Response to David Bentley Hart, author of Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies. Yale University Press, 2009

Response to David Bentley Hart, author of Atheist Delusions

Mr David Bentley Hart is listed online as an Eastern Orthodox theologian, philosopher, and cultural commentator. Besides his book deriding “atheist delusions,” he writes articles for the Christian publication, First Things. In one he summed up his defense of Christianity and disdain for non-theism, titled, “Believe It Or Not.”

I would like Mr. Hart to be more specific concerning the nature of the “social catastrophe” that he claims is occurring due to changing patterns in belief (or lack thereof), and exactly why the thought of such a “social catastrophe” makes him so much more wordy and volatile than the thought of other catastrophes humanity faces as a whole (or will probably continue to face in the future), like population growth outpacing economic growth in many places, or pollution continuing to build up in the environment, or economic inequality continuing to rise, or educational inequality and the need for everyone on earth to receive a good general education (a religious education alone is not going to help prevent politicians and others from making poor choices concerning humanityʼs future), not to mention other catastrophes like water shortages, natural disasters, etc.

Mr. Hart focuses at the end of his review on the thought of a broken human figure being connected with God, but he does not ask why humans weep at the sight of a broken human figure at all, or at a hurt animal. I suspect there is something more basic than “religion” going on, something more universal than “Christianity.”

Why does Hart not also mention that humans have a wealth of sayings on practical moral wisdom that can and have inspired other humans for thousands of years, including lines from great novelists and historians. Why not seek the best in every book and every person? In other words, does “Jesus” have to get “all the glory?” I also suspect that public schools in U.S. could teach classes in ethics, featuring all of the worldʼs greatest practical moral wisdom, and our children might be better off, but that there are so many people who believe that “Jesus must be treated as more than just a great moral teacher” who would cavil at the thought of having their children taught “heathen ethics” in school. So it appears to be the religious element that has left the public school system in the U.S. bereft of ethical teaching. At least thatʼs my current hypothesis. That, and the fact that so many people are barbaric in the sense of not even knowing much about the worldʼs practical moral wisdom from all the worldʼs sacred writings and philosophical writings and novelists, etc., and such people do not have much room in their minds to appreciate anything except “the words of God” in the only “holy book” they were taught to revere.

Secondly, does Mr. Hart assume there is only a single “Jesus” and a single “Christianity?” They are legion, and historians continue to debate a variety of views concerning the life and teachings of the historical Jesus. While “Christi-anities” continue to split off from one another like branches of an evolutionary tree, as do Muslim-anities, Hindu-anities, Buddhist-anities, etc.

Mr. Hart in his review sounds a bit like Kenneth Scott Latourette who extolled “Jesusʼ wide and profound effect upon humanity, especially in the past three or four generations… Through him millions of individuals have been transformed and have begun to live the kind of life which He exemplified… Through Him movements have been set in motion… Measured by His influence, Jesus is central in the human story.”

But exactly how many of societyʼs “influences” can be traced back to “Jesus?” Jesus didnʼt seem especially fond of earthly families when compared with the necessity of joining his particular “in group” of believers.

And how much do we owe to ancient Near Eastern culture? The Sumerians/Babylonians, who lived long before Jesus, taught in their Councils of Wisdom, “Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.” In The Dawn of Conscience James Henry Breasted showed how the earliest known recorded ethics and laws belonged to the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and Babylonians, who preceded the Hebrews. More recently, see David P. Wrightʼs, Inventing Godʼs Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (London: Oxford University Press, 2009). There is also the critically acclaimed work, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East. And, a three volume series, The Context of Scripture. Not to mention the book, Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions by William W. Hallo who lists the debt modern civilization owes to ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian ideas of urbanism, the formation of capital, the order of the alphabet, astronomy, mathematics, algebra, the division of the day into 24 hours, the hour into 60 minutes, the circle into 360 degrees, the coronation of kings, games, cookbooks, and much more.

Keeping such information in mind, Latourette can not reasonably assert that “Measured by his influence, Jesus is central in the human story.” The “human story” encompasses every civilization on earth over a very long period of time. “Jesus” was not “born” into the “human story” until a mere two thousand years ago. And after his birth it took ten to fifteen hundred years before the first Christian missionaries reached China and the Americas. (During that same period, Islam challenged Christianity and “won” the Eastern Half of the Christian Roman Empire, Christian North Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, parts of Russia, parts of India, and parts of Indonesia, to become the most widespread non-Christian religion on earth. Also, Communismʼs expansion was more explosive than either Christianityʼs or Islamʼs, and even after the decline of communist influence, it has left behind billions of “practical atheists” when it comes to religion. And Europe, once the home and center of Christian civilization, the continent that evangelized the world, was blessed with the plague and ceaseless wars between Christian rules and between Christian peoples, including as of last century, two World Wars (I guess Europe didnʼt have enough churches or Christian influence for enough centuries to prevent those from occurring), and Europe has enjoyed itʼs most prolonged period of great relative peace only during these past 70 years since the end of the second World War, in fact thatʼs more peace than Europe has EVER seen before when it was so enthusiastically “Christian.”)

I would agree with Hart and with Latourette if they had merely claimed that “Jesus” was known at least by name by billions. (But of those billions, how many different interpretations of “Jesus” exist?) I would also agree if he had merely claimed that the human story had been influenced to varying degrees by different interpretations of “Jesus.” But to brashly claim that “Measured by his influence, Jesus is central to the human story” demonstrates a lack of commitment to historical truth and accuracy. The “human story” is old and brimming over with “influences” stretching back to ancient civilizations both East and West. In Western civilization alone there were ancient Near Eastern influences as mentioned above, as well as Greek/Roman politics, art, architecture, law, science and philosophy; Islamic mathematics, astronomy, philosophy. Other major influences include “guns, germs, and steel” (see the book of the same name); the Renaissance; the Enlightenment; modern day socialist, humanist and feminist influences and ideals.

Speaking of the crucial influence that the Enlightenment exerted upon Christianity, theologian Albert Schweitzer pointed out the following:

For centuries Christianity treasured the great commandment of love and mercy as traditional truth without recognizing it as a reason for opposing slavery, witch burning and all the other ancient and medieval forms of inhumanity. It was only when Christianity experienced the influence of the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment that it was stirred into entering the struggle for humanity. The remembrance of this ought to preserve it forever from assuming any air of superiority in comparison with thought.

Pulitzer prize-winning political scientist, Francis Fukuyama put it this way:

There was a time when religion played an all-powerful role in European politics with Protestants and Catholics organizing themselves into political factions and squandering the wealth of Europe on sectarian wars. [Like the “Thirty Yearʼs War” that began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window, and which turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery, leading to the deaths of more than a quarter of Europeʼs population. - ED.] English liberalism emerged in direct reaction to the religious fanaticism of the English Civil War. Contrary to those who at the time believed that religion was a necessary and permanent feature of the political landscape, liberalism vanquished religion in Europe. After a centuries-long confrontation with liberalism, religion was taught to be tolerant. In the sixteenth century, it would have seemed strange to most Europeans not to use political power to enforce belief in their particular sectarian faith. Today, the idea that the practice of religion other than oneʼs own should injure oneʼs own faith seems bizarre, even to the most pious churchmen. Religion has been relegated to the sphere of private life - exiled, it would seem, more or less permanently from European political life except on certain narrow issues like abortion… Religion per se did not create free societies; Christianity in a certain sense had to abolish itself through a secularization of its goals before liberalism could emerge…Political liberalism in England ended the religious wars between Protestant and Catholic that had nearly destroyed that country during the seventeenth century: with its advent, religion was defanged by being made tolerant.

Even Robert Wuthnow, an evangelical Christian writer, admitted in Books & Culture (a newsletter produced by the editors of Christianity Today):

Framers of modern democratic theory in eighteenth century Europe [and colonial America - ED.] were profoundly influenced by the religious wars that had dominated the previous century and a half. Lockeʼs emphasis on tolerance and Rousseauʼs idea of a social contract were efforts to find unifying agreements that would discourage religious groups from appealing absolutely to a higher source of authority. The idea of civil society emerged as a way of saying that people who disagree with each other about such vital matters as religion could nevertheless live together in harmony.

