Athens

The Apostle Paul

The Apostle Paul, back when he was known as Saul, dealt with some of the best minds and arguments Christianity has ever had to offer, as he was one of the official persecutors of the new religion employed by the High Priest (Acts 9:1,2). As such, he would have educated himself about this movement. Saul, as a resident of Jerusalem during this era, may have even met Jesus and the leading Apostles face to face. Saul was even present when Stephen, the first Christian martyr, gave his long winded sermon and died. But Saul was not persuaded by this sermon nor any arguments or "logic" from the Christians. He was not even persuaded by watching Stephen die for his religion- people die for their religions every day, and if you're an educated man like Paul, you realize this proves nothing except the fanaticism of the martyr. Stephen had only Christian sermons to offer Paul, but Paul found mere arguments, apologetics, and personal testimony to be unacceptable. The only "argument" that did eventually convince Paul was not an argument at all. According  to the Bible, Jesus appeared to him in person and knocked him on his ass. This is the kind of evidence that really demands a verdict.   (Acts 7:56-60, 8:1-3, 9:1-18, 22: 6-9)

The Apostle Thomas 

The Apostle Thomas, aka "Doubting Thomas", who had been with his fellow Apostles for three years on a daily basis, apparently knew them well enough not to trust them! When his fellow Apostles told him Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, he counted their testimony to be insufficient evidence (John 20:24-25). In other words, he knew they were liars unworthy of being trusted.  It needs to be noted that it wasn't the possibility of resurrections that he doubted, for according to the Bible he had just seen one a few weeks prior when Jesus supposedly resurrected Lazarus (John 11). Rather, it was the credibility of his friends he doubted, demanding instead hard evidence, refusing to trust the mere testimony of any Christian, especially his fellow Apostles.

Was Thomas somehow wrong or weak to put off believing, pending a visit from the zombie himself? Modern Christians often hint around this way, that there was something "defective" with Thomas' scientific approach to the matter. If there was, then both Thomas AND Jesus were wrong, for according to the New Testament Thomas demanded the visit, and Jesus granted the visit,  thus giving his "seal of approval" to Thomas' skeptical demand. If it was in any way wrong or "sinful" for Thomas to be skeptical, then both Thomas AND Jesus are enjoying the warmth of Christian hell right about now. Maybe if more Christians were like Thomas, self-inflicted disasters like Jonestown and Heaven's Gate never would have happened. Rather than being looked down upon, Thomas should be the Patron saint for all Atheists. Thomas should be held high as the role model for how everyone should approach claims of the paranormal.

It should also be noted that Jesus did not strike Thomas down with lightening bolts for his healthy skepticism. Instead, he rewarded him with (according to the Bible) an undeniable 100% factual visit in the flesh. If it was good enough for Thomas to await hard evidence before "giving his life to Christ", then give me that old time religion of healthy skepticism- it's good enough for me. In light of how Thomas approached the claims of Jesus' resurrection, what's wrong with us using the exact same approach of "wait and see"? For whatever reasons Jesus decided to come back and make an additional appearance just for Thomas' sake, Jesus can also come and make an appearance for our sakes. Christians have no grounds whatsoever condemning modern Atheists and Skeptics for practicing a healthy skepticism just like their Thomas did. A personal in-the-flesh visit from Jesus, and not Christian preaching, is what provided Thomas with evidence to demand a verdict. 

The Eleven 

Remaining Apostles

&

The Women 

at The Tomb

According to the Bible, all eleven remaining Apostles- Thomas included- flatly rejected as absurd the testimony of an entire group of Christian women who claimed to have spoken to angels about the resurrection. One of these women- Mary Magdalene- even said she had spoken with Jesus himself (John 20: 15-17). Who knows if Mary would have even believed the resurrection happened, if she hadn't (as the Bible claims) seen it for herself. Just like Mary, we should get a visit from Jesus also- why take the word of others when "the real McCoy" can prove it first hand? Anyway, the women ran off to tell the Apostles what had happened, and their first-hand testimony "appeared as nonsense" to the Apostles, even though they knew these women on a daily basis, and even though one of the women was the mother of one of the Apostles-  the Apostle James! When it came to resurrections, James wouldn't even trust his own mother!   All of the Apostles to a man refused to believe what these women claimed to have seen because they lacked hard, tangible evidence to back up the claims. Taking the story to its logical conclusion, if the mere words of others were all the Apostles had to go on, Christianity could have ground to a halt then and there, as the Apostles hadn't seen any evidence that demanded a verdict. (Luke 24:9-11)

Bible Tradition: 

