Showing posts with label the canonical Gospels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the canonical Gospels. Show all posts

The Resurrection of Lazarus, Questions Galore

The Resurrection of Lazarus

The Anointing Stories in the Synoptic Gospels Raise Questions Concerning the Historicity of the Raising of Lazarus Story in the Fourth Gospel

According to the Gospels Jesus was anointed with (or received) perfume numerous times in his life. Are all the tales true? Are any of them symbolic, legendary? At his birth Jesus allegedly received a visit from an unknown number of wealthy star gazers (was it two? three? more than three? Matthew does not say) who traveled far to deliver gifts of “frankincense and myrrh” (not to mention an unknown quantity of “gold”), at least thatʼs what the Gospel of Matthew states, none of the other Gospels happen to mention such a tale.

The Apostle Paul “Winged It” According To Christian N.T. Scholar, Peter Enns, author of The Sin of Certainty (Scrivenings: Paul Fanaticus Extremis Series)

See previous parts of this series here.

According to Christian New Testament scholar, Peter Enns:

The Apostle Paul ‘Winged It’ According To Christian N.T. Scholar

As I read Romans, I donʼt walk away thinking, “My, what a carefully planned out letter.” I think more, “Paul is winging it.” I know that might not seem very reverent, especially since Romans is often thought of as the primo example of Paul at his difficult yet nevertheless logically consistent best, where he once and for all lays out the basics of the gospel for all to hear and for all time…

“Eyewitness” Reports of Jesus's Resurrection? Or Gospel Trajectories? (A Piece I Wrote Years Ago, When Dr. Gary Habermas and I Were Exchanging Letters)

“Eyewitness” Reports of Jesus's Resurrection? Or Gospel Trajectories?

Concerning Jesusʼs post-resurrection appearances some apologists contend that we have accurate objective ‘eyewitness’ reports in 1 Cor. 15 and the Gospels and book of Acts.

Yet Paul does not give a single detail as to what anyoneʼs eyes ‘witnessed,’ not even himself (except for Lukeʼs account of

Prophecy about Jesus? “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” Isaiah 9:6

Prophecy about Jesus? “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6

Is the above passage a prophecy concerning the one whom

Christian Theology is All Over the Map. Part 2. How Can One Gain Eternal Life? The Synoptic Road to Salvation vs. The Roman Road to Salvation

How Can One Gain Eternal Life? The Synoptic Road to Salvation vs. The Roman Road to Salvation

Many conservative Christians stress the necessity of holding specific beliefs rather than doing and acting certain ways toward others (perhaps because many Christians are taught that holding the right beliefs about God and Jesus and what Jesus accomplished on the cross is what assures them that God will forgive them regardless of their actions, so actions are of lesser consequence than right belief). Some passages in the New Testament appear to present the same view that belief trumps actions when it comes to salvation:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Mark 16:16

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16

“…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Romans 10:9-10

Romans 10 contains passages that some Christians have even nicknamed, “The Roman Road to Salvation.”

But looked at another way, one canʼt help but note that Mark 16:16 is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark but is part of what textual critics agree is a later added ending. While John 3:16 (from the famous “ye must be born again” dialogue) is a similarly dubious saying attributed to the historical Jesus. To see the case against its historical authenticity click here. As for Paul, he admits he never met the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the one depicted in the synoptic Gospels. Even Paulʼs interpretation of the meaning of Jesusʼs bloody death butts head with that found in Luke-Acts (See Part 1 of this series).

Give such questions, shouldnʼt one look deeper at how Jesus answered the question, “How Can I Inherit Eternal Life?” as seen in the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke)? In the synoptics Jesusʼs main teaching and concern was “repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.” That was “the Gospel.” And in the synoptics you canʼt fail to notice that Jesus does little to try and get people to agree with specific beliefs “about” himself in order to gain eternal life. Jesus is depicted in the synoptics as advocating an approach to gaining eternal life that did not require outward showy religious displays or numerous rules, nor did he place major value on temple worship and blood sacrifices, instead he laid great stress on oneʼs relationships with others, as in his “Sermon on the Mount” Matt. chapters 5-7.