But let us return to Hartʼs and Latouretteʼs praise of individuals in the “past three or four generations” whose lives “have been transformed and have begun to live the kind of life which He [Jesus] exemplified.” A few that stand out in my mind are Mohandas K. Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer, though Gandhi believed in focusing on whatever was best in each religion rather than trying to convert people from one religion to another. And Schweitzer was a noted theologian who rejected “the crooked and fragile thinking of Christian apologetics.” He later became a medical “missionary” in Africa because he held a liberal Christian philosophy based on a “reverence for life.”

And what about Clara Barton, the founder of the American Red Cross? Or Florence Nightingale, the woman who made nursing a legitimate profession for women and revolutionized hospital care (even encouraging hospitals to no longer be purely sectarian, but to allow ill people whichever clergy they preferred)? Or Jane Addams who launched the American settlement-house movement and modern utilitarian and pragmatic ideas of social welfare with the establishment of Hull-House, a place where residents of the surrounding slums could learn English, find affordable childcare, and receive social services; eventually Addams was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in social justice. Nightingale, Dunant, and Addams, all helped revolutionize charity, and all three were into social service, and universalistic views of religion, lying far from the exclusivist views held by many in their day. Furthermore, Dunant was gay and after he died his family burned his love letters written to another man. Addams lived with a woman whom she told “I am yours ‘til death’.” They viewed each other as a married couple. And Nightingale also mentioned her burning love of another woman in some strongly worded prose. Today people of all religions or none work in hospitals, and work for the betterment of mankind via agricultural science and medical science.

There are innumerable charitable organizations today; from international peace-seeking (and hunger-fighting) organizations to a multitude of national and local charities. In the U.S. such charities as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the Muscular Dystrophy Association are supported by donations to The United Way, which helps raise contributions for thousands of other national and local charitable organizations few of which are connected with religion or a particular religious denomination. And there are plenty of other charities seeking to help others like the Will Rogers Institute and Comic Relief. More food is given away each year by secular organizations and governments than by “Christians.” Such work has more to do with a simple wish to help others than with “Jesus” per se.

Speaking of “Jesusʼ influence” on nations today, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and most other nations of northern Europe contain relatively low percentages of “Christians,” yet their human rights records, their generosity, their average education levels, their quality of life, lengthy life spans, low crime rates, and low poverty rates, put the rest of the world to shame, including the far more “Christian” United States. Scandinavians also have the lowest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the world. They instituted comprehensive teaching in birth control in their schools, and it worked. The leaders of Scandinavia have a long record of working for world peace. Swedes have been in Bosnia far longer than Americans removing land mines. The leaders of Norway initiated the peace talks between the PLO and Israel.

Japan is another industrialized nation whose people have longer average life spans, higher average education levels, less poverty, lower crime rates, a lower percentage of their population in prison, and lower abortion rates than the United States, and yet 56% of Japanese “do not believe in God or a Universal Spirit or were uncertain.” Compare that with the 90% of the U.S. population who “believe in God.” (Countries that have as high a percentage of “believers in God” as the U.S. include Northern Ireland and Iran, and the country with the highest percentage of believers in God is Nigeria. Check out how blessed Nigeria is.)

Hart admits of course that many movements and organizations throughout history that have emphasized “Jesus” have also wound up promoting suspicion, fear, divisiveness, inequality, intolerance, bigotry, hatred, subjugation, persecution, slavery, torture, terrorism, and war. And I fully appreciate what Hart wrote in the midst of his review, namely that

“Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophets—a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties.”

Thank you Mr. Hart, and also thank you for sending me that personal email response informing me that you were “not religious.” I think your readers ought to know that fact, and you also owe them perhaps a statement concerning what you DO believe and how you came to that belief.

Sincerely, Edward T. Babinski, editor of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists (paperback published 2003).

Greg Bahnsen, presuppositional Christian apologist, Reconstructionist, Theonomist, as mentioned in a section of a new book on Christian Reconstruction by Assoc. Prof. of Religion, Michael J. McVicar

Greg Bahnsen, presuppositional Christian apologist

Click here to peek inside the book.

Greg Bahnsen

Soon after a young Greg Bahnsen met R. J. Rushdoony at an Orthodox Presbyterian Church gathering Greg decided to become a minister, but not just any minister. Bahnsen became a presuppositionalist Christian apologist like Rushdoony, who urged that there could be no neutrality between the Reformed Christian view and all other views whether they be rival Christian or non-Christian views. He, like R. J. Rushdoony, attempted to defend principles of biblical law that he was certain had been revealed to Moses as the most divinely pleasing laws of all, laws that would also ensure Godʼs blessing for any nation whose rulers enforced them or at least avoid Godʼs curses settling on that nation.

The Institutes of Biblical Law (published 1973) was Rushdoonyʼs three-volume work on how Christians (after they gained leadership roles in government) ought to implement laws including stoning and burning at the stake for adultery, homosexuality, and idolatry, and the legalization of Biblical slavery. To quote Rushdoony, “Since unbelievers are by nature slaves, they could be held as life-long slaves” without piercing the ear to indicate their voluntary servitude (Lev. 25:44-46). This passage in Leviticus says that pagans could be permanent slaves and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews,” adding, “The (Biblical) Law here is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognizes his position and accepts it with grace.” Neither is such a view dead today. 2016 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee apparently endorses Christian Reconstructionist ideas, see here.

Bahnsen, like Rushdoony, cited Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Bahsen believed that that statement attested to the “abiding validity of the law [of the Old Testament] in exhausting detail,” that Bahsen defended in his mammoth book that appeared in 1977, Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

When his book was published Bahnsen was a junior professor of apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) in Jackson, Mississippi. One critic of Bahnsen at RTS mentioned that Bahnsen had a tendency to speak “first, third, and last on all issues” in faculty meetings. And some charged that he encouraged his supportive students to attack the positions of other faculty members. When the RTS faculty called on Bahnsen to defend his reading of Matthew 5 as justifying the re-implementation of Mosaic laws and punishments Bahnsen aggressively defended himself and insulted several of the faculty during the impromptu meeting. Afterwards, faculty members hostile to Bahnsen cracked down on his disruptive students. And officials in the wider RTS system delayed implementing curriculum changes that Bahnsen had developed. His job was on the line. In retaliation Bahnsen attempted to combat the faculty by seeking support for his views from faculty members at RTS Atlanta and from leaders and ministers of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

During this heated period Rushdoony offered counsel to Bahnsen and his students. He told Bahsenʼs students that their professor had led them poorly, adding that Bahsen had also encouraged them to act lawlessly. Rushdoony explained that their duty as students was to complete their training, not defend a specific faculty member, and that they should rejoice at the progress reconstructionism was making. In short, work hard, keep your mouths shut, and remain theonomists/reconstructionists without trying to resolve all problems within the church overnight. “Greg,” Rushdoony wrote, “you must place yourself under authority.” In particularly harsh words, Rushdoony called Bahnsen a “big baby, determined to get your own way,” adding, “Please stop writing letters [to faculty in other Reformed seminaries and to OTC church-men, asking for them to defend him]. Leave it to the Lord. You have a great future! Donʼt get in your own way!” [letter from Rushdoony to Bahnsen, 9/20/1978]

Nearly a decade later, James B. Jordan, one of Bahnsenʼs most supportive and influential students, wrote an open letter to the RTS Jackson faculty in which he apologized for siding with Bahnsen, who he now recognized as being “vocal and belligerent” during the controversy. Jordan insisted that he and other students tried to restrain Bahnsen in his dealings with faculty and students, many of whom Bhansen apparently regularly abused in class. “Had the faculty addressed Bahnsen primarily on the question of his personal deportment,” wrote Jordan, “who could have defended him? Unfortunately, the faculty chose to debate the theological question of ‘theonomy,’ and this put me (and others) in the position of standing with Bahnsen in that respect. As the debate heated up, I confess that I wound up involved in the theological debate.”

The end result was that the seminary refused to renew Bahnsenʼs contract in 1978. And he wound up with a job as a church pastor and a high school teacher at a private Christian academy, though he gained some notoriety for his public debates with Catholics, with rival Protestants who rejected his Reconstructionist point of view, and with atheists. Throughout the 1970s and 80s many theses and dissertations were composed by Christians students from Dallas Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and dozens of other Christian institutions who were critical of Bahnsenʼs presuppositional apologetic approach, theonomic interpretation of Old Testament laws, or his postmillennial view of the millennium. Christianity Today even published on Feb. 20, 1987, an expose of Christian Reconstruction that featured caricatures of Rushdoony, Gary North and Greg Bahnsen.

