The End of Christian Apologetics
FreeChristians

Part 2. The Failure of Bible Apologetics

Old Testament Problems

 The biggest problem with the Old Testament Scriptures is their immoral content. The Apologists who try to justify the so-called acts and words of God as recorded in the Old Testament inevitably expose themselves as lacking moral integrity. What else but people lacking moral values can those who defend the acts and words of the Biblical character Yahweh? The book these apologists are defending is not a Holy Bible, it is The Bloody Bible!  

A classic example of lacking moral integrity is Pat Robertson's effort to justify God ordering the wholesale genocide of the Midianites (see the infamous passage in Numbers 31). This is what the good evangelist said: "The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they understand fully what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked... God told the Israelites to kill them all: men, women and children; to destroy them." And that seems like a terrible thing to do. Is it or isn't it? Well, let us assume that there were two thousand of them or ten thousand of them living in the land, or whatever number, I don't have the exact number, but pick a number. And God said, "Kill them all." Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? But that would be 10,000 people who probably would go to hell. But if they stayed and reproduced, in thirty, forty or fifty or sixty or a hundred more years there could conceivably be ... ten thousand would grow to a hundred, a hundred thousand conceivably could grow to a million, and there would be a million people who would have to spend an eternity in Hell! And it is far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a hundred years down the road, and say, "Well, I'll have to take away a million people, that will be forever apart from God because the abomination is there." It's like a contagion. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change, and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites and pull the Israelites away from God and prevent the truth of God from reaching the earth. And so God in love - and that was a loving thing - took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number..." (Source: The 700 Club television program, May 6, 1985. Excerpted from "Genocidal Act of 'Love'" by Elliott Finesse)

Of course, other apologists have made better attempts to justify Jehovah's "foreign policy" as described in the Old Testament, but they all fail morally, since they systematically blame the victims. It is only when the victims are demonized that genocide can be sold to the masses as something "just". Hitler justified the genocide against Jewish people by demonizing them. Centuries of Christian bigotry against Jews (ie. "Christ Killers") made Hitler's job much easier... By demonizing the Jews, Hitler made it easier for the brainwashed German Nation to support the Holocaust. Bible Apologists do just that, they demonize the alleged victims of God's alleged violence. This moral bankruptcy of the apologists is understandable. It flows from the moral bankruptcy of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Only a morally bankrupt person can read those profanities in the Old Testament and justify them. To even attempt apologetics on the Old Testament, means that one has a distorted, inhuman view of God and reality. 

 As the great deist Thomas Paine once said:  "There are matters in that book, said to be done by the express command of God, that are ...shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice... To charge the commission of acts upon the Almighty, which, in their own nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes, as all assassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants, is matter of serious concern. The Bible tells us, that those assassinations were done by the express command of God. To believe, therefore, the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God; for wherein could crying or smiling infants offend?... People in general do not know what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing; it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty?" (see excerpts from:  AGE OF REASON by Thomas Paine)

 Only "true believers" can justify atrocities in the name of God. People of faith, on the other hand, condemn such enormities, even if they are taught in the Bible. Faith gives people the courage to be iconoclasts, to reject any inhuman religious icons, be they Popes or Bibles.

The immorality of the Old Testament scriptures is not the only problem. Apologists are also embarrassing themselves with matters like authenticity, historical reliability, and factual accuracy of Old Testament narratives. 

The list can go on and on, but the above links offer enough examples of insurmountable Old Testament problems. Only True Believers can turn a blind eye to these problems. Again, Apologists may refute or rationalize some of the points made by all those iconoclasts that de-mythologize the Old Testament Scriptures but on a whole, it seems that the only way one can continue to regard all the Old Testament Scriptures as inspired of God, is by compromising his/her moral standards.

New Testament Problems

The New Testament Scriptures fare no better under the scrutiny of the critical mind. New Testament apologetics routinely assume as true what they set out to prove, and this is the whole problem. Circular Reasoning!