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matt. 7:12

Several times in the synoptics Jesus tells people to ‘love God’ and concentrate on storing up ‘heavenly treasures’ by ‘loving others,’ and to ‘follow Jesus’ in that respect:

“Good teacher,” one person asked [Jesus], “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the manʼs face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
Mark 10

Or there is the version in Matthew:

“Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One Who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Matthew 19

There is also a Lukan version:

“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Luke 18

There is this additional teaching about how to gain eternal life that is also found in the synoptics:

“‘The most important one [commandment],’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.’ ‘Well said, teacher,’ the man replied. ‘You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’”
Mark 12

“A lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ He [Jesus] said to him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read?’ And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And he [Jesus] said to him, ‘You have answered right; do this, and you will live.’”
Luke 10:25-28

Such teachings emphasize “doing” in relation to “how to gain eternal life.” This is not to say that Paul in Romans, nor the author of the Gospel of John, lack similar sayings, for they wrote:

“[God] will render to every man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life….”
Romans 2:6,7

“And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
John 5

But, unlike the synoptics, Paul and the author of the fourth Gospel also have interpretations of who Jesus was that they tie up with their salvation messages:

“He who believes not [that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world] is damned already.”
John 3

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth… the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe… whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood…”
Romans 1:18; 3:22,25

But is blood sacrifice necessary for salvation? Jesus in the synoptics did not seem to think so when he instructed people to pray like this for forgiveness:

“Father… forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” Matt. 6:12

“Father… forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.” Luke 11:4

Jesus in the synoptics taught that people who forgave the debts/sins of others would be forgiven by God without need of a blood sacrifice.

To sum matters up once again, as previously noted, Jesus is depicted as saying in Matthew:

“in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 7:12

If that sums up the Law and the Prophets, what need is there for much more to be said?

Or consider the parable of The Good Samaritan found in Luke, that ends, “Go and do likewise.” Luke 10

Go and do. Doing is the main thing. Along with Godʼs direct and ample forgiveness regardless of oneʼs specific beliefs ‘about’ Jesus. In fact according to the Gospel of Luke one of the two thieves on the cross next to Jesus called Jesus ‘a man,’ but Jesus still promised him paradise.

Christian Theology is All Over the Map. Part 1. Must Christians believe that Jesus's bloody death had atoning power?

Must Christians believe that Jesusʼs bloody death had atoning power?

What did the author of Luke-Acts believe about the doctrine known as ‘the atonement?’ “There is at present no satisfactory consensus reached regarding the presentation of the death of Jesus in Luke-Acts. Many models have been proposed, but none seem to deal adequately with all that is going on in Luke-Acts.” See, the diversity of opinion in The Atonement in Lucan Theology in Recent Discussion Some argue that the Lucan Jesus is presented as an innocent martyr, righteous, or lowly man, or that Jesusʼs death was simply a means toward resurrection.

“Many scholars see no atoning significance in the Gospel of Lukeʼs presentation of the death of Jesus and no connection with the forgiveness of sins. There are three passion predictions (9:22; 9:44; 18:31-3), but nothing corresponding to the ‘ransom’ saying in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28, and no ‘cry of dereliction’ from the cross in Luke 23. Even the citations from Isaiah 53 in Luke 22:37 and Acts 8:32-3 are said to demonstrate that Luke is interested ‘not in the atoning death of Jesus but in the fulfillment of scripture in the obedient passion (silence), death (humiliation), and resurrection (taking up from the earth) of the Servant.’” per David Peterson, Atonement in the Synoptic Gospels, who cites Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke, (trans. G. Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 200-1; and, Sylva, D. D. (ed.), Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus (Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990) which records a variety of ways in which the death of Jesus in Luke-Acts has been understood; and, Sylva, Reimaging, 146. In ‘Atonement Theology in Luke-Acts: Some Methodological Reflections,’ in P. J. Williams, A. D. Clarke, P. M. Head, D. Instone-Brewer (ed.), The New Testament in its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans), 56-71.

Consider the Gospel of Luke where the author mentions that John the Baptist gave his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of sins because of Godʼs tender mercy (Luke 1:76-78), adding that the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:2-4); and the Gospel of Luke ends the same way, by stating that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [Jesusʼs] name to all nations” (Luke 24:46-48), but nothing about the atoning power of Jesusʼs blood sacrifice. Same with the prayer Jesus taught others to pray per Matthew and Luke, the ‘Our Father,’ that mentions God granting forgiveness to those who forgive others, i.e., without God requiring a blood sacrifice before forgiving sins.)

Scholars point out that the author of Luke-Acts neglected to reproduce crucial verses found in Mark//Matthew that describe Jesusʼ death as a ‘ransom.’ Luke reproduces much of Mark in his gospel, including material from immediately before and immediately after the passage below, but omits this particular passage:

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28

Also, Luke 22:19-20 says “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” But some manuscripts only have “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body.’” that is, they lack the bit about a “new covenant in my blood poured out for you.”

