How Christianity Ended Slavery [with InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones]

 

How Christianity Ended Slavery
with InspiringPhilosophy (Michal Jones)
https://youtu.be/kA0-21H1TtU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answering Anti-Christian Objections Based on the Life of Hypatia

 Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy does a series of short responses to objections to Christianity based on the persecution of female philosopher Hypatia.

Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UjRJMBV8iaU
 

Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/p5bXo3LZUyQ
 

Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pIK9pBdmAAc

 

A Response to Gary the Atheist

A guy named Gary posted some comments in one of my blogs [HERE]. He left a link to his own blog HERE. I responded to him both in my original blog and his. Then he responded back at his blog. The following is my response to his response. You can read his original comments at his blog. When I quote him below, I'll put his comments in blue, in quote text and within two slashes like //this//.

Here's my response to Gary.

I don't have the time to get into a detailed debate. But I'll make some brief comments. First off, while I believe in the use of evidences for Christianity like Christians who employ Evidentialist apologetics and Classical apologetics [etc.], I'm a presuppositionalist. So my epistemology is different than most other Christian apologists. I take the Bible to be self-attesting and self-authenticating. Nevertheless, I believe there are external and internal evidences that support or provide additional confirmatory evidence for the truth of the Bible. So, I don't think the truth of Christianity or its acceptability is ultimately dependent on external evidence. 

I'll start off by responding to your Gish Galloping list of objections. It's easier to list objections than to provide answers by the very fact that objections can be stated more succinctly than answers which require a full explanation to adequately address the objections.

//I left Christianity after evaluating the many inconsistencies and false claims in the Bible, not just because of a couple of books by Bart Ehrman. Some of these inconsistencies and false claims are:

–the lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus, an event Jesus believed was historical.//

Not all archaeologists are Egyptologists [i.e. specialize in ancient Egypt]. According to archaeologist James Hoffmeier's informal survey, while it's true that most archaeologists reject the historicity of the Exodus, from his finite inductive study, most Egyptologists either believe or suspect that the Exodus occurred. See this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170930132901/https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/vast-majority-of-egyptologists-believe-the-exodus-happened/

Dr. David A. Falk is an Egyptologist who believe in a literal Exodus. See his website: http://www.egyptandthebible.com/​

Also check out Dr. Falk's YouTube channel where he defends a literal Exodus:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF1f7vTqonOIwaGU6DwTvjg

While Falk thinks there are weaknesses in Titus Kennedy's works, I recommend checking out his book and videos as well. Archaeologist James Hoffmeier's books and videos are a bit dated and have partially be refuted, but they are good introductory resources.

//–the evolving concept of an afterlife in the OT.//

That's not problematic given Jewish or Christian theism. Since there's the Biblical concept of progressive revelation whereby God grants more and more information about spiritual matters down through Redemptive History. It's not one large data dump. That progression is seen even within the the Old Testament. And even within the first five books [i.e. the Torah/Penteteuch]. Also, "evolving" in what way? The Old Testament taught a conscious afterlife in Sheol and hinted at a more blessed condition for the righteous than for the unrighteous. That basic outline is completely consistent and compatible with the New Testament's understanding of the afterlife. While it has some flaws [as Annihilationists point out], I recommend the general arguments presented by Robert Morey in his book "Death and the Afterlife." For example, he points out how Gen. 35:18 says regarding Rachel "And as her soul was departing (for she was dying)." Implying an immaterial aspect to Rachel and its departure. Sure, the Hebrew word "soul" used could sometimes be translated "life," but in this case it could also [more?] plausibly be translated as "soul." Similar to how in 1 Ki 17:21 the "soul" [or "life"] came back INTO the child's body. Or how Jacob said in Gen. 37:35, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Implying Jacob believed in a conscious afterlife in Sheol where he would be reunited with his son Joseph.

While a bit dated, here's a public domain link to Messianic Jewish scholar Alfred Edersheim's Appendix 19 in his famous book, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah." He shows how the New Testament didn't invent the Christian afterlife out of thin air, but was partly built upon previous 2nd Temple Jewish beliefs about the afterlife. Beliefs that themselves were built upon from the Old Testament revelation.

Appendix 19, On Eternal Punishment, According to the Rabbis and the New Testament by Edersheim
https://ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes/lifetimes.xi.xviii.html

//–the fact that the NT authors used a Greek translation of the OT when writing their books and claiming fulfilled prophecies, a Greek translation which blatantly distorted the original Hebrew meaning in many passages.//

Since Christianity is a missionary religion, it only made sense to use a widespread Greek translation of the Old Testament that was already popular throughout the Roman Empire. There's nothing wrong with that. Does it blatantly distort the original Hebrew? Much of that claim of non-literal 1. translation, 2. interpretation and 3. application can be answered when one applies the Jewish hermeneutic that would later be called Pardes/PaRDeS that was already in use during the 1st century by 2nd Temple Jews.

See the following resources:

How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum
http://arielb.org/archives/794

Fruchtenbaum goes into this in his AUDIO lectures series the "Jewish Life of Christ": 
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

//Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat

The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.//

//Literal Plus Typical: Remez

The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.//

//Literal Plus Application: Drash

The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.//

//Summation: Sod

The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.//

Pardes (Jewish exegesis) [wikipedia article]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

A common objection to the historicity of Jesus is that there are too many parallels to Jesus and the Old Testament. But the parallel aren't as strong as they could be or would be if the Gospel writers were making it all up and fabricating it whole cloth. Another related objection is that passages in the Old Testament are eisegetically [rather than exegetically] pressed and forced to refer to Jesus. But if the Gospel authors were making it up, they would have made the parallels and fulfillments fit better if they used JUST A LITTLE bit more imagination. The fact that the Gospels don't do that fits better with the Gospel authors being constrained by the actual historical facts of Jesus rather than spinning fake tales. See the following video:

Is the Story of Jesus Stolen From the Old Testament?
https://youtu.be/AgHfZaPNddo

Moreover, the fulfillments are often more literal than is usually realized at first glance. See the MANY book recommendations in the 2nd half of the blog linked below that argue for the genuine messiahship of Jesus:

HERE https://misclane.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-prophecies-of-old-testament.html

It's often been said by non-Messianic Jews that no great rabbis believed Jesus was the Messiah. That's factually false. Many great rabbis have. Some of them were even very learned gedolim. See the following articles:

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part ONE
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/11/02/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves/

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part TWO
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/12/01/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves-part-ii/

//–the alleged OT prophecies about Jesus are all disputed. Jewish Bible scholars can provide good arguments that the passages in question are not talking about Jesus.//

Again, see the links I provided above. Including the MANY book recommendations of I linked to in the blog above.

[32 Youtube Videos]
Michael L. Brown's introductory responses to Jewish Objection to Jesus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7oY5wh5KEc&list=PLOSesbHxQr2Ta7WjFBut_bjLRWwMSYepK&index=2

It's interesting that many Jewish counter-Missionaries don't want to debate Michael L. Brown. For example, rabbi Tovia Singer has been avoiding debating Brown again [a 3rd time] for decades. Here's a video where Brown addresses Singer's refusal to debate him and Singer's inaccurate statements:

Dr. Brown Responds to Rabbi Tovia Singer
https://youtu.be/U5-TJPz6Y94

//–the fact that two and maybe three of the Gospel authors massively plagiarized the first.//

That Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source is not plagiarism. They may have even used the hypothetical Q [and other possible sources]. There's nothing wrong with doing that. Mark provided an outline [or skeleton] that the authors of Matthew and Luke decided to build and expand upon [by adding more "flesh"]. 

//–the inconsistency of the accounts of the location of Jesus’ appearances to his male disciples.//

I'm assuming you're referring to how Matt. 28:10 and Mark 16:7 say Jesus was to meet the disciples in Galilee. While Luke changes that in Luke 24:6, and has the disciples encountering Jesus in Jerusalem [similar to John]. See Mike Licona's book, "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?" Licona rightly points out that the Gospel authors used literary conventions and literary/compositional devices that were common at the time, were expected to be used and not considered deceptive or lying. I think Licona overuses them in his interpretation of the Gospels, but there is still some truth to it. For example, compression, simplification, transferal, displacement, conflation.

See this video lectures by Licona:

"Why are there differences in the gospels?" - Mike Licona
https://youtu.be/xtemSTrkogE

Also, given the 40 days between Jesus' resurrection and ascension, there would have been plenty of time for Jesus to initially visit some inner (smaller) group of disciples in Jerusalem, and then have a larger meeting in Galilee in the middle of the 40 days for disciples to travel that far to Galilee. Then a final meeting again in Jerusalem. Remember that 40 days is more than a month and a full week. 

//–not one single non-Christian recorded the (alleged) fantastical feats of Jesus. Jesus allegedly performed more and greater miracles than all of the OT prophets combined yet only four Christian authors recorded these events. This is strong evidence these events never happened. They are theological/literary embellishments, a common feature in ancient literature.//

This is easily answered. See for example this EXCELLENT video by InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones:

Refuting Biblical Arguments from Silence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTDuNFAHng&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY&index=8

In the video above, he gives these examples:

The eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD is one of the biggest and most devastating disasters in the ancient Roman Empire. It would have been seen by about 1/4 million people. Two cities were destroyed in the eruption. The death toll was probably between 16,000 to 60,000 people. Yet there is only surviving reference to the eruption, and it isn't even contemporary. It was written 30 years after. 

There is no Carthaginian or contemporary sources of Hannibal. No sources for Alexander the Great until 350 years later. Marco Polo never mentions the Great Wall of China. President Ulysses S. Grant's diary doesn't mention the Emancipation Proclamation.

Herod Archelaus' slaughtering several Jews in the temple, cancelling Passover celebration. It would have affected hundreds of thousands of people. Yet only Josephus, ONE person, records this event that has survived to the present.

//–the fact that a significant percentage of NT scholars doubt the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels//

Even assuming that none of the Gospels were written by an eyewitness, eyewitness testimony isn't the only POSSIBLE source of reliable history. That's a non-sequitur. According to your blog, you're aware of books like “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham. So, you know that there are books that argue for the general reliability of the Gospels by various authors. I'm sure you're aware of Craig Keener's books on the topic. Mike Licona says that Bart Ehrman was once called a "workaholic" and Bart responded, "Workaholic? No, Craig Keener, HE'S a workaholic!". Licona said that here: https://youtu.be/_eCe4GyNlr0?t=424

Moreover, besides the Gospels, there's Paul writings from which we can glean historical nuggets regarding the early Christians' beliefs and practices. The author of Luke/Acts has been shown to be a first rate historian. See the McGrews on this topic.

See these resources:

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman
https://youtu.be/43mDuIN5-ww

The Reliability of the New Testament (External Evidence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIdCRanZZyw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY&index=5

Extrabiblical Evidence for the Veracity of the Gospel History by Jonathan McLatchie
https://jonathanmclatchie.com/extrabiblical-evidence-for-the-veracity-of-the-gospel-history/

See many of Tim McGrew's YouTube videos on the historical reliability of the Gospels. 