During the short time Bahnsen was a junior professor at the aforementioned Reformed seminary he influenced a few students who would later become major activists, speakers and writers in the Reconstructionist movement, such as Kenneth Gentry, James B. Jordan, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and even, Paul Jennings Hill (who shot the pro-abortion surgeon Dr. John Britton in the head with a shotgun, also killing Brittonʼs escort and wounding Brittonʼs wife). During the 1980s Hill had become active in the anti-abortion movement. Bahnsenʼs theonomic perspective convinced Hill that murdering abortionists was a revolutionary act justified under biblical law. In 2003 the Washington Post reported that Hill exclaimed, “I expect to get a great reward in heaven. I am looking forward to glory.”

Bahnsen was a postmillennialist. Christians remain at odds over their interpretations of the “millennium” in the Bible as demonstrated in, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Zondervanʼs Counterpoint series) which features a debate between postmillennialist Kenneth Gundry, Jr. (Bahnsen Theological Seminary, Placentia, Calif.), amillennialist Robert Strimple (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia), and premillennialist Craig Blaising (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.).

Greg Bahnsen, one of the leaders of the Christian Reconstruction school of thought, died tragically December 11, 1996, at the relatively young age of 47 after complications resulting from an artificial heart valve implant. One of his students who became a well known Reconstructionist under his tutelage also died young, David Chilton, of a heart attack at 46.


Bahnsen began his debate with atheist Gordon Stein with the rhetorical flourish, “Just look at the stars and the over 500 witnesses to Jesusʼ resurrection!” How can one not believe in the Christian God?

Stein in response ought to have noted that the witnesses were all listed as “brethren” to begin with. Apparently Jesus was shy when it came to appearing to anyone except those who had already been following him. And Jesus is even shyer when it comes to appearing to people these past 2000 years. Judging by Catholic figures Mary has made more appearances to more people than Jesus during the past 2000 years, though that apparently would not be enough to convince Bahnsen to convert to Catholicism. As for Bahnsenʼs argument that nothing makes any sense without God, the Christian God to be exact, even the conservative Reformed Christian God, I would disagree. I have read the Bible. Anyone who claims it makes perfect sense canʼt deny all the questions it provokes, even in believers who have to chalk up such plain questions to “apparent” discrepancies or “apparent” contradictions, i.e., of one part of the Bible with another, or of the Bible with science, or of certain bloody parts of the Bible with more broadly recognized moral intuitions, etc. So when it is convenient, when the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible is at stake, believers go all out to argue that “appearances” can also be deceiving.

Also see my piece on Prior Prejudices and the Argument from Reason as well as Complexity is how the Cosmos flows. Mathematical Models of Reality and the Fine-Tuning Argument do not constitute proof of the kind that Intelligent Design advocates insist they do.


VIDEO, The True Origins of Presuppositional Apologetics


Some Christians try to accept the presuppositionalist apologetic stance of a Cornelius Van Til, a Rushdoony or a Bahnsen while not accepting their interpretations of the Bible which led those same men to proclaim the necessity for Christians to return to Mosaic laws and punishments, including their idiosynractic views concerning economics, and their literal interpretations of the first eleven chapters of Genesis (the stories about creation, fall, flood, tower of Babel—stories that many Evangelicals are more hesitant today to declare to be authentic history).

But Christians who just wish to accept the presuppositionalistsʼ claim to the “foundation of all knowledge,” then must grant that such a claim seems to have granted the founders of presuppositionalism no perceptible advantage when it came to actually Gaining Knowledge—their apologetic approach does not appear to have granted them superior powers of interpretations of Godʼs revelation, not in terms of law, economics, biology or even ancient Near Eastern studies.

Complexity is how the Cosmos flows. Mathematical Models of Reality and the Fine-Tuning Argument do not constitute proof of the kind that Intelligent Design advocates insist they do. (ADDED BONUS: “The Dexter of Parasites”)

Look at the way a river becomes thousands of separate tributaries as it nears the sea, a neat visual analogy for complexity—a single river that breaks off into multiple branches without direct application of intelligence being involved because thatʼs what water and land do together. That is an increase in complexity that illustrates how basic and inherent in nature complexity is.

Complexity

Lena River Delta, Russia

The island complex at the north end of Spring Lake, Pool 2, in the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area shows a variety of floodplain forests, wetlands, and aquatic vegetation

The Yukon River Delta, Alaska

Changes in the connectivity of the channel network structure on the Wax Lake Delta reflect its growth. The Wax Lake Delta is the only portion of the greater Mississippi River Delta complex that is growing over time.

Mathematical models have been produced to help explain the formation of such complex intricate formations on earth. There are models based on detailed computational fluid dynamics as well as competing models such as rule-based cellular morphodynamic models. As we will see, the formation of such complex intricate non-living formations does not lend distinction to the ideas of Intelligent Design advocates at the Discovery Institute.

To understand how complexity arises from relative simplicity, letʼs start at the beginning…

Our cosmos had to cool down for the first sub-atomic particles to congeal out of the unbelievably high energies and temperatures at our cosmosʼs birth. As it began to cool the first subatomic particles congealed into atoms, and then due to the force of gravity (the basic attraction of masses to other masses) those simple atoms congealed into stars. The pressure of gravity pushed those simple atoms together until atoms with more protons and electrons began to arise. Then many stars eventually exploded and heavier even more complex atoms were formed by the force of such explosions including carbon, nitrogen, oxygen up to uranium and beyond. Then as planets and asteroids cooled down, along with the insides of comets, the carbon and other atoms in space began to bond together forming longer chains of atoms.

Simply by virtue of the process of the cosmos Cooling Down, and also by virtue of Masses Attracting Other Masses, complexity arose.

The earliest most violent energies of the cosmos cooled down and congealed into subatomic particles that congealed into simple atoms that were attracted to one another by gravity that formed stars that formed the whole range of more complex atoms that began to congeal into molecules, some of which congealed into longer self replicating molecules.

So the second law of thermodynamics and the attraction of mass to other masses brought forth ever more complexity.

Consider this further analogy, you take a bottle of ink and throw it at a wall. Smash! The ink spreads forth. In the middle, itʼs dense. But out on the edge, little droplets of ink get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns. In the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. You and I, sitting here in this room, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the little curlicues on the furthest edges of the ink. So we define ourselves as being only that… as one very complicated little curlicue, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time. But billions of years ago is when everything including “you” began. You donʼt feel that youʼre still the big bang. But you are… Youʼre not just something thatʼs a result of the big bang. Youʼre not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are a moving embodiment of a process that has remained in motion since the big bang.

But weʼve learned to define ourselves as separate from it. Some people even view the intelligibility of the cosmos and humanityʼs intellect as something separate from the cosmos. But we are the cosmos, embodied, which is why it is perfectly reasonable that it is intelligible to us.

But getting back to the river and all those tributaries that multiply and divide and subdivide in increasing complexity, the river of life appears to function in a similar fashion, and involves genes that get duplicated and mutated, which happens all the time. And whatever proteins these genes code for donʼt have to be 100 efficient. As more genes get duplicated they get added to ever growing cascades full of similar gene and hence similar protein complexes. Lifeʼs Ratchet and similar works listed here, here explain how the development of ever more complex processes proceeds by one process building on another, branches continuing to form, like all those tributaries of the river I mentioned. Each step in gene mutation and new protein formation leads to both new possibilities as well as new restrictions as to where future mutated branches as a whole may lead. This is not a sign of organisms being directed with a vast amount of forethought, but it is evidence that complexity is a natural ratcheting process inherent to the cosmos.

As for what nature and the cosmos is in essence, that remains a mystery about which all one can say is that the cosmos is constantly in motion and the evolution of life goes hand in hand with death and extinction. We live in a cosmos as fine-tuned for rainbows and sunny days as it is for floods, droughts—as fine-tuned for the evolution of replicating life forms as it is for their death and extinction—as fine-tuned for zygotes as it is for tumors—as fine-tuned for predators as it is for prey—and as fine-tuned for parasites as it is for parasites that live on those parasites that live on those parasites that live on those parasites, etc., up to five levels deep according to the latest examples known, right down to strands of genomic material parasitizing other strands of genomic material—see, “The Dexter of Parasites” here.

