming identity or equality with God. In the Passion
story,
Jesus was mocked or accused as a faith healer, prophet, king of the
Jews,
Messiah, and "Son of God" [Jn 19:7] -- but never as divine or as a god.
When Jesus died, onlookers are said to have exclaimed not that Jesus
was
God, but rather the "Son of God" [Mat 27:54].
The
title
of 'God' is never reliably applied to Jesus anywhere in the New
Testament.
(In many translations of 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the description "God
and Saviour" is seemingly applied to Jesus, but the scholarly consensus
regards these two letters as late and pseudoepigraphic.) Acts quotes
[2:22,
2:36, 3:13, 10:38, 17:31] Peter and Paul describing Jesus in terms of a
man appointed to an office, but never calling him God. The gospel
authors never explicitly claim Jesus to be God, and the closest they
come
is the vague language of Jn 1: "the Word was God" and "became flesh".
John
quotes Thomas exclaiming [Jn 20] "my Lord and my God", but immediately
states [20:31] as a creed merely "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God". The "mystery" of Jesus' nature was hardly clarified by the
Apostles
[e.g. Phil 2:6, Rom 1:4, Col 1:15, Col 2:9], whose epistles never claim
Jesus has any kind of identity with God. (Christian scribes tried to
change
that; cf. the differing manuscripts for Rom 9:5, Acts 20:28, and 1 Tim
3:16.) Even the alleged angelic annunciation of Jesus to his parents
ommitted
[Lk 1:32, Mt 1:20, Mt 2:13, Mt 2:20] the claim that Jesus was Yahweh
incarnate.
Thus, just as Jesus failed to leave
clear
teachings about salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet, he
also
did not effect a competent revelation of who precisely he was. Depending
on e.g. various 4th-century Roman emperors, there waxed and waned such
christological heresies as Ebionism, Docetism, Adoptionism, Dynamic
Monarchianism,
Sabellianism, Arianism, Marcionism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism,
Monophysitism,
and Monothelitism. The doublethink of the "trinity" is not found in the
Bible, but instead was invented to reconcile Jewish monotheism
with Jesus' idiosyncratic Sonship claims.
"Son of
God".
Jesus seems to have been illegitmate, and to have been known to be such
in his community [Mt 1:18-24, Jn 8:41]. His only recorded words before
his ministry concern his disobedience [Lk 2:48,51] at age 12 to his
mother
and stepfather, whom he denied [cf. Mt 23:9] by calling the Temple "my
Father's house". He spurned his stepfather's trade of carpentry to take
up a ministry proclaiming himself the son not of Joseph but of God.
Despite
angelic revelations [Lk 1:32, Mt 1:20, Mt 2:13, Mt 2:20] to Mary and
Joseph,
Mary's knowledge [Lk 1:34] of the virgin conception, and Mary's witness
of at least one miracle [Mk 2], they (and Jesus' siblings) did not
believe
in him [Jn 7:5, Mt 13:57] and thought him "out of his mind" [Mk 3:21],
leading Jesus to repeatedly stress [Mk 3:33, 10:29; Mt 10:37, 12:48,
19:29;
Lk 11:27-28, 14:26] that one should choose God over one's biological
family.
Only on the day of his death do the gospels record a single friendly
word
[Jn 19:26] from Jesus to his family.
Delusional
Schizophrenic? Jesus began his (apparently one-year) ministry
as a follower of John the Baptist (whose embarrassing baptism of Jesus
is played down or not mentioned in the later gospels). In the earliest
gospel (Mark), Jesus never calls himself Christ/Messiah, is reluctant
for
his special nature to be known, and (as he does in Matthew) despairs on
the cross. (By contrast, in the later Luke and John, Jesus asserts he
is
Christ, and confidently assures a co-crucified convict of their
impending
ascension.) Jesus "could not do many miracles" in his hometown [Mk 6:5,
Mt 13:58, Lk 4:24], and he at times was considered mad by other Jews
[Jn
8:48, 10:20]. Jesus' movement seems not to have been joined in his
lifetime
by a single family member or prior acquaintance, but only by strangers.
Jesus satisifed the diagnostic criteria of paranoid schizophrenia:
- hallucinations: hearing or seeing
God,
Satan,
demons, and angels;
- delusions of grandiosity: belief that
he
is the
salvific Christ/Messiah with miraculous powers and apocalyptic
foreknowledge;
- delusions of persecution: temptation
by
Satan;
opposition by demons;
- an insidious reduction in external
relations
and interests: nomadic asceticism; estrangement from his family.