In regards to forgery, there is hardly a verse in the whole New Testament that is beyond suspicion. The notorious iconoclast Louis W. Cable makes the following introduction to a list of obvious forgeries in the New Testament text: "The fraudulent nature of the New Testament is readily apparent to anyone who studies it objectively. The gospels have been shown to be fiction pure and simple while many of the so-called epistles of Paul are obvious counterfeits. In fact, forgery was so rampant throughout the early Christian establishment that Paul taught his followers to recognize his handwriting in an attempt to insure authenticity. So to point out a few forgeries in this book of forgeries is like prosecuting a serial rapist for jay walking. However, the following stories are among those deserving some attention..."
(see: SOME FAMOUS NEW TESTAMENT FORGERIES by Louis W. Cable )

The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Related to the New Testament forgeries is the question raised about the historicity of Jesus as portrayed by the 4 canonical gospels. The historical uncertainty about Jesus is made obvious by the fact that from the earliest times there have been those who argued that Jesus Christ is a total myth and no such person ever existed:

"In the 1820's, the controversial clergyman Rev. Robert Taylor traced the concept of Jesus being a myth to the ancient gnostic Christians: "The deniers of the humanity of Christ, or, in a word, professing Christians, who denied that any such man as Jesus Christ ever existed at all, but who took the name Jesus Christ to signify only an abstraction, or prosopopæia, the principle of Reason personified; and who understood the whole gospel story to be a sublime allegory . . . these were the first, and (it is not dishonour to Christianity to pronounce them) the best and most rational Christians." (see: Rev. Robert Taylor, The Diegesis.)..."

 "...In the '80s the controversy of whether Jesus existed at all erupted once again when GA Wells published Did Jesus Exist? and later The Historical Evidence for Jesus, both of which sought to prove that Jesus is a nonhistorical character. "An attempt to repudiate Wells was made by Ian Wilson in Jesus: The Evidence, an entire book written to establish that Jesus did exist. (There is a chapter titled, "Did Jesus Even Exist?," which in itself immediately places a possibly hitherto unknown doubt in the reader's mind.) It should be noted that no such book would be needed if the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure were a proven fact accepted by all..."

 "...In  Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless we read: "As said by the great critic, Salomon Reinach, 'With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors.'" In The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read, John Remsburg states: "The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. Rev. Giles says: 'The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him (Justin) - do not occur once in all his writings.'" In A Short History of the Bible, Keeler says, "The books [canonical gospels] are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them." (See: Footnotes, "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ", by Acharya S)

Earl Doherty, a proponent of the Christ-Myth theory, says: "despite all efforts of historical criticism during the past two centuries, the origins of Christianity remain hidden in deep darkness. Even modern research has not been successful in throwing full light upon them. According to Radical Criticism, this is due to the fact that the decisive presuppositions of previous work on the history of early Christianity have never been questioned methodically. This is true especially for the supposed genuineness of important documents of early Christianity as, for example, the Ignatian letters, 1 Clement and all of Paul’s Epistles. Radical Criticism has shown that their genuineness has by no means been firmly established. Nor can the human Jesus of Nazareth as a figure of history be regarded as a self-evident basic assumption..."

As outrageous as these claims may sound, the fact that such claims have been made and have persisted throughout the centuries, demonstrates the difficulties faced by the historian in regards to the historical Jesus. The arguments made by those who argue against the historicity of Jesus Christ are not as easy to dismiss:

Of course, most scholars, Christian or otherwise do not accept the view that Jesus never existed in history. But if a case against the existence of Christ can almost be made, one wonders just how poor the historical record about Jesus must really be. To the question on whether Jesus existed at all, Brinsmead makes the following reply:

"...The question has been debated among some scholars as to whether Jesus actually existed. Collaborative material outside the New Testament writings of second and third generation Christians is almost non-existent. So the inevitable question has arisen, Did Jesus exist or was he the product of religious imagination? The answer is "Yes" and "No". Jesus ben Parthenos (Jesus son of the Virgin) did not exist. He was the product of religious myth-making. 

"...Yet beneath the layers of religious myth, scholars generally agree that there is a person so astonishingly original and so incorrigibly real, he couldn't possibly have been the product of religious imagination. When we read the earliest Christian documents we gain the distinct impression that the authors are trying hard to fit Joshua ben Adam into their own conceptual world, but at the same time, he doesn't fit their little box - he is just too big for their little bed. The embarrassing or scandalous parts of the story can't be discreetly hid in pious embellishments, and some words and acts of Joshua are in obvious tension to the writers' own world-view. They leave pieces of the puzzling history lying about like so many land mines to blow their myth apart...."