Speaking of the cosmos as a whole, nobody knows exactly what the cosmos is in essence, nor how it functions on every level. It functions in locally observable instances via feedback of one part to another—but feedback is inherent in nature, the simplest sort being the mutual attraction of two masses for one another, and later the way whole molecules attracted other molecules, and later, the way some larger molecules attracted smaller molecules and started replicating themselves (as even a single strand of RNA can do in a test tube with raw materials, or as a strand of viral RNA does inside a living cell, or as other strands of parasitical genomic material do inside living cells).

On some level physicists argue that the cosmos as a whole might even function via feedback from all parts to all parts, without centralized sovereignty, like the Internet, which is to say it is not necessary to imagine the cosmos as having to function in the style of a human despot, an American corporation, or Christian theology. It may function via decentralized intelligence, rich in circular-causal feedback, both local and universal feedback loops. That is also how the brain-mind system appears to function, via a constant feedback process.

How does the human ability to develop and use mathematical equations fit into the picture? Humans are pattern seekers, and when a mathematical equation can be used to model the curve of some observable measurable squiggly line in nature, we take note, just as we take note when a cloud looks like a human face.

As for purely theoretical mathematics, it is a vast enterprise with many different schools, and most of it does not resemble anything in nature, but it follows the axioms of whatever school of mathematics it is related to, and axiomatically speaking 1 = 1, which is no great mystery. Rats, pigeons, raccoons, and chimpanzees—can perform simple mathematical calculations, and human infants also have a rudimentary number sense.

But, do mathematical models equal reality? How can they, when it is plain that no word equals the thing in itself, no map equals the territory in itself, and no model of reality equals reality in itself, not even mathematical models.

Math is a model of reality, not reality itself. Newtonian equations define gravity at one level, via one perspective, but you need different, Einsteinian light-bending equations to model the effects of gravity on vaster levels. As soon as we discover new interactions that bend energies in new directions we need more equations to model those reactions. But reality itself is beyond math.

Some wonder if there is a mathematical basis to the cosmos that is nearer the essence of the cosmos than anything else we see, hear, or feel. But as I said, no word equals the thing in itself, no map equals the territory in itself, and even mathematical models are models of reality, not reality itself in its multi-faceted fullness.

Each field of mathematics is like the game Candyland. You accept certain axioms to begin with. You have a pre-set board and pieces, then you shuffle the cards and deal them out one by one following the directions on each card according to the rules of the game, but the game is determined by the axiomatic rules you agreed to start with, and it unfolds as you play it and move in different directions, whereby you discover your path through Candyland. In similar fashion each field of math unfolds based on the axiomatic rules one starts with, so new “discoveries” in math are not necessarily of things that exist in some Platonic realm of perfect math, nor “in the mind of God the mathematician.” Instead, mathematical discoveries unfold as you play each game by the axiomatic rules you agreed to start with in the first place.

Speaking of axioms, how do we know that 1 is not 2, or as in the case of symbolic logic, A is not B? Well, animals, even single-celled animals such as amoeba can tell the differences between things. They can detect and chase prey, they can tell when things are different and when they are similar, and they learn to react according. In similar fashion, mathematicians and poets with far more than just the single-celled capabilities of an amoeba, but instead with 100 billion cells in their brains connected via a trillion electro-chemical synapses, tend to notice far more astutely than your average amoeba when things are different or when they are similar or analogous to one another, such as when clouds look like faces or mathematical equations look like curves measured in nature, hence the faculty of noticing “differences” and “sameness” is rife in nature, and obviously comes in handy whenever equations from different fields of math or physics resemble one another or contain elements that overlap with one another.

So, on the topic of the discoverability of the cosmos, discoverability is inherent in us because we are children of the cosmos. We did not come into this cosmos, we came out of it. As for the essence of what a “cosmos” is, that remains a great question — we only have limited hypotheses concerning this cosmosʼs origin, as well as limitations concerning our knowledge of its size since telescopes can only see so far, and if the cosmos expanded faster than the speed-of-light early on then most of it still remains invisible to our telescopes since the light from those most distant parts has not yet even reached our telescopes. Even if our telescopes could see to the end of our cosmos this might not be the only cosmos there could be cosmoses outside our own. This cosmos might also begin anew or sprout other cosmoses. Our knowledge in all such cases consists of multiple possible hypotheses, along with our limited knowledge of the cosmoses smallest and largest dimensions, or even the number of dimensions in our cosmos. What IS a cosmos, what can it or canʼt it do?

As for the claim that the cosmos is “fine-tuned,” one can only ask, “fine-tuned” for what exactly? Fine-tuned such that life and evolution are merely in equilibrium with death and extinction?

We see a cosmos that is fine-tuned merely to the extent that there is

  • life/death
  • evolution/extinction
  • hosts/parasites
  • predators/prey
  • calmness/emotional tsunamis
  • clarity/confusion
  • happiness/sorrow
  • pleasure/suffering
  • beauty/ugliness

And our speciesʼ hard won knowledge and wisdom (that took ages to acquire) is merely in equilibrium with ignorance and easily acquired cultural prejudices picked up by each newborn.

Civilization seems to evolve like organisms do, via a lengthy ratchet process, acquiring knowledge slowly and painfully, generation after generation, and the ratcheting isnʼt guaranteed as one can see from historyʼs many pratfalls along the way, kind of like the way so many subspecies or cousin species become extinct for every species that flourishes.

One also cannot help but notice that there are hermit species and social species, herbivores and carnivores, animals that mate for life, others that live to mate… and some that eat their mates. In nature thereʼs also mothers who eat their sons and daughters, fathers who kill other fatherʼs children, daughters who eat their mothers, sons that mate with their mothers, and brothers and sisters who kill and/or devour each other in the womb. For examples see here.

Nature is basically one big buffet. Sometimes they eat you to death, or weaken you to death, sometimes they live off your juices just a little and are relatively benign, and sometimes they produce juices you can eat too (i.e., symbiosis — like the way we breathe the farts of algae and trees). But basically nature is constantly grinding up old organisms and spitting out new ones. Not sure what kind of weird ass Designer or Tinkerer came up with such a scheme.


ADDENDUM BY LANCE EMIL

Ed wrote, “Feedback is inherent in nature, the simplest sort being the mutual attraction of two masses for one another.”

In all factuality there are probably a great many more subtle things going on beneath that attraction than you or I or maybe any human will ever know (re. Higgs field which gives mass to things, search for gravitons, etc); when one studies matter and the universe at a quantum level weird things start to happen: the universe seems to be studying you (or at the very least, interacting strangely with you - like it “wants” what you expect it to do while youʼre watching, but when you look away, not so much; hand-in-the-cookie-jar style).

I think the problem with looking for “intelligent design” in anything is semantic: I know dolphins speak, but their language is beyond my comprehension; dolphins know something I DONʼT AND PERHAPS NEVER WILL. And for the present, they donʼt seem all that inclined to teach me how. If there is an “intelligence” reflected in the way the universe acts with respect to me, and I donʼt have the intellectual fortitude to understand the language of a species of mammal living on my own planet, how am I supposed to understand that intelligenceʼs language? As you so succinctly point out above, complexity becomes form seemingly all on its own. To me - trying hard to avoid purely mystical thinking along the way - this sure looks “intelligent.” But then, so do dolphins.


The Inevitability of Lifeʼs Origin?

Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

Englandʼs theoretical results are generally considered valid. It is his interpretation — that his formula represents the driving force behind a class of phenomena in nature that includes life — that remains unproven. But already, there are ideas about how to test that interpretation in the lab.

“Heʼs trying something radically different,” said Mara Prentiss, a professor of physics at Harvard who is contemplating such an experiment after learning about Englandʼs work. “As an organizing lens, I think he has a fabulous idea. Right or wrong, itʼs going to be very much worth the investigation.” Click here for more info.