For example here: https://youtu.be/04ZV8bVQhWg

//–Eyewitness accounts of people seeing a walking/talking resurrected Jesus is the best evidence Christians have for the central claim of their holy book—the resurrection of Jesus—but these alleged eyewitness accounts are disputed. Disputed eyewitness accounts for an event which allegedly happened 20 centuries ago is NOT good evidence.//

That begs the question [petitio principii/circular reasoning] that the Bible isn't self-attesting and self-authenticating and that there is no sensus divinitatis and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truths of the Gospel. I deny that non-Christians can make any sense of knowledge given their consistent use of their non-Christian worldviews and presuppositions. For example, let's deal with atheistic worldviews. Not all atheists are materialists, but many/most are. Because of that, they have a hard time, if not are unable to account for things like the famous and enduring epistemological and metaphysical problems of induction; cannot overcome the problem of Eliminative Materialism and of Mereological Nihilism; cannot overcome the Hard Problem of consciousness; or even rationally assert atheism given the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism [the famous EAAN]. I could go on. Those are just some of the philosophical problems in atheism. While Christianity as a worldview can provide for the preconditions of intelligibility in a consistent way. It has greater explanatory scope, explanatory power etc.

Eliminative Materialism, for example, holds that human consciousness, thoughts, desires, beliefs, feelings, deliberations, decisions, intentionality, ratiocinations and acts of will aren't real. Mereological Nihilism states there are no parts that make up wholes. In which case, there are no human beings made up of cells. There are only subatomic particles. I'll limit my objections to these. I don't want to Gish Gallop too much, myself.

Moreover, the miracle claims didn't stop at the 1st century. See the following books for starters:

Read Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts [2011]

Craig Keener's "Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World" [2021] which has 70% more information than the previous book.

Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates, 

and the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle 

as well as Larmer's book Dialogues on Miracle

See also Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland's book on modern miracles, "A Simple Guide to Experience Miracles: Instruction and Inspiration for Living Supernaturally in Christ."

Then there are scientific books that support a cosmic designer. For example:

Stephen C. Meyer's EXCELLENT BOOKS 1. Signature in the Cell; 2. Darwin's Doubt; 3. The Return of the God Hypothesis [newly released]

The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards [some channels have the video version]

Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed by Douglas Axe

Agnostic Michael Denton's various EXCELLENT books like:

Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016) [a second sequel to his 1985 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis]

Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe [first sequel]

The Miracles of the Cell

Children of Light: The Astonishing Properties of Sunlight That Make Us Possible

The Wonder of Water: Water's Profound Fitness for Life on Earth and Mankind

Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet 

Various books by Fazale Rana on biology like 1. The Cell's Design; 2. Origins of Life; 

Various books by Hugh Ross on scientific evidences for a Creator. Though, the way he argues for things are a bit off and poorly reasoned. But the data points are very suggestive. For example:

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home by Hugh Ross

Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Hugh Ross

Who Was Adam? by Rana and Ross [revised and updated edition]

The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry by S. Joshua Swamidass

Check out atheist philosophers' books about the ramifications of atheism like atheist philosopher's book Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"

And atheist philosopher's book Alex Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality.

Also, James N. Anderson's book review of Rosenberg's book here:
https://www.proginosko.com/2013/08/the-atheists-guide-to-reality/

//How does anyone know what Jesus said at his trial before the Sanhedrin? The Gospel authors do not indicate that his disciples were present. So who recorded this event? Who carefully dictated Jesus’ choice of words and passed it on to the anonymous author of Mark?? //

The book of Acts states that many Jews converted to Christianity after Christ's resurrection. Why assume that none of the converts were among the Sanhedrin? Why assume that Jesus' words in the Gospels need to always be ipsissima verba [precise/the very words] and not sometimes ipsissima vox [very voice]? Jesus didn't always talk/preach in Greek, so we can't always have the very words of Jesus.

Did Jesus Speak Multiple Languages? See my blogpost here:
https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2018/03/did-jesus-speak-multiple-languages.html

//This brings up another important issue which contributed to my decision to abandon Christianity: Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions! //

We all have assumptions and presuppositions. We all have a worldview by which we interpret the world. We're all presuppositionalists. Some just don't know it and aren't consistent with it and their worldview. The question is which worldview does better/best at providing for the preconditions of intelligibility and human experience in a way that's internally consistent and coherent. For my own self, I've found Christianity to do it MUCH MUCH MUCH better than any other worldview I've encountered. Including various atheistic worldviews.

For example, many atheists believe in science to the point of [unknowingly] holding to scientism. Some [not all] atheists for example, claim that you can only know things through the methods of science. But that claim is not itself something that you can know through the methods of science. It's self-refuting like the statement, "There are no sentences longer than three words."

Science has presuppositions or axioms which cannot themselves be proven scientifically but must be assumed [almost like "faith"] in order for science to be done [i.e. to even begin]. Some of those presuppositions include:

Here is a list of some of the presuppositions of science: 

(1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world; 

(2) the orderly nature of the external world; 

(3) the knowability of the external world; 

(4) the existence of truth; 

(5) the laws of logic; 

(6) the [general] reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers/identifiers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment; 

(7) the adequacy of language to describe the world; 

( 8 ) the existence of values used in science (e.g., "test theories fairly and report test results honestly"); 

(9) the [presumed] uniformity of nature and [propriety of the use of the principle of] induction; 

(10) causation

(11) the existence (or at least usefulness) of numbers. Given atheism, it's a strange "Happy Coincidence" that nature is so very much structured on mathematics that physicists can make predictions about the universe which are later confirmed empirically. Whereas, given the existence of God it makes perfect sense that God would create the physical world mathematically, and intellectually/rationally accessible.

These assumptions and the subscription to them make sense in [Christian] theism, but the various atheistic worldviews have difficulty [metaphysically] grounding such axioms or [epistemologically] justifying belief in them. Most atheists live by "faith" (so to speak) when they operate with these working/operating assumptions.