Bart Ehrman in “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,” makes a compelling case for why the shorter reading is the original. And this is the only passage in Luke that suggests Jesusʼ shed blood had magical atoning power.

Similar to the case found in the Gospel of Luke only a single passage in Acts suggests Jesusʼ shed blood has atoning power:

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Acts 20:28

That is the only verse in Acts that suggests that Jesusʼ shed blood has atoning power, and much like the verse in Luke, there is a good case to be made that these words were not part of the original.

Without Luke 22:19b-20 and Acts 20:28 there is no concept of blood atonement in Luke-Acts. When Jesus died, according to Luke, it wasnʼt in place of sinners or on their behalf, instead, one need only repent and be baptized in most cases, to accept Godʼs direct mercy.

So if one need only repent and be baptized what is the cross about according to Luke-Acts?

Letʼs have a look at the preaching of Peter and Paul in Acts.

Peter preaches the following in Acts 2, Jesus was a man sent by God. We know he was sent by God because of the miracles. According to Godʼs plan he was killed. God raised him to life. God made him Lord and Messiah. God gave him the Holy Spirit, which he now pours out on his followers. In order to get the Spirit you need to repent and be baptized in Jesusʼs name. Peterʼs message is that forgiveness comes through repentance and baptism and then you get the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 3, Peter preaches that forgiveness comes through repentance and baptism isnʼt mentioned.

In Acts 4, Peterʼs message to the Sanhedrin is that salvation is found in Jesus, but this appears linked to his exalted current status, not to his death.

In Acts 5, Peterʼs words suggest that God exalted Jesus the role of savior after his resurrection, so it was neither the death or resurrection that has saving power, but rather Jesusʼs current exalted status.

In Acts 7 Stephenʼs preaching does not include a ‘gospel’ message, but it is clear that it is the power of the risen Jesus that matters.

In Acts 8, the topic is how you get the Holy Spirit. Again, this seems to be the objective of preaching in Acts.

In Acts 10, Peter preaches to Cornelius, informing him that what God did to Jesus after his ascension is what matters, and believing in the risen Jesus is the way to receive the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 13 Paul preaches the same message, namely that Jesus was a good man, wrongly killed, vindicated by God, raised, and then made Son of God and Savior.

In Acts 17 Paul basically repeats his message in Acts 13.

The preaching of the apostles in Acts repeats the same basic message, Jesus was a good man, wrongly killed. He was vindicated by God and raised from the dead. He became the Son of God and Savior. He can forgive the sins of the repentant and send the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, scholars have noted that a blood atonement is not the major focus of preaching in Acts. It might not be the focus at all in fact if two questionable passages that mention the ‘blood’ are later additions, as textual scholars suspect they are.

The gospel message in Luke-Acts is this: repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit.

To add to the above case, note that Luke 19:19ff (NASB), talks about ‘salvation’ coming to Zaccheus after he repents and returns ill gotten gains. This understanding of salvation precedes Jesusʼ death on the cross, and as in every other case mentioned differs from the traditional Christian view that “without shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins.” It also differs from the story of the rich young man in which Jesus told him to give away all of his possessions that he might have treasure in heaven and how difficult it was for a rich man to enter heaven, since Zaccheus only gives away half of what he owns, not all, and still, ‘salvation’ is his. Hereʼs the story in Luke 19:

He [Jesus] entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. 3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. [The Greek is ambiguous as to whether or not Zaccheus or Jesus was ‘small in stature,’ though the former is probably meant, though if the latter is meant, it would be the only time in the New Testament where some description of the physical Jesus is presented. Though like I said, it is probably just talking about Zaccheus.] 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. 5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly. 7 When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” 8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.” 9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Nor does the passage demonstrate that everyone is “lost,” nor do these other Gospel passages:

“And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.“ Mark 2:17

“But when he heard it, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9.12-13

“And Jesus answered them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’” Luke 5:31-32

In fact Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke does not say everyoneʼs heart is evil and wicked above all things, but rather states:

“A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.” Matthew 12:35

“A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” Luke 6:45

Jesus also says to “love God with all your heart” which seems impossible if the heart can will only evil choices and is desperately wicked in everyone at all times.