"...We don't accept the thesis of some scholars that "the quest of the historical Jesus" is futile on the grounds that the history is not recoverable. Robert Crotty's (The Jesus Question- the Historical Search) bottom line is that we'd be better off staying with a myth which has no basis in history. It is a very great and comforting myth which has sustained Western civilization for 2000 years. On the other hand, the historical quest has produced so many versions of the historical Jesus that this path is strewn with too much uncertainty. That is the gist of Crotty's thesis. The work of 200 years of modern scholarship has provided proof enough that the historical quest has been a veritable Mount Everest. Yet real progress in research has also encouraged us to believe that the summit of the beckoning mountain is not insurmountable..."

"...It frequently happens that insurmountable problems and mysteries are unlocked by very simple (at least in hindsight) solutions. We suggest that it is no different when it comes to the task of recovering the essential outlines of the life and teaching of Joshua ben Adam. We believe that the key is found in a humanity which was astonishingly, winsomely real. The religions, the cultures, the social and political structures, and the world-views of Joshua's age were so inhuman in very many respects. Yet Joshua ben Adam displayed a development of human consciousness and a vision of being human that broke through all known boundary lines. He not only had the vision but also the courage to both advocate and act out the dignity of being truly human. He did this in the face of oppressively inhuman and dangerous situations..." 

"Scholarly methodology is important, as Dominic Crossan demonstrates. But it is not enough. Form without spirit is always lifeless, and mere academic research is a dead end, as Robert Funk's Honest to Jesus amply demonstrates. The most vital element of the quest is to share the spirit of Joshua ben Adam. Without his spirit we are sure to get off the track..." (see: The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam, PART 1: Introduction This Man and the Christian Religion are Not Compatible...)

The Failure of Resurrection Apologetics

Nowhere is the failure of Christian apologetics more evident than in the Easter story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Resurrection apologetics is a cause for shame. In the "must read" conclusion to his "Joshua Ben Adam" article series, Robert Brinsmead (who himself has faith in the resurrection of the historical Jesus) explains how and why the resurrection apologetics of Christianity were bound to fail:

"The one area in which the resurrection has been given a prominent rote is in Christian apologetics. The so-called historical proofs of the resurrection have been marshaled, not to explore the meaning of the mystery itself, but to validate the church's claims about the divinity of Jesus, the authority of the church and its possession of an exclusive and absolute truth. This represents an enormous prostitution of the Word of God. .. It is clear from the book Of Acts that the preaching of the Word, the preaching of the gospel, and the preaching of the resurrection was the same thing. The Word Of God was the word of the resurrection. It was an Easter gospel pure and simple. There were no arguments put forward about the divinity of Jesus, much less about his virgin birth. Nothing was said about salvation by blood atonement. There was no teaching about Incarnation or Trinity, both of which were unthinkable to Jews anyway. Now it would be reasonable to expect that this Word of the resurrection should remain central and that everything in the life and thinking of the church would serve this Word. But it was not to be. Claims about the divinity of Jesus. the Trinity, the blood atonement, the sacraments and the authority of the religious hierarchy became the central issues. The resurrection was simply the miracle of all miracles which validated this religious system, and of course, people's subjection to it.

 "The whole edifice of resurrection apologetics was bound to collapse because it never did have anything to do with faith in the Word of resurrection at all! As we will see, apologetics is the fruit of unfaith, that is to say, it is an expression of unbelief which has only succeeded in producing a great pile of religious manure at the tomb of Joshua ben Adam. .."

"...The resurrection is an article of faith like the existence of God. Neither are provable, and if they ware provable they would not be articles of faith. That Joshua ben Adam died was an historical fact openly disclosed to all, followers and opponents alike. But the same thing can never be said about his resurrection from the dead. It is not historically accessible like his death. We are not saying the resurrection is not real, anymore than we are saying that God is not real. But what we are saying is that all attempts to prove that the resurrection was an historical event are as ill-fated as all the attempts to prove the existence of God..."