However,
Jesus
was not so mentally ill as to believe he was omnipotent. The gospels
say
repeatedly [Jn 7:1, 8:59, 11:53-54, 12:36; Mt 12:14-15, Mk 3:6-7, Lk
13:31,33]
that Jesus retreated from or avoided danger. He was secretive and
evasive
about his special nature [Mk 3:12, 8:30, 4:41; Lk 9:21, 10:22-24; Mt
16:20;
Jn 2:24, 8:25-29, 10:24-38, 12:34], and reluctant to have his powers
tested
[Mk 8:12; Lk 11:29, 23:8; Mt 4:7, 12:39, 16:4; Jn 2:18]. He was likely
neither liar nor lunatic, but rather a preacher, faith-healer, and
apocalyptic
prophet who in the months leading up to his anticipated execution came
to believe he was the Jewish Messiah and even the divinely-special
savior
of mankind.
Resurrection.
At his death the apostles abandoned Jesus in panic, even though they
should
have been expecting his resurrection if they had indeed witnessed his
miracles,
heard his divinity claims, and heard him say at least four times [Mk
8:31,
10:34;
Mat 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Lk 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:46] that he would
"rise
from the dead" or be "raised to life" "on the third day". The New
Testament
accounts of the resurrection appearances develop
over time from silent to vague to contradictory
to fantastic. The Empty Tomb story could have resulted from a discreet
reburial or removal -- perhaps by a disciple, as in a rumor reported in
Mt 28. Possible conspirators were Joseph of Arimathea and Mary
Magdalene,
a longtime disciple [Lk 8:2] "out of whom [Jesus] had driven seven
demons"
[Mk 16:9, Lk 8:2] and who (unlike any apostle) attended both the
crucifixion
and entombment. She was the first to visit the tomb on Easter [Mt 28:1,
Jn 20:1], and the possibility of removal [Jn 20:2,14,15] was not
unimaginable
to her. She weepingly lingered [Jn 20:11] after the apostles left the
empty
tomb, and thereupon was the first [Mk 16:9, Mt 28:9, Jn 20:14] to claim
seeing an appearance. The appearances were suspiciously exclusive: "He
was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already
chosen"
[Acts 10:40-41] "Why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to
the
world?" [Jn 14:22]. Many of the "appearances" seem to have been
unimpressive
to the disciples who heard about them (and should have been expecting
them)
and even to those who witnessed them:
- But they did not believe the women,
because their
words seemed to them like idle tales. [Lk 24:11]
- When they heard that Jesus was alive
and
that
she had seen him, they did not believe it. Afterward Jesus appeared in
a different form to two of them [Mk 16:11-12]
- These returned and reported it to the
rest; but
they did not believe them either. [Mk 16:13]
- When they saw him, they worshiped
him;
but some
doubted. [Mt 28:17]
- Jesus himself came up and walked
along
with them;
but they were kept from recognizing him. [Lk 24:15-16]
- she turned around and saw Jesus
standing
there,
but she did not realize that it was Jesus. Thinking he was the
gardener,
she said ... [Jn 20:14-15]
- Jesus stood on the shore, but the
disciples did
not realize that it was Jesus. [Jn 21:4]
What
probably happened is that some disciples began
having epiphanies, perhaps involving the occasional dream, ecstatic
vision, encounter with a stranger, case of mistaken identity, or
outright hallucination (or fabrication). The disciples in their
desperation and zeal initially interpreted these experiences as
manifestations of a triumphant and vindicated (but not necessarily
reanimated) Jesus, who had apparently predicted that he would in some
sense return or at least that his ministry would require but survive
his death. If a tomb had in fact been found empty, that doesn't
necessarily imply that these early manifestations were initially
interpreted as experiences of a physically reanimated corpse. The
disciples might have just believed that Yahweh had “raised”
Jesus' body to heaven so as to not “abandon [it] to the grave”
and to “decay” [Ps 16:10, cited in Acts 13:35-37]. An
empty tomb belief would greatly have helped the early epiphanic
experiences be misinterpreted, exaggerated, and embellished over the
subsequent half century into the reanimated corpse stories that
appear only in the two latest gospels (Luke and John).
The gospels
themselves give precedent for the idea
of a dead person being “raised from the dead” [Mk 16:14]
by inhabiting the body of some other person currently living. When
some [Mk 6:14, Mk 8:28, Mt 16:14, Lk 9:19] -- including Herod [Mk
6:16, Mt 14:2] -- thought that John the Baptist had been
"raised from the dead", at least a few of these people would
have known that Jesus' body had (like the Easter gardener's) been
animate before the Baptist's death.
There is no record that anyone ever considered checking the Baptist's
body (the grave of which was known his disciples [Mk 6:29, Mt
14:13]), and there is no record that anyone wondered why Jesus' neck
did not show signs of John's earlier beheading.