HARD EVIDENCE

The people of the New Testament era demanded hard evidence- so why should we be any different in our day and age and settle for anything less? Who are we to break with Biblical tradition and example? Should we be so gullible as to believe outlandish incredible tales of the paranormal, 2000 years removed and filtered through countless unknown editors? Should we believe the same stories that even when fresh were rejected, and not just rejected by anybody, but by the very people who often knew the honesty and trustworthiness of the Christians making the claims? Jerusalem refused to trust Jesus, Athens refused to trust Paul, the Apostles didn't trust each other or their female friends, and Saul (Paul) didn't trust anything that any Christian said. All this mistrust should set off warning bells about the lack of credibility among the supposed witnesses upon which Christianity is based.  Every single Apostle rejected the testimony from their women's auxiliary group. Thomas rejected the testimony of his fellow Apostles and demanded hard evidence. In light of this, who are we to gullibly accept what they themselves rationally rejected?

Is demanding hard evidence of the supposed resurrection of Jesus such a crime or in any way unreasonable? Not according to the Bible, for Jesus himself offered hard evidence to all of the Apostles, as found in Luke 24:39 where Jesus says,

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.

And again, Jesus is reported to have said to Thomas in John 20:27, 

"Reach here your finger, and see my hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."

You can't get proof of resurrections more credible than that. One resurrected zombie is worth more than ten thousand pages of hot air and clever arguments from arrogant Christian intellectuals. In light of these New Testament examples, there is no reason we of today should settle for anything less than they did. They refused to believe without hard evidence, so Jesus gave them the hard evidence. The Apostles, according to the New Testament, had seen with their own eyes, and thus had real faith in Jesus, unlike modern Christians who say they believe in the resurrection, but without ever having seen one, what they really believe in is not the resurrection, but the word of the people and documents through whom this story has traveled for the past 2,000 years. As we all know too well,  "gullibility" is often another way to spell "faith". The zombie Jesus appeared in the flesh to his Apostles and even told them to shove their hands right into his gaping open wounds- now that is evidence that demands a verdict, and the kind of evidence we all should wait for!

Hypocrisy: 

A Grand Christian Tradition

Rev. Jim & Tammy Bakker

Rev. Jimmy "Boo Hoo"  Swaggart

Hypocrisy, a fine Christian tradition, is requiring from others what you don't require from yourself. According to the Bible, the Apostles refused to believe until they saw the resurrected Jesus for themselves. They rejected the claims of women and even their fellow Apostles. None of the Apostles- not a single one- ever became convinced that Jesus rose from the dead just because of mere words- all required an in-the-flesh visit. Yet when they got the business of Christianity up and running, what they themselves required they never offered anybody else. Even though all of them had required a personal in-the-flesh visit from Jesus, all they gave the world were mere words.  To the world, they only offered the kind of evidence they themselves had already turned down. Hypocrites that they were, they demanded others accept evidence they themselves didn't- evidence that didn't demand a verdict.

Not "History"

 but HIS-STORY

What modern Christians are trying to get you to believe with all their crusades, revivals and tracts is not some dry ancient history, but rather HIS-Story, the story of Jesus, which to them is a theological and transcendent reality. To Christians, Jesus is not some dry dead relic of history, but rather someone they just spoke to this morning. For them to innocently claim they're just giving the world an objective history lesson is disingenuous. 

Christian theologians are not historians, they're theologians- coloring their theological claims with an historical paintbrush just to gain the legitimacy they haven't earned. When they argue their Bible is just a history book, they are lying. They'll claim the claims for Jesus' resurrection are just plain old history, like the claims for George Washington- but that's just the bait hiding the hook. Theology is not history. 

President Washington never claimed to be a god- Jesus did. President Washington never asked that you spend your whole life worshiping him- Jesus did. President Washington never asked you to become a martyr and die for your belief in him- Jesus did. And President Washington never claimed to walk on water- he used a boat to cross the Delaware! Most importantly, President Washington doesn't have millions of deluded fanatics roaming the world knocking on doors trying to convince mankind that he rose from the dead, can live in hearts, or can give magical powers to his believers. Failure to accept valid historical accounts of President Washington just means you're stupid. But failure to put religious faith in Jesus, according to the Christians, means you are doomed to burn in hell forever!  Nobody asks you to die for Washington nowadays, but Christians will ask you to die for Jesus, even though the evidence they provide you with in no way demands a verdict.

In summary, it seems as if modern Christians are asking us to swallow a stew without thinking--a leftover stew that's 2000 years stale, that has been gone over by dozens of unknown cooks throughout the centuries, each throwing in their own concoctions. We are being asked to swallow stale evidence- evidence that when fresh was rejected by Paul, spit out by Thomas, and vomited up by the rest of the Apostles! Thomas rejected the fresh testimony of his best friends- are we to swallow the exact same testimony, now 2000 years stale, from people that to us are total strangers??? I don't think so.