Moreover, the Bible is a big book and you can find passages that put forth the notion that God does not require blood atonement sacrifices because sometimes grain sacrifices are fine, but even more to the point are passages where God directly forgives people who repent. Such passages state outright that repentance and doing good takes the utmost precedence above all types of sacrifices, so at best atonement sacrifices are secondary in Godʼs eyes:

“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

“Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah! “The multitude of your sacrifices—what are they to me?” says the Lord. ‘I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—I cannot bear your worthless assemblies. Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood!’” Isaiah 1:10-15

“Hear, you earth: I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their schemes, because they have not listened to my words and have rejected my law. What do I care about incense from Sheba or sweet calamus from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable; your sacrifices do not please me.” Jeremiah 6:19-21

Or, to quote Jesus himself…

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 7:12

Thatʼs it. Sounds pretty straightforward, not like the the merry-go-round of questions Christian theologians continue to debate, involving questions like, “Do I have enough faith, love, devotion, correct beliefs, etc.” How much and how fervently and exactly what must I believe in order to be saved? How many doubts and questions can I continue to harbor and remain “saved?” etc. Also see Part 2 of this series.

Isaiah 53 not a prophecy of Jesus

Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53 is not a prophecy of Jesus, unless you ignore its original context and only focus on the potential ‘hits’ and ignore the clear ‘misses,’ using a hazy ‘pesher’ approach to its interpretation.

The trouble for Evangelical apologists is that there are no clear ‘dying/resurrected Messiah’ passages in the OT. And Isa. 53 is only advantageous to Christian apologists if they pick and choose which parts of it to emphasize and which to de-emphasize. For instance:

  1. Was Jesus “despised [and] shunned by men?” According to Luke 4:15, he taught in the synagogue and everyone praised him. And huge crowds supposedly followed him, and he was described as making a ‘Triumphal Entry’ into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:8-11; John 12:12-13,17-19).

  2. Was Jesus ‘familiar with disease’ and ‘stricken by God’ (where the Hebrew word for ‘stricken’ is one that is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to stand only for leprosy as at Leviticus 13:3,9,20 and 2 Kings 15:5).

  3. Was Jesus silent before his accusers? In each of the four gospels Jesus opened his mouth and said something before his accusers, such as “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Also, Jesus is accused of many things throughout the Gospels, like being a drunkard or possessed or breaking the law, or committing blasphemy and we can read his defense in each case, so Jesus had plenty of words for his accusers throughout his life per the Gospels. Christians read into the text that these were formal accusations as at a trial, but the text in Isaiah says no such thing, and as already stated, Jesus was not silent at his trial either, but is depicted as pronouncing counter judgment on his accusers by declaring that they would see the Son of Man coming soon.

  4. Was Jesusʼ “grave set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death.” According to some Gospel passages there were no other bodies in the tomb in which Jesusʼ body was placed. So his grave was with himself, not with the wicked or with the rich. (“Among the wicked and with the rich” in Isa. 53 might also refer to two equally notorious groups if this is a Hebrew poetic parallelism). Nor does this passage say anything about a rich man providing a place for the servant. Christians read Gospel stories into such vague statements. (And perhaps the earliest Gospel author invented his story, adding “two bandits” on either side of Jesus on the cross, and having a man bury Jesus in “a tomb hewn of rock”—a tomb only a rich person could afford so that his Jesus story deliberately echoed the passage in Isaiah?)

  5. Was Jesus crushed by disease? “the Lord chose to crush him by disease, that if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life…” Did Jesus see any offspring, or have a long life?

  6. “Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong.” Not sure how that applies to Jesus.

  7. Does Isaiah 53 mention the Messiah? Verse 1 does not actually say that the servantʼs message would not be believed, but merely asks, “Who can believe what we have heard?” There seems to be no prophecy there at all. Nor is there any indication that the servant would be arrested as a criminal or scourged or crucified with criminals or make intercession for his persecutors. None of that is in there. Verse 6 does say, “the Lord visited upon him the guilt of us all,” but there are other interpretations of that than the Christian one.