Missing
evidence.
A divine Jesus could trivially create new miracles to unambiguously
vouch
for some modern school of Christianity. For the gospel accounts of
Jesus
to be believable, two kinds of evidence would have to surface:
- Textual discoveries that Jesus did
not
believe
in the literal truth of the entire Old Testament, and that the unjust
Christian
notion of eternal damnation is a misunderstanding.
- Compelling corroboration of gospel
miracles through
physical artifacts (e.g. the Shroud of Turin) or historical records
(e.g.
of the three-hour darkness on Good Friday).
However, available
extra-scriptural records
do
not corroborate the gospel miracles. Christian apologists often claim
that
if false, the gospel traditions would have been refuted and discredited
by skeptics in 1st-century Palestine. However, there is no indication
that
the Jesus movement was important enough then to merit the sort of early
written debunking that would have been preserved despite skeptical
apathy
and Christian hostility. Except for the stolen-body rumor denied in Mat
28, the earliest records of anti-Christian skepticism date after the
first
century and are preserved mainly as excerpts in Christian rebuttals.
Celsus
(quoted by Origen) dismissed the miracles as the "tricks of jugglers"
that
he said are "feats performed by those who have been taught by
Egyptians",
and the Jewish slander reported by Tertullian claimed the empty tomb
was
faked.
The 1st-century Jewish historian
Josephus
is hard to count as anti-Christian, even after discounting his
affirmation
(unnoticed by all of his earliest Christian commentators) of the
resurrection
as an interpolation. Josephus may have written that Jesus "performed
surprising
works" and even that Jesus was believed to have been resurrected, but
the
(possibly interpolated) mention is only in passing. Josephus devotes
more
space each to John the Baptist and James, and while reporting much
minutiae
over the entire period during which Jesus lived, does not mention:
the Christmas Star that
disturbed Herod
and "all
Jerusalem" [Mt 2:3],
Herod's massacre [Mt 2:16],
Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem
[Mt 21:8-11],
the Good Friday earthquake [Mt 27:51],
the Good Friday resurrectees that
"appeared to
many people" in Jerusalem [Mt 27:53], or
the Good Friday 3-hour darkness "over
all
the
land" [Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44, Mt 27:45].
These events in fact
went unnoticed by every
non-Christian writer, including the historians Seneca and Pliny the
Elder. Contrast this with the supernova of 1006CE that was noted in
China, Egypt, Iraq, Italy, Japan, and Switzerland. (Syncellus quotes a lost
text of the Christian
historian Julius
Africanus
which itself cites a lost text by Thallus: "Thallus calls this darkness
an eclipse". The identification of Thallus' eclipse with "this
darkness"
might just be in the mind of Julius Africanus, and Thallus at any rate
cannot be reliably dated as writing independently of the gospels.) The
Alexandrian philosopher and commentator Philo outlived Jesus by 15 or
20
years, and as a visitor to Jerusalem should have met witnesses to the
Easter
miracles. His silence suggests that Jesus and his followers did not
make
the early impression that they should have if the gospels were true.
Implausibility. The gospel story
of
a secretive
unpublished
family-resenting bastard faith healer in the rural outback of a
peripheral
province of a regional empire seems
an unlikely self-revelation for the
omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent
Creator of the universe:
- Why such ambiguous and
picayune miracles?
Why
not raise a new mountain in the desert, or install a new star in the
heavens?
- Why such vague and equivocal claims
of
divinity?
- Why after his resurrection appear so
ambiguously,
so briefly, and to only his disciples? Why not -- after perhaps a
more convincing execution, e.g. beheading -- march back to Pilate and
Herod
and ascend in front of Jerusalem assembled?
- Why not write his revelation himself,
and
ensure
that it survive in perfect copies? Why not include in it indisputible
authentication,
e.g. by predicting a fundamental physical constant?
The God of the
Torah's holy scrolls is far
too pedestrian in
his works, parochial in his concerns, petty in his decisions, and
primitive
in his policies.
Works. In the gospels Jesus
heals
the
sick, revives the recently deceased, calms a storm, walks on water, and
multiplies food. The god of the Torah makes appearances, speeches,
promises,
and predictions; raises the dead; and takes credit for various plagues,
fires, floods, astronomical events, victories, healings, and deaths. It
is implausible that the Creator's works would be so confined to ancient
times and so apparently constrained by ancient imaginations.
Concerns. After creating
billions
of
galaxies in Genesis, the god of the Torah is implausibly obsessed with
the family of Abraham and the Jordan valley where they live. It seems
implausible
that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, infallible deity would entrust a
few
fallible men in a backward corner of the world with such paltry
evidence
and then demand that everyone else either hear and believe them or
suffer
eternal damnation.