//Christian assume that the conversation between Jesus and the high priest is historical but it is entirely possible that it is a theological invention of the author.//

No, Christians don't necessarily have to merely assume that. There are historical arguments that can be mustered to support some of the events in the New Testament even given the unjustified historical methods of some non-Christian worldviews. Moreover, your hypothetical statement can be reversed. "[B]ut it is entirely possible that... [the account is generally reliable historically]". Possibilities doesn't prove probabilities. Note that many atheists scholars, Jewish scholars and liberal "Christian" scholars grant key aspects of the Gospel story given their use of historical procedures.

Notice these quotes:

"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on order of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate."- Bart Ehrman [agnostic scholar]

"Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable..." - Gerd Lüdemann [Atheist scholar]

Non-Messianic Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide said Jesus' death by crucifixion is "historically certain". Moreover, based on the historical evidence, Lapide even believed that Jesus really did rise from the death by God's power, but didn't believe he was the Messiah for the Jews, but for the Gentiles.

"The single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for Roman insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion." - Paula Fredriksen [a scholar converted to Judaism, who specializes in historical Jesus studies]

"The most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel."- Marcus Borg [Liberal scholar]

The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact." [Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape]

I recommend again that you watch William Lane Craig's explanation of the historical "Criteria of Authenticity" lecture and how he demonstrates Bart Ehrman often misunderstand, misapplies and conflates some of those criteria.

William Lane Craig Describing Various Criteria of Authenticity and How Bart Ehrman Incorrectly Defines and Applies Them:
IN SIX SHORT VIDEOS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANl-OcPnfI&list=PLshImU6jwhvz77QRcIo1HkBnZLIW0pMT1

//And your interpretation that Jesus used the Greek words for “I am” is preposterous. Do you really believe that Jesus and the high priest were speaking to each other in Greek? Highly unlikely. //

Two of Jesus' Apostles had Greek names [Andrew and Philip]. Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and who certainly knew Greek. Four were fishermen who sold fish [one of whom was Andrew]. The name Philip became a popular Greek name because of Philip II of Macedon the father of Alexander the Great. Is it unlikely that the Apostles and Jesus would have known how to speak Koine Greek? Jesus was a PREACHER. Jesus HAND PICKED His Apostles to preach. The word "apostle" itself means "SENT [one]." Sent to do what? Preach. Doesn't it seem reasonable that Jesus would choose people who were also Greek speakers? We call it "Koine" Greek because it was "common." It was the "lingua franca" of the time, like English is the universal language of commerce in our own day and age. As a possible carpenter, is it difficult to think Jesus spoke Koine? 

You'll ask, "How about at His trial?" It's common in multi-lingual cultures and societies for people to move back and fourth in different languages. Even to mix them a bit. That's why, for example, people jokingly talk about "Spanglish" [a mix of Spanish and English]. I'm Filipino and we jokingly talk about "Taglish" [Tagalog and English]. So, is it unlikely that Jesus didn't switch from Aramaic and/or Hebrew to Greek and back again? I doubt it. 

You'll ask, "How about Jesus' statement in Mark 14:62?" Let's say for the sake or argument that the author of Mark is generally conveying in Greek what Jesus said in Aramaic, then we have good reason to think that at least the author of Mark was trying to convey to his readers that HE HIMSELF [the author] believed Jesus was God by the use of "ego eimi" and references to the "Son of Man." But even if Jesus didn't say what He did in Greek, the concept of the "Son of Man" could have still been uttered by Jesus. In fact, the "Son of Man" statements of Jesus in the Gospels are usually considered likely historically authentic by scholars because it passes the Criterion of Authenticity called "Dissimilarity/Discontinuity." Because the New Testament church and the early church fathers weren't in the habit of referring to Jesus as the "Son of Man." In fact, scholars have said that the phrase appears to be Jesus' favorite self-designation. That Jesus referred to Himself as the Danielic "Son of Man" [in Greek or Aramaic] makes sense of His being condemned to death for blasphemy given the divine prerogatives of the figure in Daniel 7:13-14. One who rides the clouds, and will be served in a religious way that amounts to divine worship. What other alternative hypothesis can better explain Jesus' condemnation?

//Christians read all kinds of interpretations into Jesus’ alleged statements. Another Christian scholar commenting on this passage said that the high priest tore his clothes because Jesus inferred that he (the high priest) was as evil as the Greek ruler who had defiled the Temple a couple hundred years earlier. You guys are just guessing what Jesus meant, based on statements that you cannot be certain Jesus even said!//

I don't know who this anonymous Christian scholar is. So, it's difficult to comment on the claim, or confirm its accuracy. The scholar probably has a fuller defense of his claim that you're only [understandably] summarizing. But so what? How is that incompatible with what I and other Christian scholars have said about the high priest tearing his clothes and his condemnation of Jesus for blasphemy? Why assume it's a case of "either/or" rather than "both/and"? In fact, I have no problem with that possible interpretation since it's perfectly comptible with my interpretation and the interpretation of the Christian scholars I respect.

Well, I've address all of your objections. I don't expect you to respond to everything I've written. Like I said at the very beginning of this blog, I don't have time for, and so am not looking for a long debate with an atheist. I've done that plenty of times. I've also already spent a lot of time writing up this blog to address your basic objections to Christianity which other and better Christian apologists have addressed in their works [books, articles, videos, audio etc.]. But I took the time to write this up out of compassion to someone who seems to have apostatized due to emotional reasons rather than good intellectual and rational reasons.

UPDATE:

I later realized I accidentally missed responding to some of Gary's comments. So, the following is my response:

//If Jesus really was God, why all the cat and mouse games about his identity? Bottom line: Jesus does not clearly and without ambiguity claim that he is God in the Synoptics…at any time…even at the end in Jerusalem. John’s Gospels involves a much higher christology. This is evidence of an evolving view of Jesus’ divinity.//

//If Jesus really was God, why all the cat and mouse games about his identity?....//

Jesus was in a Jewish society that would have automatically rejected anybody claiming to be God in the flesh by either declaring Him crazy and leading others to dismiss Him and His teaching, or by stoning Him to death for blasphemy. That's why He had to first prove He was was the Messiah by His miraculous works. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum argues in his lectures on the Jewish Life of Christ, any Messianic candidate had to be observed in his actions. Also, I already said in my previous comments the following:

//For most of Jesus’ ministry He kept His messiahship veiled. Preferring to declare His messiahship by His deeds rather than His words. Saving the words for the end of His ministry. Scholars call this the “Messianic Secret.” See the wikipedia article on the Messianic Secret.

