(Please click here to redirect)
10 Reasons the Crucifixion Story Makes No Sense
(Please click here to redirect)
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Contradictions in the Resurrection Account
How many days did Jesus teach after his resurrection? Most Christians know that “He appeared to them over a period of forty days” (Acts 1:3). But the supposed author of that book wrote elsewhere that he ascended into heaven the same day as the resurrection (Luke 24:51).
When Jesus died, did an earthquake open the graves of many people, who walked around Jerusalem and were seen by many? Only Matthew reports this remarkable event. It’s hard to imagine any reliable version of the story omitting this zombie apocalypse.
The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other gospels).
- What were the last words of Jesus? Three gospels give three different versions.
- Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).
- How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
- Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
- Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?
- Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
- Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.
- Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according to John. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”
- Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Of course! She’d known him for years. At least, Matthew says that she did. But John makes clear that she didn’t.
- Could Jesus’s followers touch him? John says no; the other gospels say yes.
- Where did Jesus tell the disciples to meet him? In Galilee (Matthew and Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke and Acts)?
- Who saw Jesus resurrected? Paul says that a group of over 500 people saw him (1 Cor. 15:6). Sounds like crucial evidence, but why don’t any of the gospels record it?
- Should the gospel be preached to everyone? In Matthew 28:19, Jesus says to “teach all nations.” But hold on—in the same book he says, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Matt. 10:5). Which is it?
And there are lots more (thanks, Richard Russell).
Many Christians cite the resurrection as the most important historical claim that the Bible makes. If the resurrection is true, they argue, the gospel message must be taken seriously. I’ll agree with that. But how reliable is an account riddled with these contradictions?
Christian responses
I’ve seen Christians respond in three ways.
(1) They’ll nitpick the definition of “contradiction.” Contradictions, they’ll say, are two sentences of the form “A” and “not-A.” For example: “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” and “Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.” Being precise helps make sure we communicate clearly, but this can also be a caltrop argument, a way of dodging the issue. The issues listed above sure sound like contradictions to me, but if you’d prefer to imagine that we’re talking about “incongruities” or “inconsistencies,” feel free.
(2) They’ll respond to these “inconsistencies” by harmonizing the gospels. That is, instead of following the facts where they lead and considering that the gospels might be legend instead of history, they insist on their Christian presupposition, reject any alternatives, and bludgeon all the gospels together like a misshapen Swiss Army knife.
- How many women were at the tomb? Obviously, five or more, our apologist will say. When John only says that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, he’s not saying that others didn’t come, right? Checkmate, atheists!
- Why didn’t all the gospels note that a group of 500 people saw Jesus (instead of only Paul)? Why didn’t they all record the earthquakes and the zombie apocalypse (instead of only Matthew)? Our apologist will argue that each author is entitled to make editorial adjustments as he sees fit.
- Was the tomb already open or not? Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus or not? Did Jesus remain for 40 days or not? Should the gospel be preached to everyone or not? Did the women tell the disciples or not? Was Jesus crucified the day after Passover or not? Who knows what he’ll come up with, but our apologist will have some sort of harmonization for these, too.
Yep, the ol’ kindergarten try.
(3) They’ll try to turn this weakness into a strength by arguing that four independent stories (the gospels aren’t, but never mind) shouldn’t agree on every detail. If they did, one would imagine collusion rather than accurate biography written using eyewitness testimony. Yes, biography and collusion are two possibilities, but a third is that this could be legend.
Let’s drop any preconceptions and find the best explanation.
Wandering in a vast forest at night,
I have only a faint light to guide me.
A stranger appears and says to me:
“My friend, you should blow out your candle
in order to find your way more clearly.”
This stranger is a theologian.
—Denis Diderot
(This is a modified version of a post originally published 10/17/11.)
Photo credit: ThinkGeek
Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior
It’s Easter season. As with Christmas, I’ll be rerunning some posts relevant to the season for the next week or so. I hope you enjoy them.