Decisions. In the gospels Jesus
damns
entire towns [Mt 11:23], compares non-Israelites to dogs [Mt 15:26],
and
affirms even "the smallest letter" [Mt 5:18, Jn 10:35] of the Torah.
The
god of the Torah tests and torments his followers, commits mass murders
of e.g. Noah's flood victims [Gen 6:7, 7:21] and the firstborn sons of
Egypt [Ex
12:29],
creates linguistic division for fear of an ancient construction project
[Gen 11:6], and curses mankind because Adam dared to "become like one
of
us, knowing good and evil" [Gen 3:22]. It is implausible that the
Creator
of the universe would be so petty and wicked.
Policies. The god of the Torah
promotes
or demands extravagant worship, dietary taboos, animal sacrifice,
repressive
sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women,
slavery,
human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39, cf. Heb 11:17, Jam 2:21], and
mass murder of even
infants
[Gen 6:7, 7:21, Ex 11:5, 12:29, 1 Sam 15:3, cf. Heb 11:7,28]. In the
gospels Jesus affirms the Torah
[Mt 5:18, Jn 10:35], endorses the murderous flood of Noah [Mt 24:38, Lk
17:27], and
promises
sinners not a thousand years' unrelenting torture, nor a million or a
billion, but
an eternity of excruciating torture by fire [Mk 9:43, Mt 18:8,
25:41, 25:46]. It is
implausible
that a competent and benevolent deity would in his revelation allow the
endorsement of such heinous crimes and evil policies.
Cascading implications. If the
existing
evidence about Jesus of Nazareth is considered a convincing proof of
his
divinity, then many other things can be proven with similar evidence.
- Miracles were reported
commonly in
ancient
times and are attested in many other religions. Christians might argue
that competing miracles were wrought by demons, but those very miracles
could be used by a competing religion to justify the same claim about
Jesus'
miracles.
- Martyrs have been common
throughout human
history. If dying for a belief can show the belief is true, then the
kamikazes
of Japan showed that Emperor Hirohito was divine. Note that Peter and
James
are the only alleged resurrection witnesses who the New Testament names
(John
21:18,19,
Acts 12:2) as martyrs, but there is no evidence that recanting their
alleged belief in physical resurrection could have saved them. They
probably just died for their very sincere belief in some Easter-related
experiences that they interpreted as evidence of a triumphant and
vindicated Jesus. All other Christian martyrs died for what they were
told about the alleged resurrection and not for what they witnessed
about it.
- Prophecies. No non-trivial
prophecy in
the Bible has both a) been documented as having been made before the
predicted
event and b) had its fulfillment documented independently of the Bible
itself. If self-fulfilling prophecy is considered valid, then for
example
the Book of Mormon is a valid prophetic text.
Gospel sources.
The gospels were stitched together decades after the crucifixion by
non-eyewitness
zealots freely borrowing from oral traditions and now-lost earlier
texts.
- Other gospels. At least
a
dozen
other gospels (e.g. of Thomas and Peter) are known from whole texts,
fragments,
and ancient references, but were not deemed by the early Christians to
be divinely inspired.
- Differing manuscripts show
that
the gospels
have undergone insertions, deletions, additions, and revisions.
- Copying. Matthew and Luke are
based in
part on copying from Mark and in part apparently on a now-lost earlier
compilation of Jesus sayings.
- Anonymity, Contemporaneity.
The
gospels
were written 35-60 years after Jesus' death, and (unlike every other
intact
work of classical nonfiction) no authors are identified in the earliest
copies. Only about a century later did the gospels become associated
with
the names of their alleged authors. Writing extensively twenty years
after
Jesus' death, Paul gives no hint that any gospel had yet been written
down.
- Mark was written c.65-70 by an
unknown
author who later church tradition said was an associate of the apostle
Peter. The earliest copies of this gospel end abruptly at 16:8 before
any
visions of the risen Jesus, which were added later in various differing
endings.
- Matthew was written c.70-80 by
an
unknown
author who later church tradition identified with the apostle Matthew,
but the text heavily quotes the non-eyewitness Mark rather than
providing
an independent eyewitness account. Matthew changes (21:5 vs. Mk 11:7)
or
embellishes (2:15, 2:23) its narrative to make it fulfill Old Testament
prophecies.
- Luke is a second-hand [1:2]
account written
c.80 by a supposed companion of Paul. Luke is confused (4:23, 31, 44;
24:12)
about Palestinian geography. Writing after the fall of Jerusalem, Luke
in 21:8 modifies Mark 13:6 to say the end is not necessarily near.