If Jesus kept His messiahship a secret during most of His ministry, then if He were God [the 2nd person of the Trinity], then He would all the more kept His divinity a secret. And as a matter of fact, in virtually all the places in GJohn were Jesus declares His Divinity, it’s still veiled in some sense. He’s hinting at it much more strongly than in the Synoptics, but it’s still not perfectly clear to His original audience, even though it’s meant to be clear to the readers of the Gospel. If Jesus revealed His divinity openly and overtly at the very start of His ministry, He would have been sentenced to death too early in God’s plan (especially given the prophecy in Dan. 9 about the timing of the public manifestation of the Messiah). See also, Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s lectures on the Messiah and how He was supposed to declare His messiahship first by deeds here:

The Jewish Life of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum [21 lectures in mp3]
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

//

//Bottom line: Jesus does not clearly and without ambiguity claim that he is God in the Synoptics…at any time…even at the end in Jerusalem.//

There are clear indications that the authors of Mark and Matthew believed Jesus was divine in some sense [Ehrman agrees]. I would argue even portraying Him as Yahweh. Here's the link again to my blogpost on the Christology of the Gospel of Mark:

Markan Christology
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/markan-christology.html

See also Anthony Rogers videos on Mark at his channel. He's my favorite living defender of the doctrine of the Trinity. See also his debates which are on other people's channels too.

Now to address your objection. First off, as I said before, even in the Gospel of John, Jesus' claims to deity aren't perfectly overt. Even when you factor in the more overt occasions where Jesus hints at it and alludes to it, the statements could still be interpreted in a way that evades the clear meaning of the author of John. Even the Jews in the the Gospel of John sometimes weren't sure if Jesus was claiming full deity or not. In their minds Jesus was giving them mixed messages. That's also why there are still Unitarians today who reject the idea that the Gospel of John teaches Jesus' full deity.

I'm still thinking about the height of Luke's Christology [i.e. how high?]. But how do you account for the fact that Gospels Mark and Matthew clearly presents Jesus as fully God YET doesn't have Jesus referring to Himself as God openly? If the authors were making it all up, then they could/would have put in Jesus' mouth overt claims to being Yahweh. But they don't even though they portray Jesus as Yahweh. That seems to be a mark of their trying to be historical. Of restraining themselves to the historical facts, rather than what they would like Jesus to have said. And again, Jesus doesn't do it in the Gospel of John either. Not even John 8:58 which comes closest to Jesus declaring Himself Yahweh. Unitarians even dispute the interpretation of that verse. So, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The contrast between the Synoptics portrayal of Jesus' self-identity and claims with that of GJohn isn't as stark as you portray it. Jesus does virtually claim to be Yahweh in Mark and Matthew. For example, among other places in Mark 14:62 and 6:50. In Matthew when Jesus says He's greater than the temple [Matt. 12:6], despite the Temple being the abode of God where Yahweh dwells. When Jesus says what He says in Matt. 18:20.

Matt. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

This is meant to parallel a famous saying among rabbis during the first century.

"Where two sit together to study the Torah, the Shekinah glory [i.e. the Divine Presence] rests between them." (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2)

[Also translated, "But two who sit and exchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence rests amongst them..." - Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot), chapter 3 ]

The Jewish Annotated New Testament which is NON-Messianic, confirms this on page 34, "rabbinic teachings stated that the Divine (Heb “shekhinah”) is present when people study Torah (m. Avot 3.2,6).

 Matt. 28:20 which is the ending part of the inclusio of  Matt. 1:23 where Jesus is said to be "God WITH us." Jesus says in Matt. 28:20 "I will be WITH YOU always, to the very end of the age," echoing the inclusio of Matt. 1:23. 

At that Great Commission in Matt. 28, Jesus is also alluding to His divinity because the author of Matthew, as scholars have noted, structures his Gospel in 5 segments to mimic the 5 books of the Torah. In order to portray Jesus as the new Moses and the new Joshua [Jesus and Joshua have the same name because "Yeshua" is just a shortened version of "Yehoshua"]. Just as Moses was on the mountain about to die and gave his last instructions to the people, so Jesus is on a high hill before He departs. Just as Joshua is given the command to OBSERVE all of the Law of God and that Yahweh will be WITH him, so Jesus tells His disciples to OBSERVE all that He taught and that He will be WITH them. Notice the parallels.

Matt. 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Joshua 1:5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you.

Joshua 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go."

Jesus is clearly being portrayed as doing what Yahweh did at the end of the book of Deuteronomy and the beginning of the book of Joshua. Just as Joshua and His army are told by Yahweh to go INWARD to invade the Promised Land to conquer, so Jesus tells His army [i.e. the Church] to conquer going OUTWARD by converting the nations into disciples.

Acts chapter 1 has Jesus commanding the disciples to disciple the nations in concentric circles outward from Jerusalem [Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then the ends of the earth].

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Remember too that the ending of GMatt and GLuke [Matt. 28:17 and Luke 24:52] have the disciples worshipping Jesus. Yes, the word for "worship" could be translated to mean "do obeisance" as to a human ruler, but the context and rest of the books make it clear that it's a worship of Jesus as divine.