  8. There is a Judaic interpretation of Isaiah 53 that seems plausible. The suffering servant is the nation of Israel which is represented by King Uzziah, who was its king in Isaiahʼs time and who died of leprosy. According to Shmuel Golding, Isaiahʼs message may have been: “Here is your leprous king, who is in type suffering under Godʼs hand for you the backslidden servant nation of Israel” (which explains verse 6). Uzziah was taken away from the royal palace because of his affliction as a leper and spent his remaining years in isolation, which fits verse 8. Golding says the following:

    Israel is portrayed as a suffering servant on account of its anointed leader being stricken with leprosy. Israel, like the leper, is a suffering servant of God. Both have suffered humiliation at the hand of their fellowmen: the leper because of his unsightly appearance; Israel through its defeat at the hands of the Babylonians. The gist of the message is that Israel like the leper has suffered, but nevertheless will retain its identity in the form of the exiled Jewish people and that they will prosper in this form. [Shmuel Golding, The Light of Reason, volume II (Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, 1989), p. 36.]

    This interpretation of Isaiah 53 seems preferable to the Christian one because it does not suffer from drawbacks (1)-(6) mentioned above. It would also better explain the many changes of tense that occur in the chapter. And Israel is indeed referred to as ‘Godʼs servant’ (e.g., at Isa 49:3). However, the given interpretation does not make the chapter into a prophecy so much as an explanation of Israelʼs situation at around the time of Isaiah. At the very least, it shows, I think, that Isaiah 53 is not a clear example of a fulfilled prophecy (or set of fulfilled prophecies) in the Bible. So it is not any good support for premise (1) of the Argument from the Bible.

    Also, per Ehrman, Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages in Isa 53. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered — although he “will be” vindicated.

Bart Ehrmanʼs Questions on Isaiah 53

Christians thought that Jesus was the messiah, and they knew that he had been crucified. And so they developed the idea that the messiah was supposed to be crucified. (And they started to appeal to non-messianic texts such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in support of their views.)… Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55), almost universally thought by scholars to be written by a different author from chapters 1-39 (themselves written by Isaiah of Jerusalem in the 8th c. BCE). Second Isaiah was writing after the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem (including the temple) in 586 BCE, while the leaders of the people and many of the elite had been taken into exile in Babylon, in what is known as the Babylonian Captivity… Several important points concerning Isaiah 53:

  1. It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are not predicting things that are to happen hundreds of years in advance; they are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures;
  2. In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other peopleʼs sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered — although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.
  3. In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be.
  4. If the passage is not referring to the messiah, and is not referring to someone in the future who is going to suffer — who is it talking about? Here there really should be very little ambiguity. As I mentioned, this particular passage — Isaiah 53 — is one of four servant songs of Second Isaiah. And so the question is, who does Second Isaiah himself indicate that the servant is? A careful reading of the passages makes the identification quite clear: “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen” (44:1); “Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant” (44:21); “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified’” (49:3).

    The book of Second Isaiah itself indicates who the Servant of the Lord is. It is Israel, Godʼs people. In Isaiah 53, when the author describes the servantʼs past sufferings, he is talking about the sufferings they have experienced by being destroyed by the Babylonians. This is a suffering that has come about because of sins. But the suffering will be vindicated, because God will now restore Israel and bring them back to the land and enter into a new relationship with them.

    It may be fairly objected that the Servant is said to suffer for “our” sins, not “his” sins. Scholars have resolved that problem in a number of ways. It may be that the author is thinking that the portion of the people taken into exile have suffered for the sins of those in the land — some of them suffering for the sins of all. Those who have been taken into captivity have suffered displacement, loss, and exile for the sake of everyone else. But now the servant — Israel — will be exalted and restored to a close relationship with God — and be used by him to bring about justice throughout the earth.

    There may be problems with this interpretation — as there always are with every interpretation! — but the facts remain that the suffering servant is never described as the messiah, his suffering is portrayed as past instead of future, and he is explicitly identified on several occasions as “Israel.”

What Does Isaiah 53 Mean? How Best To Interpret it? Bibliography & Links to Online Sources

The “Servant of the Lord” in Isaiah: General Bibliography [Last updated 2015-05-18] click here.

Who Is the Servant of the Lord?: Jewish and Christian Interpretations on Isaiah 53 from Antiquity to the Middle Ages by Antti Laato, 2013, in-depth review by Alphonso Groenewald, click here.

“Kingship and Servanthood in the Book of Isaiah” by Ulrich Berges from a highly acclaimed volume published in 2014, The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew by Richard J. Bautch (Ed.), J. Todd Hibbard (Ed.), click here to read part of the article.