Biblical scholars, including those who are Evangelical Christians, generally agree in viewing the sayings of Jesus in the fourth Gospel (the Gospel of John) with greater suspicion than sayings in the other three Gospels

The fourth Gospel, John

Why are Jesusʼ sayings and doings in the Gospel of John viewed with greater suspicion that those in the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke? Because…

  1. The Gospel of John, starts with the authorʼs claims ABOUT Jesus. Its lengthy theological introduction contains the words and praises of the author, not Jesus. And you find words and phrases similar to the authorʼs put into the mouths of John the Baptist and Jesus in the first few chapters. Not high evidence favoring their authenticity. More likely the authorʼs own creation, including the dialogues of the Baptist and Jesus in chapters 2-3.

  2. Scholars suspect that Jesus never said “Ye must be born again,” and with plenty of good reasons for doing so. See here.

  3. The story of the anointing of Jesus by Mary, sister of Lazarus, as well as the tale of Lazarusʼ resurrection are tales that seem to have arisen via combining earlier Gospel tales about individual women who anointed Jesus, where they lived, how they anointed Jesus, and then adding a figure from a Lukan parable, a beggar, named “Lazarus,” turning him into a wealthy person with “two sisters” (taken from Luke who never mentions “Lazarus” as an historical person). You can easily see how the fourth Gospel writer could have plucked all the information for his tale from Mark and Luke, reusing information from their Gospels to create a new tale about Jesus, indeed a new marvelous miracle never heard before. See here.

  4. Nor does the Gospel of John hesitate to have plenty of characters recognize Jesus as the Messiah right in its first chapter. Compare the synoptic gospels, especially in Mark (1:11, 25, 34, 441 9:9, etc.), where Jesus refrains from announcing his Messiahship in public, and Peter is the lone apostle to mention it out loud, and only later in the story. In fact in Matthew multitudes hail Jesus merely as a prophet (Matthew 21:10). But in GJohn Jesus is recognized by his disciples as the Messiah right in chapter one as soon as they hear about him, and the Baptist declares Jesusʼ whole mission in a nutshell, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” from the very beginning of his ministry. Jesus spends all of his other discourses talking about himself (John 1:16,29-34,41,45,49,51; 2:11,18; 3:13-30; 4:25-26,42; 5:18-47; 6:25-69; 7:28-29; 9:37; 10:25-26,30-36). He doesnʼt teach the people in parables about the kingdom of God, heʼs constantly talking about himself.

  5. Note also how Matthew 11:2-6 and Luke 7:18-23 agree that John the Baptist wavers in faith in Jesus as Messiah; but in the Fourth Gospel (1:16, 29-34 and 3:27-30) thereʼs no mention of such wavering. John the Baptist recognizes Jesus as Messiah from first to last—even calling him “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” soon after his baptism.

  6. The Synoptics date Jesusʼ crucifixion on the day of the Passover (Matthew 26:171 Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7), whereas John places it on the day before the Passover, and at a different hour of the day (John 13:1,29; 18:28; 19:14,31,42). Scholars suspect that the reason for changing the day and hour of Jesusʼ death in the last written Gospel was to suit the theological notion of its author that Jesus was “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” putting such an announcement into the mouth of John the Baptist—and wishing to bring it up again at the moment of Jesusʼ death. Therefore he altered Jesusʼ day and hour of execution so it would coincide with the day and hour the “Passover lambs” were being slain. (Unfortunately, having altered the day (and hour) to try and make a theological point, the Johnnine author never concerned himself with the fact that Passover lambs were not slain for “sin.” The animal in the Hebrew Bible that did have the “sins of the people” placed on it was not a lamb at all, but a goat—neither was the goat slain but kept alive in order to carry away the sins of the people into the wilderness, i.e., the “scape goat.”)

  7. And though the account of Jesusʼ baptism in one of the earlier Gospels, Mark 1:9 (cf. 1:4 and 10:18), leaves open the suspicion that John the Baptist was greater than Jesus and that Jesus was sinful, the fourth Gospel (John 1:29-34 and 3:26) eliminates such suspicions.

  8. Jesusʼ concern for Israel as depicted in the earlier gospel, Matthew 10:5-6 and 15:24 is unknown to the Jesus in John 5:45-471 8:31-47. Instead, more than sixty times the word(s) “Jews” and/or “The Jews,” are used in GJohn to depict Jesusʼ enemies, even by Jesus himself. (Since Jesus himself was a “Jew” the repeated use of such a broad term makes greater sense if it was not spoken by the historical Jesus, but was a phrase that began cropping up more often after a rift had continued to grow wider between Christian communities and “The Jews.”)

  9. In the synoptic Gospels Jesus is under the Law (Matthew 5:17-20) and observes the Passover Meal (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7), whereas Jesus in John is not under the Law and therefore does not partake in the Passover Meal (John 13:1). Accordingly, Johnʼs Jesus refers to “your Law” (John 8:17; 10:34; cf. 7:19; 18:31) and “their Law” (15:25).

  10. Preaching about the coming kingdom was central to the synoptics and mentioned 17 times in GMark, starting with Mark 1:15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Matthew changes it to “kingdom of heaven”) Matthew and Luke mention “kingdom of heaven/God” and/or “kingdom” 30 times or more, each). But “kingdom of God” only appears twice in the fourth Gospel and “kingdom” two times. Thatʼs because the fourth Gospel is a later creation and has distanced itself from the apocalyptic Jesus and is busy trying to institutionalize Christianity and Christian sacramental views.

  11. Jesus of the synoptic gospels is a charismatic healer-exorcist and end-time Suffering Servant who speaks as though a Son of Man will soon arrive to inaugurate the final judgment and bring on the supernatural kingdom of God (Matthew 10:23; Mark 10:18), whereas in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is the Logos incarnate on earth, a God-Man who exorcises no demons but who proclaims a sacramental, mystical, physical, churchly, doctrine of redemption. Itʼs a later version of Jesus. Itʼs a later “sacramental” tale, because baptism and the Lordʼs Supper (“you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have NO life within you”) are aligned with the message about the necessity of a “new birth;” itʼs “mystical” because these sacraments produce “union” with God and Christ (“we shall be one”); itʼs “physical” because these sacraments are physical means that produce a physical effect, the glorification of the flesh to make the flesh capable of resurrection; itʼs “churchly” because these sacraments must be administered by the church, for only in the church can the Spirit unite with the elements to produce salvation and/or ensure the resurrection of the flesh.

  12. In the synoptic Gospels Jesus spoke openly during the day to whomever asked him “how to inherit eternal life,” and placed commands of obedience, such as honoring oneʼs parents, and not stealing from other people, or even giving away oneʼs money to the poor, high on the list of “how to inherit eternal life.” Only in the fourth Gospel does Jesus answer how to inherit eternal life based on the singular necessity of being “born again,” and that singular message was not even taught in public but to a single person “at night,” yet everyone who doubts it is “damned already.” The fourth Gospel more so than the earlier three teaches that one must “believe” or, be “damned.” “Eat the flesh and drink the blood,” or you “have no life within you.” It does not say people will be judged according to their “works” as in Matthew, instead the fourth Gospel states, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

  13. The fourth Gospel is filled with “anti-language” according to social scientists. It is not a gospel about “loving oneʼs neighbor/enemies,” neither of which are commanded nor even mentioned in the fourth Gospel, but instead it is about focusing on loving fellow believers and maintaining oneʼs indoctrination, or in the idiom of cults, “love bombing,” and maintaining in-group thinking, while everyone else can go to hell. See here.

To reiterate points 2) and 3) above, there are plenty of reasons to doubt that John 3 is something the historical Jesus said. See here. And there are plenty of reasons to doubt that the Gospel of Johnʼs tale about the raising of Lazarus (and Jesusʼ anointing by a “sister” of “Lazarus”) is something that happened. See here.

The apostle Paul, fanaticus extremus, all the symptoms of your typical religious fanatic rolled into one (Part 2 of a 2 Part Series)

The apostle Paul, fanaticus extremus, all the symptoms of your typical religious fanatic rolled into one

What kind of person was Paul really? How many religious people throughout history would you not consider to be fanatics for judging and cursing everyone for believing differently, commanding their flock that it was best not to touch a woman, and it was best for married couples to live like they were celibate, and predicting that the Lord was coming soon? Why is Paul the only one we are supposed to take seriously? Based on statements in his own letters he comes off like the trifecta of fanatics.