History records many dying-and-rising saviors. Examples from the Ancient Near East that preceded the Jesus story include Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Baal. Here is a brief introduction.
Tammuz was the Sumerian god of food and vegetation and dates from c. 2000 BCE. His death was celebrated every spring. One version of the story has him living in the underworld for six months each year, alternating with his sister.
Osiris was killed by his brother Set and cut into many pieces and scattered. His wife Isis gathered the pieces together, and he was reincarnated as the Egyptian god of the underworld and judge of the dead. He was worshipped well before 2000 BCE.
Dionysus (known as Bacchus in Roman mythology) was the Greek god of wine and dates to the 1200s BCE. The son of Zeus and a mortal woman, Dionysus was killed and then brought back to life.
Adonis (from 600 BCE) is a Greek god who was killed and then returned to life by Zeus.
Attis (from 1200 BCE) is a vegetation god from central Asia Minor, brought back to life by his lover Cybele.
In the Canaanite religion, Baal (or Baʿal) was part of a cycle of life and death. Baal and Mot are sons of the supreme god El (yes, one of the names of the Jewish god). When El favored the death god Mot over Baal, the heat of the summer took over and Baal died. He was resurrected when his sister-wife killed Mot.
All these gods:
- came from regions that were close enough to the crossroads of Israel (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Asia Minor) for the ideas to have plausibly traveled there,
- were worshipped well before the time of Jesus, and
- died and rose again.
This is strong evidence either that the gospel writers knew of and could have been influenced by resurrecting god stories from other cultures or that these stories influenced the Jesus story when it was told from person to person. Remember that a newly converted gentile might have been a Dionysus worshipper. If the Jesus story at that point didn’t have him rising from the dead, memories that his prior god did would’ve put pressure on the Jesus story to improve in that direction.
Is it possible that Judea at this time was a backwater, and the people were unaware of the ideas from the wider world? That seems unlikely. The book of 2 Maccabees, written in c. 124 BCE, laments at how Hellenized the country was becoming. It says that the high priest installed by Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes “at once shifted his countrymen over to the Greek way of life.” The book complains about “an extreme of Hellenization and increase in the adoption of foreign ways” and the youth “putting the highest value upon Greek forms of prestige.”
In fact, the gospels themselves report that the idea of dying and rising again was a familiar concept. Jesus in the early days of his ministry was thought to be a risen prophet.
King Herod heard of [the ministry of Jesus], for His name had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.” But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has risen!” (Mark 6:14–16)
Christian objections
One Christian website does a thorough job attacking poorly evidenced parallels between Jesus and these prior gods. For example, was Dionysus really born to a virgin on December 25? Did Mithras really have 12 disciples? Was Krishna’s birth heralded by a star in the east? The author offers $1000 to anyone who can prove that any of these gods’ lists of parallels are actually true.
I’ll agree that there are strained parallels. One early work that has been criticized for too many claims and too little evidence is The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves (1875). The recent “Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ” by Acharya S also may be reaching.
I don’t have the expertise to weigh in on these many issues, so let’s grant the complaints and dismiss the many unsupportable specific parallels. What’s left is what really matters: that the Jesus story arose in a culture suffused with the idea of dying and rising saviors.
Apologists raise other objections.
Many of these gods actually came after Jesus. That’s why the list above only includes dying-and-rising gods who are well known to have preceded Jesus. There are many more such gods—Mithras, Horus, Krishna, Persephone, and others—that don’t seem to fit as well. In fact, Wikipedia lists life-death-rebirth deities from twenty religions worldwide, but I’ve tried to list above the six most relevant examples.
But Jesus really existed! He’s a figure from history, unlike those other gods. Strip away any supernatural claims from the story of Alexander the Great, and you’ve still got cities throughout Asia named Alexandria and coins with Alexander’s likeness. Strip away any supernatural claims from the Caesar Augustus story, and you’re still left with the Caesar Augustus from history (and a month in our calendar named after him). But strip away the supernatural claims from the Jesus story, and you’re left with a fairly ordinary rabbi. The Jesus story is nothing but the supernatural elements.