“For fundamentalists only: Isaiah 53 in context,” click here

Award winning Christian seminarian leaves the fold after examining the so-called Old Testament “Prophecies of Jesus” in detail: George Bethune English, The Grounds of Christianity Examined. For a bit of his story click here. For his view of Isaiah 53, click here and start reading at the paragraph beginning, “The next prophecy proposed to be considered, is the celebrated prophecy of Isaiah, consisting of part of the 52nd, and the whole of the 53rd chapter…”

Rabbi Tovia Singer (a conservative Jew who agrees that Scripture is inspired) defends Judaism against the Christian missionary selective quotation approach to the Hebrew Bible. Also does debates, and has recently re-edited his encyclopedic work that responds to numerous claims made by Christian missionaries, click here.

Fiddler Zvi disputes the Christian use of OT passages, including Isaiah 53, in an informative and entertaining fashion, click here.

Gerald Sigal, Isaiah 53: Who is the Servant? 307 pages, but a summary can be read for free by clicking here.

Uri Yosef, Counter Missionary Articles and Lessons, The Jewish Home. Click here then scroll down and click on the links to Identifying the “Suffering Servant.”

David Berger and Michael Wyschogrod, Jews & Jewish Christianity, a shorter work that discusses the use of Old Testament passages by Christians. Available for free along with many other pro-Jewish and anti-Christian missionary works, click here.

Rabbi Moshe Shulman, Judaismʼs Answer features many articles on Isaiah 53

Charles C. Hennell, An Inquiry Concerning the Origin of Christianity, 2d ed. (London: T. Allman, 1841), ch. 13, “On the Prophecies of Isaiah,” click here. See also, ch. 12, “On the Prophecies,” and ch. 14, “On the Prophecies of Daniel,” pp. 325-403

Michael Arnheim, Is Christianity True?, 1984, ch 6, “Fulfillment of Prophecy?”

Dewey M. Beegle, Prophecy and Prediction, 1978. An Evangelical Bible scholar and translator whose book on prophecy was composed in reply to various conservative views of Old Testament prophecy. Not available to read online, but copies can be obtained at oneʼs local library via inter-library loan. Info for Amazon purchase, click here. Beegleʼs testimony is also featured in Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists.

Does “Atonement” Make Sense?

Does “Atonement“ Make Sense?

Donʼt Christians ever wonder why killing Godʼs son (whom they believe to have been “God the Son,” the second person of the “Trinity”) was not the greatest sin humans could ever commit? Humans killed God?! Isnʼt that the greatest sin anyone could possibly dream of ever committing? How could the humans who committed such a deed ever be forgiven except maybe by killing another divine savior to “atone” for killing the first one? And so on and so forth? At some point the cycle of “atonement” has to be broken by direct forgiveness. At some point direct forgiveness, not based on a bloody sacrifice, has to intervene to break the endless loop. Maybe thatʼs why Jesus himself did not believe that Godʼs forgiveness depended on a bloody sacrifice, but instead taught everyone to pray “in this way…Our Father…Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.” Simple. Direct forgiveness.

Has any theologian ever been able to demonstrate how “atonement” works, how physical pain unto death of an animal or person makes up for that time I talked back to my mother, or desired my neighborʼs wife or car? Sounds exactly like sympathetic magic. Or as comedian Doug Stanhope says, “‘Jesus died for your sins.’ How does one affect the other? I hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage. I donʼt get it.”

Or as my friend Tony Atkinson once asked, “How do ‘sins’ become something substantial in and of themselves? There are memories of being hurt, but ‘sins’ as substantial entities one can collect together and then place inside a body or soul? How do ‘sins’ become collected and where do they exist apart from being past acts? Are ‘sins’ the ‘bad’ memories of God? Do such memories ‘soil’ Godʼs mind? And he has to dispose of them? Is killing his own son a form of forgetfulness, a means of dissolving such memories? None of this makes sense.”

And is the Bible right about the life being “in the blood?” No, the life is in the brain and nervous system. We think nothing of blood transfusions, but cutting out part of oneʼs brain and replacing it with someone elseʼs is another more serious matter.

Also, Christianity comes along and suddenly all those bleeding animal sacrifices were for naught, because none of that animal blood did a thing, not if Christianity is true.

Also the scapegoat, the goat upon which the peopleʼs sins were placed, was NOT BLED, it “took the sins of the people” out into the desert. As for the Passover lamb in the Exodus story it did not die for anyoneʼs sins! It was so that the angel of death already saw death on the door posts of the Hebrews and didnʼt go in and kill their first born children. It was passing over those homes, but had nothing to do with any of the Jewish firstborn children inside those homes being sinners.