We can get some knowledge of Paul based on statements he made in his letters, though thereʼs precious little we can count on when it comes to knowing much about Peter or James, including whether the Greek epistles attributed to them were actually written by Aramaic speaking fishermen—and just two short epistles attributed to Peter and one short epistle attributed to James are in the Christian canon. Thatʼs all from the pillars of the church? While Paulʼs letters crowd those questionable epistles out by far—even though it is believed that Peter and James walked with a flesh and blood Jesus for a year or more, while Paul did not. Sounds fishy to me that so few and questionable first hand letters survive from the pillars while so much from Paul is included in the canon.

Note Paulʼs humility when it comes to assessing his contributions:

“I was not a whit behind the chiefest apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge.” 2 Cor 11:5-6

“For in nothing am I behind the chiefest apostles” 2 Cor 12:11

Paul “glories” in the Lord and other things in over twenty instances in his letters, but the Greek word he used, ‘kauchaomai,’ translated ‘glorying,’ actually means ‘boasting,’ and ‘vaunting.’ The proper Greek word for ‘glorying’ would be ‘doxa.’ That Paul elected not to use that word in lieu of the Greek word for ‘boasting,’ has been cleverly obscured by many translators. While in 1 and 2 Cor. in about ten places Paul stresses the importance of being a “fool” for the Gospel and denying the wisdom of this world. If you were to remove all the high sounding rhetoric (metaphors and analogies prove nothing), all the praise of foolishness, all the self-deprecation, the praises, curses and threats in Paulʼs letters, I doubt there would be much left. His letters read like the notes found in the margin of a preacherʼs Sunday sermon, “Point weak here, TALK LOUDER.”

Paul also stresses the need to become all things to all men, to the Jew he becomes a Jew, to the weak, he becomes weak, becoming all things to all men, for the Gospelʼs sake, anything one can say or do to get people to believe like himself. 1 Cor 9:20-23; 10:33 Adding, “But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say” Rom. 3:5 And, “[if] the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why am I also judged as a sinner?” Rom 3:7. And, “nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you in [to the church] with guile.” 2 Cor 12:16. And “what then… every way, whether in pretence, or truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice” Philip 1:18 To Paul there was little that “does not edify” 1 Cor 10:23. “Approving ourselves as the ministers of God… by dishonor and honor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true.” 2 Cor 6:8.

Paul even outlines a program of tongues speaking and prophesying in 1 Cor 14:22-32 that sounds like it was designed to attract “unbelievers,” “and there come in those that are… unbelievers,” but he had to ask that believers tone it down a bit, so they didnʼt appear quite so “mad” to unbelievers by speaking in tongues all at once. He suggested they prophesy more, which sounds like condemning sin via Old Testament sounding phrases, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.” 1 Cor 14:24-25 “For whether we be besides ourselves, it is to God; or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.” 2 Cor 5:13 The Greek ‘existemi’ translated ‘beside ourselves,’ actually means ‘insane,’ ‘witless,’ ‘bewitched,’ and ‘make astounded.’ The same word, ‘existemi’ is also used to describe Jesus himself in “his friends went to lay hold on him; for they said, Jesus is beside himself” (Mk 3:21—and the Greek word ‘ho para’ translated as ‘friends,’ also means ‘family’).

As for Paulʼs sense of outrage and controlling nature…

“Hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” 1 Cor 5:5

“If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed/anathema [devoted to destruction].” 1 Cor 16:22

“We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.” 2 Cor 10:5-6

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under Godʼs curse!” Gal 1:8

Referring to Judaizing Christians who preached that followers of Jesus should be circumcised, Paul wrote, “Of those that trouble you, I would they were even cut off [Gk. apokopto, literally, ‘castrated’].” Gal 5:11-12

Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord… For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself… FOR THIS CAUSE many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep [have died]… For… we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord. 1 Cor 11:27-32

Note how Paul tossed individuals out of church with “curses” or “turned them over to Satan,” and even claimed that illnesses and deaths of many who remained in church were due to Godʼs “judgment.” Sounds like a more fanatical interpretation than most ministers would be willing to employ today, instead they would be more likely to check on the sanitation of objects used for sharing the Lordʼs supper. It also makes one wonder how Paul might have reacted if many at a church picnic began heaving up egg salad that had gone bad, would Paul claim God was judging them? What if children attended the same religious day care or Sunday school classes and illnesses began to spread among them? Another chastening from the deity? Paul implanted in peopleʼs minds that bad things happened because God was punishing believers for not falling in line with the one true belief system, i.e., Paulʼs. But thatʼs how religious fanaticism tends to work.

Paul also wallows in self-castigation, or as psychologists point out, self-castigation is often an excuse to feel more proud of your particular religious beliefs. Itʼs the old paradox of the fragile or dissatisfied ego that attaches itself like a barnacle to something it imagines to be far greater than itself, thus becoming hyper-inflated with the feeling that they are “nothing” but this new truth or doctrine they have come to believe or practice is the one and only truth and must be spread at all cost. “For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing… but the evil which I would not, that I do… O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Rom 7:18-24 “I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung [Greek, ‘skubalon,’ excrement], that I may win Christ.” Philip 3:8

And when you compare Paulʼs writings with later ones in the New Testament, you see that Paul Paul mentions being resurrected in a “spiritual body” without claiming it has “flesh and bone” (compare later writings like the Gospel of Luke where the resurrected Jesus denies being a “spirit” at all, and claims he is “flesh and bone” and EATS a piece of fish as demonstration. You donʼt find that in Paul. Instead you find Paulʼs notion of a “spiritual body,” along with Paulʼs statements that “Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” and, “Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them” 1 Cor 6:13 & 15:50. See also the discussion here of a statement by N.T. Wright concerning such questions.

Paulʼs “spiritual body” view certainly seems less “flesh and bone” than what appears in later New Testament writings concerning Jesusʼ resurrection. It also fits the way Paul despised the “flesh” (fleshly aspects of existence) throughout his writings, even looking down on the fact that people “burned” for one another, giving physical marriage this backhanded compliment, “It is better to marry than to burn,” a passage rarely quoted at Christian weddings. Paul even taught Christians that it was good to “never touch” a woman, and to remain as he was, celibate, and that married couples should live celibate lives if they can, so they can concentrate on “serving the Lord” rather than each other. The only form of marriage Paul endorses unequivocally is the churchʼs marriage to its heavenly bridegroom, the Lord—the marriage of believer with their beliefs, specifically with Paulʼs beliefs about the Lord. All others be cursed. Paulʼs “spiritual body” view also fits with his mention of Christians being taken up to heaven.

Keep in mind that the Pauline idea of a “spiritual body” is the earliest formulation of the “resurrection” according to the earliest documents we possess:

1 Thess 4:13-18, “We who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.”

Paul seems to indicate not just in that verse but in others that the Kingdom of God will be in heaven:

2 Cor 5:1 “we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven…”

Philip 3:20a “But our citizenship is in heaven…”

Gal 4:26a “the Jerusalem which is above is free…”

Paradise is in the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2-4).

That is where the Christian elect will wind up in their “spiritual bodies,” to be in the company of Christ (1 Thes 5:9-10).

Even in the non-Pauline letter to the Hebrews, chapter 12, Christians are expected to be live in the heavenly Jerusalem, with no mention of it coming down to a new earth. In fact the author of Hebrews mentions that the patriarchs are “foreigners and strangers on earth.” Heb. 11

Paulʼs view resembles Philo of Alexandriaʼs, who also put heaven as the destination of the righteous after death. According to Philo: “And the proselyte… has received as a most appropriate reward a firm and sure habitation in heaven” (On reward and punishment”, ch. XXVI, 152) “looking upon the heavenly country in which they have the rights of citizens…” (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XVII).

Also consider the way Paul used every rhetorical method at his disposal, reasonable or not, to try and convert people, which included stretching the meaning of Old Testament words and stories, even utilizing odd readings of the Old Testament in inter-testamental works like the late apocryphal work titled, The Wisdom of Solomon—not to be confused with the Book of Proverbs, but instead, a late non-canonical apocryphal work attributed to “Solomon.” And scholar James King West adds, “Among the characteristics of Wisdom as depicted in The Wisdom of Solomon, one is of particular interest. The afterlife is described in terms of the Hellenistic dualism which debases matter in contrast to the immortality of the soul, rather than the Judaic concept of the resurrection of the body (cf. the remarkably beautiful passage in 3:1-9, also such vss. as 8:13):

  1. 1 But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them.
  2. 2 In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction,
  3. 3 and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace.
  4. 4 For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality.
  5. 5 Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself;
  6. 6 like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them.
  7. 7 In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble.
  8. 8 They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them for ever.
  9. 9 Those who trust in him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide with him in love, because grace and mercy are upon his elect, and he watches over his holy ones.

Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-9

Because of her I shall have immortality, and leave an everlasting remembrance to those who come after me.

Wisdom of Solomon 8:13”

Plenty of additional examples can be shown of Paulʼs ideas and teachings paralleling those found in The Wisdom of Solomon (and other inter-testamental works):

Romans 1:19-23

  1. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
  2. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
  3. 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
  4. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
  5. 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

(compare Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-5

  1. 1 For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists, nor did they recognize the craftsman while paying heed to his works;
  2. 2 but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.
  3. 3 If through delight in the beauty of these things men assumed them to be gods, let them know how much better than these is their Lord, for the author of beauty created them.
  4. 4 And if men were amazed at their power and working, let them perceive from them how much more powerful is he who formed them.
  5. 5 For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.)

Romans 1:23-24

  • 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
  • 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

(compare Wisdom of Solomon 14:22-31

  • 22 Afterward it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but they live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace.
  • 23 For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs,
  • 24 they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery,
  • 25 and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury,
  • 26 confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors, pollution of souls, sex perversion, disorder in marriage, adultery, and debauchery.
  • 27 For the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil.
  • 28 For their worshipers either rave in exultation, or prophesy lies, or live unrighteously, or readily commit perjury;
  • 29 for because they trust in lifeless idols they swear wicked oaths and expect to suffer no harm.
  • 30 But just penalties will overtake them on two counts: because they thought wickedly of God in devoting themselves to idols, and because in deceit they swore unrighteously through contempt for holiness.
  • 31 For it is not the power of the things by which men swear, but the just penalty for those who sin, that always pursues the transgression of the unrighteous.)

Romans 5:12-21

  • 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—
  • 13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
  • 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
  • 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one manʼs trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
  • 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of that one manʼs sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
  • 17 If, because of one manʼs trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
  • 18 Then as one manʼs trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one manʼs act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
  • 19 For as by one manʼs disobedience many were made sinners, so by one manʼs obedience many will be made righteous.
  • 20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
  • 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(compare Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24

  • 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity,
  • 24 but through the devilʼs envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.)

Romans 9:19-23

  • 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
  • 20 But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?”
  • 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?
  • 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction,
  • 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,

(compare Wisdom of Solomon 12:12-18 and 15:7

  • 12 For who will say, “What hast thou done?” Or will resist thy judgment? Who will accuse thee for the destruction of nations which thou didst make? Or who will come before thee to plead as an advocate for unrighteous men?
  • 13 For neither is there any god besides thee, whose care is for all men, to whom thou shouldst prove that thou hast not judged unjustly;
  • 14 nor can any king or monarch confront thee about those whom thou hast punished.
  • 15 Thou art righteous and rulest all things righteously, deeming it alien to thy power to condemn him who does not deserve to be punished.
  • 16 For thy strength is the source of righteousness, and thy sovereignty over all causes thee to spare all.
  • 17 For thou dost show thy strength when men doubt the completeness of thy power, and dost rebuke any insolence among those who know it.
  • 18 Thou who art sovereign in strength dost judge with mildness, and with great forbearance thou dost govern us; for thou hast power to act whenever thou dost choose…
  • 19 The Lord will take his zeal as his whole armor, and will arm all creation to repel his enemies)

Romans 13:10

  • 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

(compare Wisdom of Solomon 6:18

  • 18 And love of her is the keeping of her laws, and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality)

1 Corinthians 2:9

  • 9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,”

(compare the non-canonical Ascension of Isaiah 11:34 “And this angel said unto me: ‘Isaiah, son of Amoz, it is enough for thee;… for thou hast seen what no child of flesh has seen’”; also note that the early church father Origin said this verse in 1 Cor. was from the non-canonical, Apocalypse of Elijah—Origen, Commentary on Matthew 27.9. Originʼs idea was bitterly disputed by Jerome (Letter 57 [to Pammachius] §9 [NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 6, p. 117]), who claimed the verse was taken from Isaiah 64:3-4 “according to the Hebrew text,” which states, “When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains quaked at thy presence. From of old no one has heard or perceived by the ear,no eye has seen a God besides thee, who works for those who wait for him.” In fact, however, the Hebrew is only a very rough approximation of Paulʼs language in 1 Corinthians 2:9, so Jerome may well have been wrong on this point. So, compare the Ascension of Isaiah 11:34 as originally noted.)

1 Corinthians 6:2

  • 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?

(compare Wisdom of Solomon 3:8

  • 8 They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them for ever.)

1 Corinthians 10:4 (Jewish tradition)

2 Corinthians 11:14 Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
(compare Life of Adam and Eve 27:12-14

  • 12 No sooner had Adam said this, than an angel from God appeared to him in the cave, who said to him, “O Adam, fear not. This is Satan and his hosts; he wishes to deceive you as he deceived you at first. For the first time, he was hidden in the serpent; but this time he is come to you in the likeness of an angel of light; in order that, when you worshipped him, he might enslave you, in the very presence of God.”
  • 13 Then the angel went from Adam and seized Satan at the opening of the cave, and stripped him of the pretense he had assumed, and brought him in his own hideous form to Adam and Eve; who were afraid of him when they saw him.
  • 14 And the angel said to Adam, “This hideous form has been his ever since God made him fall from heaven. He could not have come near you in it; he therefore transformed himself into an angel of light.”)

Galatians 3:19 (Jewish tradition; cf. also Acts 7:38, Acts 7:53, and Hebrews 2:2)

Ephesians 5:14 (Apocalypse of Elijah—So identified by Epiphanius, Against Heresies 1.3.42; see also Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 3.5.15.)

Ephesians 6:11-17

  • 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
  • 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
  • 13 Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
  • 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
  • 15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace;
  • 16 besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one.
  • 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

(compare Wisdom of Solomon 5:17-20)

  • 17 The Lord will take his zeal as his whole armor, and will arm all creation to repel his enemies;
  • 18 he will put on righteousness as a breastplate, and wear impartial justice as a helmet;
  • 19 he will take holiness as an invincible shield,
  • 20 and sharpen stern wrath for a sword, and creation will join with him to fight against the madmen.)

And concerning the question of Paulʼs high Christology, one might mention once again something scholar James King West has pointed out, namely that the personification of wisdom, introduced, for example, in Proverbs 1-9, is carried much farther in The Wisdom of Solomon than in any parallel Judaic literature. In the book of Proverbs the personification of wisdom is symbolic, but in the Wisdom of Solomon ‘wisdom’ is described in terms intended to be taken quite seriously as:

  • ‘a kindly spirit’ (1:6);
  • ‘radiant and unfading’ (6:12);
  • ‘the fashioner of all things,’ whose twenty-one attributes include intelligence, holiness, mobility, omnipotence, interpenetration, and the like (7:22);
  • ‘breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty’ (7:25);
  • ‘spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness’ (7:26; cf. 10:1, 5, 6, 9; 11:1; 12:1).

These descriptions of wisdom, especially the crucial passage in 7:22-8:21, reflect the increasing emphasis on the transcendence of God characteristic of later Judaism, combined with an unmistakable influence from Hellenism. How far the author intended his definition of Wisdom as an intermediary between God and the world is impossible to say. Viewing his words from the perspective of Greek thought, it would probably be easy to read too much into them. Whether consciously or not, he nevertheless spoke a language that during the next two centuries and later was to play a profound role in religious development.” (Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 464-465)

So even Paulʼs Christology seems to owe something to the way Wisdom is viewed more like a person than a metaphor according to The Wisdom of Solomon.