 

//This is evidence of an evolving view of Jesus’ divinity.//

Most scholars hold to Markan Priority. Meaning, Mark was written first. Yet, Mark has nearly as high a Christology as John [as I prove in my blogpost and as Anthony Rogers does in his videos]. So there's very little development in the level of Christology. It's mostly just it being expressed differently. Part of the reason why it might be expressed differently is because the Synoptics more closely record the ipsissima verba of Jesus, while the GJohn records the ipsissima vox [see Craig Evans' statements on this in his videos and books].

See also Lydia McGrew's statements where she opposes some of what Evans' says about ipsissima vox. I think the truth is somewhere in between the views of Lydia McGrew and Craig Evans.

My blogpost:

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-dont-synoptics-have-jesus-claiming.html

Here's a blogpost from my all time favorite all around apologist, the late Steve Hays:

Are the "I am" statements authentic? by Steve Hays
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/are-i-am-statements-authentic.html

See Lydia McGrew's thoughts on the topic:

Jesus never said the "I am" statements? by Lydia McGrew
https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2017/09/jesus-never-said-i-am-statements.html

Transcript and commentary: The "I am" statements, again by Lydia McGrew
https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2018/03/transcript-and-commentary-i-am.html

UPDATE TWO:

MORE LINKS:

See Trent Horn's video here:

Nothing Fails Like Bible History (REBUTTED) by Trent Horn
https://youtu.be/kc-wpFyb_yo

Is the Exodus History? A Conversation with Dr. Titus Kennedy
https://youtu.be/czUyRQ6rUXw

EP29: Egyptian Evidence for the Exodus w/ Dr. Titus Kennedy and Dr. Steve Meyer, Discovery Institute
https://youtu.be/ZMMxf1HeE0c

Is Yahweh a Junior God?

The following question was asked in a Facebook Group I'm in. 

How would you respond to this argument?

We can't know for sure that Yahweh isn't a junior God who has been given part of the universe to run by the Supreme God and he has claimed more about himself than is actually true.

The following was my brief answer with working and added links:

Before I do some apologetics, ultimately, as James Anderson has said, the CHRISTIAN acquires certainty of the truth of Christianity when the external testimony of Scripture (or Scriptural truth) is coupled with the infallible internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Or as Van Til said (alluding to the WCF), "I believe in this infallible book, in the last analysis, because 'of the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in my heart.' "

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit by James N. Anderson

https://www.proginosko.com/2017/01/the-internal-testimony-of-the-holy-spirit/

We have no positive reason to think that's there is a God above Yahweh. We do have positive reason to think that Yahweh is the true God [see basic apologetical works]. These type of scenarios are often posited hypothetically because, allegedly Yahweh is an unjust God. But if another God [let's call him Ultimate God or UGod for short] higher and more powerful than Yahweh were "more" just, merciful and powerful, why isn't that God preventing Yahweh from committing the [alleged] atrocities he's doing? Why isn't UGod judging Yahweh and/or preventing Yahweh from allegedly making a mess of our universe? UGod must then have a similar sense of justice and mercy as Yahweh in his allowing the suffering/evil/sin in the world that he does and in delaying justice to a future eschatological Judgment Day. As non-Christians often say, justice delayed is justice denied. Yet, UGod is delaying justice in the same way as Yahweh is. And so, there's no rational reason to postulate a higher God above Yahweh. We might as well stay with Yahweh as per the principle of Occam's Razor/parsimony whereby we ought not to multiply entities beyond necessity.

If the argument about UGod were being based on the virtually universal Semitic conception(s) of a Divine Council, why couldn't Yahweh be that supreme God? Even Mike Heiser suggests this, and conservative Christians like Darrell Bock and Doug Wilson [et al] think there's some truth to Heiser's Divine Council thesis. Baal is arguably the most widely worshipped Semitic God previously, yet Baal worshippers have dwindled to insignificance.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionnow/2016/06/do-people-still-worship-baal/

 

The fact that those other Semitic gods have been virtually discarded and thrown into the dustbin of history such that very few people worship them any longer, while the three largest monotheistic religions on earth [Judaism, Christianity and Islam] are all Abrahamic should be telling. That Christianity is the most popular religion on Earth would be an inductive data point of evidence [not proof] that that the Christian God might be the true God. Christianity is the largest world religion. With 2.3 BILLION professing adherents. Add to that the 1.8 billion Muslims and the 14.7 million Jews and that's over 4.11 billion people out of 7.75 billion people who claim to follow Abraham's God. That's over half of the world population.

Judaism and Islam are clearly false conceptions of the God of Abraham when one does the apologetical investigation. BTW, the Roman Pantheon of gods, and the Greek Pantheon of gods are also for the most part forgotten. But admittedly, inductive inference doesn't get to certainty. There was also a time when Christianity was a small insignificant religion. Hindu gods are still being worshipped.

But Christianity is only still growing and making progress. Christianity is growing as expected given postmillennial interpretations of prophecy. As Daniel 2:35 states, the rock that was carved without hands is progressively growing to fill the whole earth/land that was once occupied by the former kingdoms which were represented by the image of Nebuchadnezzar and destroyed by that stone. Just as Jesus predicted that the kingdom of God is like leaven that eventually leavens the whole lump of dough. Or like the mustard seed in Jesus' parable that grows to be " larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches." Which is a clear allusion to the tree representing Nebuchadnezzar's widespread kingdom in his dream [Dan. 4:10ff.]. 

 

See these related blogs:

An Orthodox Jew Questions Two Comings of the Messiah Answered by Dr. Michael Brown

What Do You Think About The Messiah?

Did the New Testament's Prophecies and Predictions Regarding Jesus' Soon Return Fail?

An Orthodox Jew Questions Two Comings of the Messiah Answered by Dr. Michael Brown

 

An Orthodox Jew Questions Two Comings of the Messiah
https://youtu.be/kxOJhTf-KJ8

Two main objections to Christianity include:

1. Why did Jesus' prophecies about His soon return fail? Doesn't that prove Jesus is a false prophet? Secular critics press this issue.