 "..We must go further even and say that the God which is proven to exist by any kind of demonstration would be a God not worth believing in, because a God subject to definitions, propositions, explanations, and human demonstrations would no longer be the God who is infinite, transcendent and unimaginable. .. The same is true of the resurrection Of Joshua ban Adam. The kind Of resurrection that is provable from an historical point of view, the one backed up by signs of earthquakes, appearing angels, an empty tomb and tales about fish and chips on the beach is like the God who is humanly provable. Neither are worthy of our credence or allegiance..." (see: The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam, PART 9: The Resurrection )

I agree with Brinsmead that having faith in the Resurrection of Jesus is like having faith in God. It is beyond "evidence" or "proof" just as it is beyond "falsification" or "disproof". Those who claim to either prove or disprove things like the Resurrection of Jesus or the existence of God are chasing the wind. Both resurrection apologists and resurrection refuters are fooling themselves. Such profound matters cannot be proved or disproved. 

Besides, dear reader, if God wanted to give us "evidence that demands a verdict" about His existence or about the Resurrection of Jesus, He would have done a much better job, don't you think? If Jesus was so hung up on everyone believing in resurrection, he would have personally appeared to every single one of us and said: "see and believe". As for those brave apologists who have believed without seeing he would pat them on the shoulder and said: "good on ya mate", and everyone would be happy. 

Likewise, if God wanted to prove his existence, he could easily convince even the hardest skeptic. Are not all things possible with God?

But "evidence that demands a verdict" has never been an issue. What has been an issue and continues to be an issue for God is us humanoids (believers and unbelievers) learning to get along with one another. St. Paul said some very profound things, and at times seemed to speak the very words of God but he got it tragically wrong when he said: "what has a believer got in common with an unbeliever?" (see: 2 Cor., 6: 14-15). Aside the possibility that St. Paul didn't write these words (many of the epistles or parts attributed to St. Paul are now believed to be forgeries, see: The Pauline Epistles), believers and unbelievers have in common the image of God, just by being human, and Paul should have known that. Until every religious and ideological wall of hostility is broken down, humanity will not taste of the Kingdom of God, that realm of peace "which passes all understanding". 

Since Apologetics do not help in this at all, because they perpetuate the "dividing wall of hostility" between believers and unbelievers, I conclude that Apologetics is not of God and never has been of God. 

I personally have faith that Jesus is alive, that after his physical death, he entered the eternal realm of God. I have this faith but I cannot prove it or explain it. Because I believe in God, I cannot see any other outcome than universal resurrection for all human beings, no strings attached. I cannot conceive of God without conceiving life beyond death. The two go together: God of All=Eternal Life for All. I cannot imagine God's generosity having any limits, especially when it comes to granting life. That's my faith, and I do not need any apologetics or Bibles or prophesies to convince me. For me it just makes perfect sense. But that's me. I do not expect others to have the same faith as me, just as I do not expect others to make the same sense of such profound mysteries like God or life beyond death. And I certainly do not consider those who do not have faith in the resurrection as being any less moral or spiritual or any less accepted and loved by God. 

It is unfortunate that the Christian religion has turned the joyous message of the resurrection into "a dividing wall of hostility", dividing human beings into believers and unbelievers. This is perhaps the greatest tragedy of Christianity. 

Rather than being "a dividing wall of hostility", the message of the resurrection is for me a cause for celebration of life, as I see from afar the ultimate resurrection and reconciliation of every human being, and I am glad! Because I have faith in the resurrection of Jesus (and by extension, in the resurrection of all humans) I am inspired to view all people around me, believers and unbelievers, as equally loved and blessed by God the giver of life. Because I perceive God accepting them all, and ultimately giving life to all, who am I to reject or look down upon anyone because they do not share my views?

When the glorious message of the resurrection will be freed from the straitjacket of apologetics, it will no longer be a dividing wall, but what it was always intended to be, a message of hope. When this blessed day will arrive, those who happen not to have faith in the resurrection will not be offended by those who have faith and vise versa.

---

Pt: 3 The God Beyond Apologetics