Most of those gods were used to explain the cycles of the seasons. Jesus isn’t like them. Yes, Christianity is different from all the other religions, but so is every other religion. If Christianity weren’t different from one of the earlier religions, it would just be that religion.
In another post I explore the Dionysus myth more fully to show the parallels with the Jesus story. That post also notes how Justin Martyr (100–165 CE) not only admitted to the similarities but argued that the devil put them in history to fool us.
Okay, they’re all myths, but the Jesus story is true myth. This was the approach of C.S. Lewis, who said, “The story of Christ is simply a true myth; a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference, that it really happened, and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s Myth where the others are men’s myths.”
So you admit that the Jesus story indeed has many characteristics of mythology but demand that I just trust you that it’s true? Sorry, I need more evidence than that.
And the throw-in-the-towel argument:
Just because Christianity developed in a culture that knew of other resurrecting gods doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t the real thing. And just because the Amazing Randi could do Uri Geller’s spoon-bending stunt through trickery doesn’t mean that Geller wasn’t doing it for real (but that’s the way to bet).
“You haven’t proven the gospel story false” isn’t much of an argument. Those who seek the truth go where the evidence points.
And here’s where the evidence doesn’t point: that humans worldwide invent dying-and-rising saviors … except in the Jesus case, ’cause that one was real!
I found that God never began to hear
my prayer for liberty until I began to run.
Then you ought to have seen
the dust rise behind me
in answer to prayer.
— Frederick Douglass
(This is a modified version of a post originally published 4/15/12.)
Photo credit: Wikipedia
Daniel’s End Times Prediction: a Skeptical Approach
I’ll wrap up this series on Daniel with one final interpretation of the 70-weeks prophecy, a secular one. If this interpretation is accurate, the 7 years of tribulation, the Rapture™, and all the rest are built on nothing.
(For the first Christian interpretation of Daniel 9 go here, and for the first post in this series, go here.)
Remember the timeframe of the composition of the book. It’s the beginning of the Maccabean Revolt, when things were looking pretty bleak. Jeremiah had said that 70 years in Babylon would erase the sins of the Jews, and God would bring them home and prosper them. But now it’s the 160s BCE, and Antiochus Epiphanes has massacred tens of thousands and polluted the Temple. What’s the deal? Wasn’t the suffering supposed to end?
That’s why Gabriel visits Daniel (in chapter 9) to say that it wasn’t 70 years, as Jeremiah thought, but 70 weeks of years. And—whaddya know?—from the standpoint of the audience, that long period was just about to end.
Below is the interpretation of Chris Sandoval (“The Failure of Daniel’s Prophecies”), which was taken largely from André LaCocque. I’ll step through Daniel 9:25–7 and give that skeptical interpretation.
From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the leader, comes, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
The 7 weeks and 62 weeks aren’t back to back. Let’s return to the 7 weeks and focus just on the 62 weeks. It starts when Jeremiah’s 70 years starts, in 605 BCE. That prophecy is the “word” that explains the exile and promises the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It ends 62 weeks later in 171 BCE (605 – 62×7 = 171) with the death of the Anointed One, high priest Onias III.
Jerusalem shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
The 7 weeks extend from 587 BCE when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar until 538 when Babylon itself was conquered and exiles returned to Judah (587 – 7×7 = 538). This isn’t part of the big timeline, nor does it need to be. Since we’ve gone from Jeremiah’s 70 years to Daniel’s 70 sevens of years, the number 7 (the number of completion) is obviously important. Chopping out a block of 7 sevens serves several purposes. It leaves a remaining timespan of 62 weeks that plausibly fits between important dates, that 49-year time period was roughly the time during which Jerusalem lay in ruins, and it’s numerically pleasing (with all those sevens).
After the sixty-two weeks, the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.