2. If Jesus is the Messiah, how come the Kingdom of God with all its promised blessings including the defeat and elimination of evil, the arrival of world peace and universal prosperity not come to pass? This is especially pressed by non-Messianic Jews. Since they see those things as the indications of the arrival of Mashiach/Messiah.

I think Partial Preterism does a great job at responding to the first objection. The problem is that some partial preterists eventually come to full preterist conclusions. And among those, some take it further and conclude that Jesus was a failed prophet because the resurrection of the dead didn't take place [among other predictions]. So, the preterist response has its minor drawbacks and disadvantages.

I also think Postmillennialism can do a lot to lift some of the burden and release some of the pressure of the second objection. As Isa. 9:6-7 says:

7 OF THE INCREASE OF HIS GOVERNMENT and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Jesus' parable of the leaven leavening the whole lump takes time [Matt. 13:33]. So does the increase of Messiah Jesus' government. The stone of Dan. 2:35 gradually grows to fill the whole earth. It doesn't arrive from heaven and land on earth fully grown as a mountain [representing the Kingdom of God]. It arrives as a stone that grows like a seed.

Matt. 13:31 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.

32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."

This parable of the mustard seed is a clear allusion to Belteshazzar's vision of a great tree that represented his kingdom that was to be judged [Dan. 4]. Whereas Belteshazzar's tree/kingdom was chopped down, Jesus' mustard tree grows and remains.

Jason cites Ps. 110:1. There's a sense in which 1 Cor. 15:24-26 is the apostle Paul's exegesis and application of Ps. 110:1, and it has postmillennial implications. See the following article:

AN EXEGETICAL DEFENSE OF POSTMILLENNIALISM FROM I CORINTHIANS 15:24-26: The Eschatology of the DIXIT DOMINUS by Gregg Strawbridge

https://www.wordmp3.com/files/gs/postmill.htm

Critics of postmillennialism often object by pointing to present world problems as undermining the viability of the postmil position. But that's looking at history in our short lifespan. When the big picture of history is viewed, it's clear that the world has gotten better since the coming of Christ. A lot of it has to do with the influence of Christians and the Christian worldview and it's affects on science, human dignity, morality, philosophy, government, economics etc.

There were multiple comings of Yahweh in judgment on various nations in the Old Testament using the same cosmic language used by Jesus. Given that background it's highly likely that some form of preterism is true [partial preterism is within the bounds of orthodoxy, but full preterism isn't]. In which case, Jesus' coming did happen in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem just as He predicted. That leaves room for a final coming of Jesus to usher in the New Heavens and New Earth/Eternal State. See Kenneth Gentry's books and mp3s on the subject. Also Gary DeMar's books.

For a good introduction to partial preterism either watch R.C. Sproul's freely available lecture series "The Last Days According to Jesus" linked below, or read his book with the same title.

The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n22MRa0P6_I&list=PL30acyfm60fWm9jA8LNRnYizJj5VEduus

See also the classic books in defense of preterism freely available here:

The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity by George Peter Holford

https://archive.org/details/destructionofjer00holf

OR

https://archive.org/details/thedestructionofjerusalemin70adbyromanswrittenin1805georgepeterholford

The Parousia by James Stuart Russell

https://archive.org/details/parousiaacritic00russgoog

The Christ Has Come by E. Hampden-Cook

https://books.google.com/books?id=ThRUAAAAYAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hampden-Cook's book argues for full preterism, and Russell's nearly does so. But I recommend them nevertheless because much of what they contain can be used to support partial preterism and weaken the objection that Jesus was a failed prophet.

Refuting the errors and heresy of Full Preterism:

Read Ken Gentry's and Sam Frost's critiques of full preterism. Frost himself was once a full preterist.

Why I Left Full Preterism by Sam Frost;

When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism by Keith Mathison and other authors;

Have We Missed the Second Coming?: A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error by Kenneth Gentry

Neither partial preterism or postmillennialism need to be true to weaken the force of the two original objections. Even if false, opponents of Christianity have to refute preterism and/or postmillennialism if they are going to continue using those objections.

The added advantage of appealing to both preterism and postmillennialism is that there are multiple lines of evidence for their truth, and those evidences support the inspiration of the Bible because it involves the 1. fulfillment of Jesus' predictions of judgment, and 2. the fulfillment of the prophecies in both the OT and NT of the Messiah's reign spreading around the world.

Christianity is the world's largest religion, and as a living philosophy and way of life it has had more impact on the world [past and present] than any other ideology/worldview. Maybe Moses has had more influence than Jesus. But if Christianity is true, then that falls in line with and adds to Jesus' influence. Since Moses is a forerunner and Biblical type of Jesus. Some might say that earlier ideologies and religions may have also influenced Judaism and Christian. In which case, they they have had more influence. For example, Zoroastrianism et alii. But those are not living, but virtually dead philosophies of life. Besides, if Christianity is true, then given Common Grace we'd expect the positive aspects of non-Christian ideologies to have some influence on or have parallels to Christianity. Whether Persian religions, Greek philosophy, Roman law et cetera.

FIRST EVER ORTHODOX VS MESSIANIC DEBATE IN HEBREW! with English subs

Messianic Jew Eitan Bar Debates [non-Mesianic] Rabbi Haim Shitrit in Hebrew.

https://youtu.be/eNYY7QQwlaw

My Book Review of "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Richard Carrier

 The following is the review I wanted to post on goodreads.com, but the character limits forced me to dramatically cut it down there. Even before cutting it down, I didn't intend to write an exhaustive review because it was meant for goodreads.com. I could write an exhaustive review of the book here on my blog, but I'm too lazy to rewrite a thorough refutation.