Though I admire Jesus for deploring the temptations of wealth, organized religion and its powerful sway, as well as hypocrisy, I no longer find the doctrines of either “original sin,” or “imputed righteousness” believable. I donʼt think the cosmos is the way it is simply because one human couple failed a test, nor do I believe that a man being executed 2000 years ago “paid the price” for the “worldʼs sins,” and we ought to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” for the forgiveness of sins, not even metaphorically. Sounds rather paganish, echoing vampirism or cannibalism, a theology taken right out of the ancient superstitious caldrons of blood sacrifice and appeasement. Sympathetic magic.

That being said, I saw the film, The Passion, and was moved when Jesusʼ mother ran toward him when he was being forced to carry the cross. As she struggled to reach out to her son who had just fallen carrying the cross she recalled the time Jesus fell as a child and she rushed to help him. My eyes teared up at that scene in the film. But the rest of the film was a blood orgy that did not move me any more than seeing any other human being unjustly tortured and murdered. I didnʼt feel ‘forgiven’ after watching the film, nor closer to God.

Though when I was young and raised Catholic I felt such a connection, and even cried after reading the Gospel stories of Jesusʼ death “for me, for me, for me.” (Ah, the self interest angle of Christianity, so prominent even in its hymns. Jesus loves me… This I know. Died for me. Me. Me. Me.) The Christian schema doesnʼt make sense to me anymore, neither intellectually nor emotionally. But direct forgiveness and people showing compassion to other people does.


Whenever I forgive someone Iʼm relatively straightforward and direct about it. But for God it takes a bloody miracle.


After the missionary explained the Bibleʼs superior civilized plan of salvation to several natives, one of them replied, “Like you, we love our gods and seek to love one another. What we do not understand is why your god tried to pin down sin by using His son as a voodoo doll.”


Christianity is merely paganism with a more successful advertising campaign.


Christianity teaches that Jesus had to die, or God couldnʼt forgive sins, not a single sin, not unless Jesus died first.

So why isnʼt Judas a “Saint?”


Conversation, A.D. 33

A: Have you heard the latest?

B: No, whatʼs happened?

A: The world has been redeemed!

B: You donʼt say!

A: Yes, the Dear Lord took on human form and had himself executed in Jerusalem; and with that the world has been redeemed and the devil hoodwinked.

B: Gosh, thatʼs simply lovely.

Arthur Shopenhauer


We relate to the suffering of a wide range of species not just human suffering. It was even discovered that deer react to the sound of a crying baby of almost any mammal species, not just the cry of a baby deer. But how does such empathy in nature provide evidence for the truth of any one religion in particular? It doesnʼt. Which reminds me of a poem…

Chipmunk Crucifixion

No chipmunk had to be crucified

on a tiny cross of twigs

To save all the other chippies,

Had to have nails pounded

through his little paws,

Had to take upon himself

all the sins of all the chippies

that ever were or would be

and die in agony

So that after they died

all the chippies

could live again forever,

But only if they believed

in all the sayings and doings

of the chipmunk crucified

on the tiny cross of twigs.

Antler, Last Words


Letʼs not forget that Jesus (after a few hours of pain) rose from the dead and ascended to a throne in heaven. So in essence, nobody really “killed” Jesus; it was more like a fraternity hazing, or an early version of the TV show, “Fear Factor,” where you endure all kinds of [fill in blank with favorite expletive] to win a valuable prize.

SOURCE: T-Shirt Hell Newsletter, 2/25/04


In the beginning God was perfect and whole, needing nothing.

Then he said, “I need an itch to scratch, Iʼll create humans. Of course I see that most of them will suffer, first on earth (where they shall be born into a world of pain, ignorance, swept up by hormonal waves of emotion, and experience uncertainty, dread, miscommunication), with eternal woes to follow for those who didnʼt ride the right waves of holy emotion by falling head over heels in love with Jesus of Nazareth and/or the writings of his disciples, nor interpret what was written with theological correctness.”

“Also, be it known that I cannot forgive anyone anything, not until Blood Is Shed. I know I had Jesus teach people that I would forgive those who forgave others—but I only truly forgive after BLOOD is shed. And a millennia of shedding animalʼs blood will be just for show, but ineffective. No genuine atonement will be achieved until Jesus of Nazareth bleeds to death. And even the blood of Jesus was shed in vain for the vast majority of doomed humanity who are going to wind up in hell anyway.”