The 62 weeks is pulled out as a separate unit and makes sense as our primary block of time. Onias, the Anointed One, was put to death in 171.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
Antiochus Epiphanes is “the ruler.” He was the Seleucid king who corrupted (the word for “destroy” can also mean “corrupt” or “pervert”) the city and Temple. He had tens of thousands of Jews massacred. This was the beginning of the Maccabean Revolt.
He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.
This was also a period of civil war between traditional and Hellenized Jews. Antiochus killed high priest Onias, well-loved by the traditionalists, and made alliances with the Hellenized Jews. From the standpoint of the traditional Jews, the ones behind the rebellion and the writing of Daniel, those Hellenized Jews were collaborators or even traitors.
This begins the final week, 171–164 BCE.
In the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
Halfway through this “week,” Antiochus prevented Jewish sacrifices and created the “abomination that causes desolation,” the sacrifice of pigs to Zeus in the Jewish temple. (That’s discussed in detail in the first post in this series.)
Of course, this whole thing would’ve been a lot easier if the author had dropped the pretense and given names to things, but where would the fun be in that?
Like it or not, this interpretation is both more plausible and is far more honest to the text than the Christian interpretations.
Since the Bible and the church
are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from,
how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?
— Anonymous
Appendix: Here’s the timeline that shows the important dates (all BCE) and the blocks of time.
Photo credit: rogiro
Homosexuality in Nature
Christians often argue that homosexuality is unnatural. That is, the purpose of man/woman sex is clear—it’s what propagates the species. Any other kind of sex simply isn’t using human anatomy for what it was meant for. There’s only one way to properly fit the jigsaw puzzle pieces together.
The Catholic Church is a vocal proponent of this idea that homosexuality is unnatural. Let’s pause to savor this for a moment—that’s a community of celibate men, if you can imagine such a thing, calling another lifestyle unnatural.
But the fact is that homosexuality is natural. It’s widespread in nature and has been observed in 500 animal species, including all the great apes, of which humans are a part.
The science that explains homosexuality is immature—homosexuality might be the consolation prize, for example, or maybe it’s nature’s way of reducing competition among males—but why isn’t the point. It’s clearly natural, and that’s been recognized within society. We’re decades past the time when homosexuality was categorized as a mental disorder.
But natural doesn’t mean good, the Christian will say. Rape, violence, and cyanide are natural, and they’re harmful.
That’s true. Then let’s move the conversation from natural vs. unnatural to where it should be: good vs. harmful. Rape, violence, and cyanide are inherently harmful, but homosexuality isn’t.
Saying “I have homosexual inclinations, so I should act on them” is like saying, “I have alcoholic inclinations, so I should act on them.”
Once again, the issue is harm. Alcoholic inclinations cause harm, and homosexual inclinations don’t. What’s the problem caused by consensual homosexual sex (besides offending the Old Testament god)?
Homosexuals can be treated. They can become un-gay.
In 2012, Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, then the largest ex-gay organization in the U.S., said:
The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.
The organization disbanded less than two years later.
No, there’s little evidence that someone who is gay can become un-gay. And why would that be a goal, anyway? I love desserts and, frankly, it would do me some good to become an ex-lover of desserts. There are health benefits to doing so. But why become un-gay? (I mean, besides avoiding all the artificial obstacles homophobes erect against gays.)
But if everyone were homosexual, the population would die out!
Yes, and if everyone were female, the population would also die out. So what? No one’s saying that being female is bad or immoral or unnatural. It’s not the case that everyone is female, and it’s not the case that everyone is homosexual. No problem then! Anyway, animals have apparently been gay since forever, and evolution stumbles along just fine.
I’ll close with something that I wish I’d said:
Homosexuality exists in 500 species.
Homophobia exists in only one.
Which seems unnatural now?
I fear that we [Christians have] lost not only the culture wars,
but also our Christian identity,
when the “right to refuse” service has become
a more sincerely-held and widely-known Christian belief
than the impulse to give it.