- John was written c.90 by an
unknown author
who is ambiguously identified (in the third person: 21:24) with the
apostle
John only in the final chapter, which is itself an apparent addendum.
Gospel
contradictions. Among the many minor contradictions and
inconsistencies
in the gospels are several that cast significant doubt on the gospels'
central message of a divine messiah foretold by the prophets.
- Genealogy. Wildly
contradictory
genealogies
for Jesus are given in Mt 1 and Lk 3, which cannot even agree on the
father
of Joseph.
- Birthplace. Lk 2:4 and 2:39
say
Joseph
and Mary lived in Nazareth before Jesus' birth, but Mt 2:23 says Joseph
only later moved his family to "a town called Nazareth".
- Birthdate. Luke says Jesus was
born during
[2:2] the census of Quirinius and before [1:5] the death of Herod. The
census was in 6 CE, but Herod died in 4 BCE.
- Chronology. John indicates
Jesus'
ministry
lasted two or three years, while the earlier Synoptic gospels indicate
one. John says Jesus cast out the money changers at the beginning of
his
ministry, while the Synoptics say it was right before his crucifixion.
- Second coming. Jesus said [Mt
16:28, Lk
9:27] some "standing here" would live to see "the kingdom of
God".
Jesus also said [Mk 13:30, Lk 21:32, Mt 24:34] that "this generation"
would
not pass away before the "see[ing] the Son of Man coming in clouds with
great power and glory" as well as a "distress" "never to be equalled".
Jesus' audience of course saw no such "kingdom" or "coming", and no
"distress"
like e.g. the Black Death or Holocaust.
- Appearances.
The poor geographer Luke places resurrection appearances only around
Jerusalem
[Lk 24:33,49], while the other three gospels [Mk 16:7, Mt 28:10-16, Jn
21:1] report Galilee appearances.
Gospel apologetics.
Certain assertions
and omissions in the gospels seem to either suspiciously deny or
unwittingly
create embarrassing alternative explanations for the claims therein.
- Self-fulfilling prophecy. The
gospels
repeatedly relate [Lk 2:4, Mt 2:15, 21:4, 27:9, Jn 19:23, 36]
hard-to-verify
(and easy-to-fabricate) details and then cite them as fulfillment of
prophecy.
Each of these details is in only one gospel.
- Vouching. The author(s)
of
John
protest (19:35 and 21:24) that the testimony quoted in this gospel is
true,
and admit (20:31) it has "been written so that you may believe". The
2nd
letter of Peter claims [1:16] the gospels are not "cleverly invented
stories",
then warns [2:3] that "false prophets" will employ "stories they have
made
up".
- John dies. John 21:23
(in
the appended
final chapter) makes an excuse for Jesus' apparent promise that John
would
not die before the second coming.
- Empty tomb. Alone among the
gospels, Matthew
[27:64] alleges an order by Pilate that Jesus' tomb be guarded to
prevent
his disciples from secretly removing his body. Matthew 28 reports a
widespread
story of such a secret removal and attempts to discredit it by saying
Pilate's
guards were bribed. In the other gospels the first disciples to check
the
tomb encounter no guards.
- Appearances.
In order of writing, the gospels give accounts of Jesus' resurrected
appearances
that are increasingly elaborate. None of the alleged (and almost
certainly
pseudepigraphic) letters of Peter, James, Jude, and John mention an
empty
tomb or a physical resurrection, even in contexts [1 Pet 3:18, 1 Pet
5:1,
2 Pet 1:16] where one might expect them to. The first written account
of
appearances (1 Cor 15) vaguely lumps them together with post-ascension
manifestations to Paul in a discussion of spiritual resurrection,
making
them suspect as accounts of bodily resurrection. Original Mark claims
an
empty tomb but describes no appearances. Matthew says simply that the
two
Marys and later the Eleven "saw him" but "some were dubious". Luke
elaborates
on both of these episodes, building the latter into an account that
approaches
the full Doubting Thomas story finally told in John. Thus, reports of
the
resurrection become more assertive as the accounts grow more removed
from
the actual events.
- Eyewitnesses.
There is no reliably first-hand testimony to the physical resurrection
of Jesus. Paul does not claim to be such a witness. Original Mark
contains
no appearances at all. Matthew is anonymous and contains no assertions
of first-hand witness by the author. The anonymous author of Luke
admits
he was not an eyewitness. In what appears to be an addendum, the
anonymous
author of John vaguely refers to "the beloved disciple" in the third
person
as "the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down"
[21:24], and otherwise makes no assertions of his own eyewitness.