For those who defend the idea of eternal wrath being meted out to people after mere decades spent in a “fallen,” confusing, painful and frustrating cosmos, one with fear, prejudice, cultural biases, mental blindness, ignorance, and demons running free (thank God for leaving Satan and his demons on earth), then I guess thereʼs not much in the way of reasonable conceptions of justice anyone can say to such a person. Because they believe it is perfectly just for God to arrange things such that people get born in a frying pan, only to be tossed into the fire, without reprieve, forever.

I say to such people, you can have your jealous God of wrath, who kills millions in the Bible while Satan kills a handful (and Satan even has to beg Godʼs permission to do so, so all the killings are ultimately Godʼs in the Bible).


Jews do not make material sacrifices on their holiest day of the year, the day of atonement. They offer a contrite heart on that holiest of days, based on teachings in the psalms and books of their prophets. The prophets in the Bible were at odds with the priests on the matter of the importance of material/animal sacrifices and the “shedding of blood.” Jesus himself taught people to pray, “Forgive us Father as we forgive others.”

Christians have differed in their understandings of what Jesusʼ death signified. Limited atonement or universal? Bloody or nonviolent (see the book listed at the end)? Theological brouhahas have continued throughout the history of Christian theology over the meaning and significance of Jesusʼ death. Some examples below:

  • 1500-1600s
    The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675) (Studies in Christian History and Thought) by G. M. Thomas (2007)
  • 1600-1700s
    Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640-1790: An Evaluation by Alan C. Clifford (1990)
  • 1700s-1800s
    Atonement Controversy: In Welsh Theological Literature and Debate, 1707-1841 by Owen Thomas (2002)
  • 1800s
    Modern Anglican Theology: Chapters On Coleridge, Hare, Maurice, Kingsley And Jowett And On The Doctrine Of Sacrifice And Atonement (1859) by James H. Rigg (2008)
  • A Treatise on Atonement (1858) by Hosea Ballou. (Famed Universalist preacher from the Victorian era)
  • George MacDonaldʼs Challenging Theology of the Atonement, Suffering, and Death by Miho Yamaguchi (2007) MacDonald was a famous Victorian Universalist.
  • 1900-2000s
    Dostoevsky on Evil and Atonement: The Ontology of Personalism in His Major Fiction by Linda Kraeger and Joe Barnhart (1992) Dr. Barnhart is an ex-Christian. His testimony appears in Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists
  • The Atonement (Problems in Theology) by Michael M. Winter (1994)
  • Jesus and the Doctrine of the Atonement: Biblical Notes on a Controversial Topic by Gerd Lüdemann (1998) Gerd is an ex-Christian and former Lutheran theologian.
  • Cross Purposes: The Violent Grammar of Christian Atonement by Anthony W. Bartlett (2001)
  • Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement by Gustaf Aulen and A. G. Herbert (2003)
  • Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine by Stephen Finlan (2005)
  • The Promise of Peace: A Unified Theory of Atonement by Alan Spence (2006)
  • The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views by Thomas R. Schreiner, James Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, and Gregory A. Boyd (2006)
  • Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation by J. Denny Weaver, Thomas N. Finger, T. Scott Daniels, and Hans Boersma (2006)
  • Options on Atonement in Christian Thought by Stephen Finlan (2007)
  • What About the Cross?: Exploring Models of the Atonement by Waldron Byron Scott (2007)
  • The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement by Derek Tidball, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker (2008)
  • Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology: Volume 1: Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement by Michael C. Rea (2009)
  • The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology by Rashdall, Hastings (2009)
  • Historic Theories of Atonement by Robert Mackintosh (2009)
  • The Atonement and the Modern Mind by James Denney (2009)
  • The Atonement in modern religious thought : a theological symposium by Anonymous (2009)
  • Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement (Spck Classics) by Gustav Aulen and A. G. Herbert (2010)
  • The Nonviolent Atonement (Paperback) Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (2010) J. Denny Weaver “Sharp debates about the death of Jesus sparked by feminist and womanist theologians are the current cutting edge of discussions about Christology and atonement”
    From Publishers Weekly: Evangelical Christians sing hymns in which blood figures prominently; one in particular is called “Nothing But the Blood.” Such Christians may have to change their tune after reading J. Denny Weaverʼs The Non-Violent Atonement, which proposes that the idea of ‘satisfaction atonement’ must be jettisoned in favor of a nonviolent approach. Jesusʼ death, says Weaver, was not planned or sanctioned by God the Father; it was the inevitable result of sinful humans taking matters into their own hands. Perhaps the new hymn can be called “Everything But the Blood”?

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.