— Rachel Held Evans
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/26/12.)
Photo credit: Gabludlow
Biblical Marriage: Not a Pretty Picture
Though the momentum in America is clearly toward allowing same-sex marriage, conservative Christians aren’t going gently. They imagine that the Bible is on their side. Let’s see if that claim holds up.
Jesus said, “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Mark 10:8). If the Bible said only that, the conservative Christian might indeed hold the winning hand, but it says much more. Things get messier the more we poke through the Bible.
Interracial Marriage. Deut. 7:3 says, “Do not intermarry with [those in the Canaanite tribes]. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” King Solomon got into trouble for violating this rule and marrying foreign wives (1 Kings 11).
So the Bible says that marriage is with someone of your own tribe.
Concubine Sex. King Solomon famously had 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Four of Jacobs 12 sons were from servants of his two wives, and Abraham’s first child was from his wife’s slave.
So the Bible legitimates sex with and children from slaves and concubines.
Rape. What single person hasn’t seen an attractive person across the bar or dance floor and struggled to find a way to break the ice? Here’s a fun approach: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her” (Deut. 22:28–9).
So the Bible says that if you see a woman and don’t want to go through that whole getting-permission thing, you can rape and then marry her.
Captured Women. “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (Num. 31:17–18; see also Deut. 21:11) I don’t know what we’re talking about here—whether it’s wife, concubine, or sex slave.
So the Bible says that capturing women (virgins only, please) is a reasonable way to get a bedmate. It doesn’t much matter whether the woman is on board with the project or not.
Slave Marriage. Exodus 21:4 says that a male Jewish slave can be released, but any wife given to him by his master (and her children) remain the master’s property.
So the Bible says that ownership trumps marriage.
Levirate Marriage. Say a man is married but dies before he has any children. Who inherits his stuff? To solve this problem, the Bible demands that another brother must marry this sister-in-law, with the firstborn child considered the dead brother’s heir. The Bible does more than simply document a curious local custom; God enforces it with the death penalty (Gen. 38:8–10).
So the Bible says that getting children as heirs for a deceased brother is more important than having your own children.
Polygamy. Abraham had two wives. Jacob also had two (or four, depending on how you count them). Solomon had 700.
God said to David, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.” (2 Sam. 12:8). God has his complaints about David, but polygamy isn’t one of them.
So the Bible says that marriage is between a man and one or more women.
Apologists like to excuse the Bible’s craziness with its many variations on marriage by saying that it simply reflects the culture of the time. It applied then, but it doesn’t apply now. I can accept that—just do the same when the Bible says, “A man shall not lie down with a man.” Put that into the same bin as levirate marriage, polygamy, or killing everyone in a tribe except the hot women that are kept for your pleasure.
The Bible also argues against marriage
Today’s Christian enthusiasm for marriage certainly wasn’t mirrored by the early church. Here’s what Paul says: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1). So much for the celebrated role of procreation (which I reject here).
Paul also said, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). In other words, marriage is the second best option.
Paul also rejected divorce (7:10–11). Those Christians concerned about the purity of marriage might want to look at their own house to see if they’re following the rules. (You could say that Paul rejected marriage only because he thought the end was near. This might help reinterpret his curious views on marriage, but of course his being dramatically wrong raises a whole new set of problems.)
Marriage wasn’t even a Christian sacrament until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. This wasn’t a popular move among civil authorities of the time, because it granted the church the power to decide which marriages were legal and which not—and therefore decide which contracts (often based on marriages) were valid and which not. When the Pope didn’t like an alliance, he could just annul the relevant marriage.
The argument that the Bible and the Church make a clear and unambiguous declaration that marriage is between a man and a woman is in tatters. Sure, let’s celebrate marriage, but let’s not delude ourselves about how recent our view of marriage is.
For more on this subject: “Homosexuality v. Christianity”
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—
and you are the easiest person to fool.
— Richard Feynman
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/5/12.)
Photo credit: patries71