The apostle Paul, fanaticus extremus, all the symptoms of your typical religious fanatic rolled into one (Part 1 of a 2 Part Series)

Paulʼs predictions have proven as false as those of the Christian below

The apostle Paul, fanaticus extremus

Did the apostle Paul predict Jesusʼ imminent return like many other religious fanatics over the centuries? Letʼs look at what he wrote to the believers at Corinth:

‘The rulers of this age… are passing away’ [“will not last much longer” - Todayʼs English Version]… Do not go on passing judgment before the time [i.e., “before the time” of final judgment which he predicted was near at hand], but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of menʼs hearts… The time has been shortened so that from now on both those who have wives should be as though they had none [i.e., Paul preached that the time was so “short” that married Christian couples “from now on” would be better off to consider celibacy so they could serve the Lord full time]; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it [i.e., this was not the time for marriage or buying or selling, it was best to serve the Lord full time, like Paul was doing, while awaiting his soon return, or as Paul also said, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” and, “I wish all men were as I am” (celibate) 1 Cor 7]; for the form of this world is passing away [“This world, as it is now, will not last much longer” - Todayʼs English Version]… …These things were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come…

Since Paul tells his first century readers that the “ends of the ages have come” upon them, letʼs note how Jesus, according to the gospel of Matthew, defined “the end of the age”:

…The harvest is the end of the age…at the end of the age…the Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. [Matthew 13:40-41 - based on the description of “the end of the age” found in Daniel 12]

Paul continues in the same letter:

Proclaim the Lordʼs death until he comes [i.e., Paul did not say, “Proclaim the Lordʼs death until the day you die,” but rather, “until he comes,” which means that he considered Christʼs coming to be nearer than the time when the believers he was writing to would all be dead]. We [Paul and the first century believers being addressed] shall not all sleep… At the last trumpet… the dead will be raised… and we shall be changed. Maranatha [=“Come Lord”] 1 Cor 2:6; 4:5; 7:29-31; 10:11; 11:26; 15:51-52; 16:22

Or consider what Paul wrote to the believers at Thessalonica:

…How you turned to God from idols…to wait for His Son from heaven [Compare 1 Cor 1:7, “…awaiting eagerly the revelation (revealing) of our Lord Jesus Christ”]… For who is our… crown… Is it not even you [the first century Christians being addressed], in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his coming?… May establish your hearts… before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we [Paul and the first century Christians being addressed] who are alive and remain [notice how Paul included himself as one who will still be alive] until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep…the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air… May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Thes 1:9,10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:15-17; 5:23]

Keep in mind to whom Paul wrote the above letters, and also that Paul claimed that he was repeating a “word” that he had received directly from “the Lord.” What marvelous truth was revealed to Paul in this astonishing revelation? Namely, that “we” [the first century Christians who “remained alive” at the time this letter was written, including Paul, its author] “shall be caught up…in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air!” For Paul there was no doubt that Jesus would arrive before he and the believers he addressed would all be dead. “We,” including himself, “shall not all sleep” [1 Cor 15:51]. Yet all of those to whom Paul once wrote, including Paul, now “sleep” - the “word of the Lord” notwithstanding. In his second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul remained just as certain that Jesus would return shortly:

…It is just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution…these will pay the penalty…when He comes… [2 Thes 1:6-10]

That is to say, Jesus would be revealed from heaven “with his mighty angles in flaming fire” soon enough to “relieve” the afflictions of the Thessalonians, and Paul, and other first century Christians!

Or take these passages from Paulʼs letter to the believers at Philippi:

…He who began a good work in you [the first century Christians being addressed] will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus [i.e., rather than saying, “until the day you die,” which he assumed was not going to happen to all of them, since, as Paul pointed out in 1 Cor, “we shall not all sleep!”]… …In order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ [Compare 1 Tim 6:14, “Keep the commandment…until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.”]… …We eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ… …Let your forbearing spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. [Philip 1:6,10; 3:20; 4:5]

What about Paulʼs famous letter to the Christians at Rome?

…The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is soon [mello] to be revealed to us… The whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now… We…groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body… Knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed! The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand… The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. [Rom 8:18,22-23; 13:11-12; 16:20]

What “things” had to occur before Christ could return?

1) The Anti-Christ must first be revealed. But Paul taught:

The mystery of lawlessness is already at work… Pray… that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly… [2 Thes 2:7; 3:1]

2) The Gospel had to be preached to the “whole world.” But Paul taught that the gospel had already been preached to “the whole world,” i.e., the Roman Empire, from Spain to Jerusalem. Therefore nothing prevented Jesus from returning “shortly”:

Their voice [of first century Christian preachers] has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world… The revelation of the mystery… now is manifested and… According to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations. [Rom 10:18; 16:25-26]

…The gospel, which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing… …The gospel…which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. [Col 1:5-6,23]

Back then the Roman Empire was recognized as the “whole world,” i.e., Lk 2:1, “Caesar took a census of the whole world,” and Acts 11:28, “…a great famine all over the world… took place in the reign of Claudius.” Naturally, this conception influenced the belief in how “soon” the Son of Man would return, since Jesus predicted: “…this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.” [Mat 24:14]. If the “whole world” according to the New Testament itself, referred to the Roman Empire, the “end” must have been expected very soon indeed! I wonder why God inspired the authors of the New Testament with such an archaic notion of the “whole world?” Even second century Christian fathers made the same identification of the Roman Empire with the “whole world.” Irenaeus (125-202 A.D.), one of the earliest Fathers of the Church, wrote in his book, Revolution and Overthrow of False Knowledge (or Against Heresies), circa 180 A.D.:

Now the Church, spread throughout all the world even to the ends of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples her belief… [1.10.1]

…the Church has carefully preserved it [its kerygma and faith], as though dwelling in a single house, even though she has been spread over the entire world. [1.10.2]

Anyone who wishes to see the truth can observe the apostleʼs traditions made manifest in every church throughout the whole world. [3.3.1-2]

Augustine was another Church Father who was aware of Paulʼs belief that the Gospel “had” already been preached to the “whole world.” Paul wrote in Romans, “Their line has gone out through all the world, and their words to the ends of the earth.” Augustine dwelt with great force on the fact that St. Paul based one of his most powerful arguments upon this declaration regarding the earliest preachers of the gospel (Rom. 10:18), and that, as those preachers did not go to the opposite side of the earth to preach the gospel, no people must exist there; hence those who believe such things, “give the lie direct to King David and to St. Paul, and therefore to the Holy Ghost.” Thus the great bishop of Hippo taught the whole world for over a thousand years that, as there was no preaching of the gospel on the opposite side of the earth, there could be no human beings there. [A. D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. 1] If I may be forgiven for injecting levity thereʼs a quotation by Mark Twain that also strikes me as relevant: “The Biblical prophets wrote book after book and epistle after epistle, yet never once hinted at the existence of a great continent on our side of the water; yet they must have known it was there, I should think.” As for the argument that the apostles must have known that people existed beyond the boundaries of the “world” of the Roman Empire, yes, certainly, as “heathens” living outside of civilization (and for whom provision was made in Paulʼs letter to the Romans, chapters 1-2), so Rome remained the “whole world” to Paul who prayed that “the word” might spread “rapidly,” from Jerusalem to Spain, before the day of final judgment.


For Further False Predictions in the Bible See The Lowdown on Godʼs Showdown

Some Christians like the above article, they are called preterists, who believe that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events that took place in the first century after Christʼs birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, preterism is no better than pre-millennialism. Both involve excuses that were invented to make the Bible appear inerrant when it is filled with false prophecies about the Son of Manʼs or the Lordʼs soon return in final judgment.

Speaking of the preterist view that Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem a generation before it happened, most scholars agree that the earliest Gospel, “the Gospel of Mark,” was composed near the time of Jerusalemʼs destruction or a little after it. So, did Jesus speak about the soon coming destruction of Jerusalem and/or the Temple in Mark 13, or was that prophecy (or parts of it) added or edited by the author to make it appear like Jesus said such a thing? We canʼt be sure. The earliest version in Mark 13 is not as explicit as the later versions in Matthew and Luke. So it all hinges on the question of Mark and his sources or edits, and he was writing either very soon before such things happened or during or soon after them happening. There were certainly prophets before Jesus who preached doom on Jerusalem and/or the Temple, so Jesus could have picked up the idea from them. The first century was a time of apocalyptic ideas such as those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls whose sectarian writings are filled with expectation of a soon coming final judgment, and who even predicted a final battle b/w sons of light and darkness that centered on Jerusalem. The fear that Romans would destroy Jerusalem and/or desecrate or destroy the Temple seems to have been on a lot of peopleʼs minds. Josephus mentions some other fellow prophesying the doom of Jerusalem soon before it occurred, but it wasnʼt Jesus.