At the beginning of the book Carrier wrote:

//If this is what Christianity is (and most Christians appear to believe so), then there are four reasons why I do not believe a word of it. And all four would have to be answered with a clear preponderance of evidence before I would ever change my mind. I’m serious about this, too. If all four points are ever refuted with solid, objective evidence, then any other quibbles I have beyond these four would not stop me from declaring faith in Christ. For surely any other problem I or anyone might find with the Christian worldview could easily be solved from within the faith itself—if it weren’t for the following four facts.//

I wonder if Carrier really means that, and why it is that [apparently] no Christian apologist has shown him how ridiculously easy it is to refute most of his objections to Christianity that he lists in THIS book. Admittedly, his other books would be MUCH more difficult to refute. Especially those on the historicity of Christ and his argument for Mythcism. However, this book presents general arguments against  Christianity which are often based on unwarranted and inflexible theological assumptions. For that reason the book is a very poor case against Christianity, as I'll explain below.

It's shocking that this book was written in 2011. In one sense, Christian apologetics has advanced to such an extent since then that this book is obsolete just 9 years later when I read the book today. Maybe it was out-of-date even earlier. In any case, it would be unfair for us to expect it to address those advances that happened subsequent to 2011. Yet, in another sense, there was enough in the scholarly literature at the time of publication that Carrier should have made room for acknowledging deeper Christian responses. But he really makes no room for them to the detriment of his fulfilling the stated purpose of the book.

I and many other Christians have responses and refutations to virtually every sentence in this book. But if I were to type up all of them, this review would be way too long to post on GoodReads. So, I'll highlight just some of the problems. Admittedly this book explicitly states it's a quick and surface level critique of Christianity, So, I didn't expect it to be exhaustive. It would be natural for there to be some gaps in his argumentation which could be filled in using his other books or recommended resources. However, he's so dogmatic in his conclusions that that by itself makes it a terribly argued book. Carrier makes high promises, but fails to even coming close to delivering on them. He should have given his many conclusions in the book with greater epistemic modesty, and humbly stated them in probabilistic phraseology. Instead,  he leaves no logical space for his arguments to be responded to with more nuanced Christian responses. As if nothing else could be said by Christians to show where his reasoning has gaps, leaps and non-sequiturs. At most [if I were being charitable], many of Carrier's arguments could possibly justify agnosticism toward Christianity. But that's still compatible with Christianity's truth. Yet, his book is explicitly subtitled "Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith". Meaning the Christian religion. Notice the word "CONCLUSIVE". The only out he could possibly have to this criticism of [virtually] claiming deductive proof that Christianity is false is by him pointing out that he actually did write, "When we stick with what Christianity usually means, there is simply not enough evidence to support believing it." The problem is that what he thinks as "what Christianity usually means" is too narrow a definition. Plus, he doesn't make that caveat often enough throughout the book to warrant that as an acceptable excuse for why he was as adamant as he was that he disproved Christianity.

Notice some of the dogmatic conclusions he makes in the book. When in actual fact many of them in context are non-sequiturs:

//Therefore, Christianity is false.//
//So either way, Christianity is false.//
//Which the Christian God would never in good conscience allow. So again, there can be no Christian God.//
//Christianity is simply refuted by the plain facts.//
//And since this is not what we observe, but in fact the exact opposite, the evidence quite soundly refutes Christianity.//
//Therefore, the fact that God hasn’t spoken to us directly, and hasn’t given us all the same, clear message, and the same, clear answers, is enough to prove Christianity false.//
//Therefore, no God exists who is even remotely like my father or my friends, or anyone at all who loves me. Therefore, Christianity is false.//
//That this is not the reality, yet it would be the reality if Christianity were true, is conclusive proof that Christianity is false.//
//Therefore, the fact that the Christian God does none of these things—in fact, nothing of any sort whatsoever—is proof positive that there is no Christian God.//
//For now, it’s enough to note that we do not observe God doing good deeds, therefore there is no God who can or wants to do good deeds—which means Christianity is false.//
//Therefore, once again, the Christian God does not exist.//
//The logic of this is again unassailable.//
//So the Christian theory is either empirically false, or self-contradictory and therefore logically false.//
//Once again, either way, Christianity is false.//
//The fact that he doesn’t proves he doesn’t exist.//
//That leaves no way to escape the conclusion: God’s inaction alone refutes Christianity.//
//Therefore, the absence of this evidence not only leaves Christianity without sufficient evidence to warrant our believing it, but it outright refutes Christianity, because Christianity entails the prediction that God would provide enough evidence to save us, to let us make an informed decision.//
//So there is no way to escape this conclusion. Christianity is fully refuted by its own dismal state of evidence.//
//Christianity is therefore refuted.//
//So the nature of the universe is another failed prediction, confirming our previous conclusion that Christianity is false. And like the three others, there isn’t any way to escape this conclusion.//

Most of his objections to Christianity are based on assumptions about what the Christian God is like and what He would CERTAINLY do [in his fallible opinion]. Yet, many  of those assumptions are either not found in Christianity and/or the Bible, or if subscribed by some Christians, aren't subscribed by all. Even some major ones which he even mentions in the book. For example, by Calvinists like myself [whom he mentions twice]. According to Calvinism and its view of predestination, many of his assumptions are false [e.g. regarding God's supposed universal unconditional equally extended love, etc]. Yet, he uses those assumptions to critique Christianity. He often argues in this fashion: If God exists, X would be done. X is not being done. Therefore God doesn't exist. But that boils down to whether HIS narrow and specific conception of the Christian God existed....yada yada yada. Put another way, if I [Richard Carrier] were God, I would do X. X isn't being done. Therefore God doesn't exist. But all that proves is that he's not God. He makes much of God's alleged love, but he fails to balance that with the Bible's doctrine of God's sovereignty and of His being the righteous Governor and Judge of the world. This book exposes how theology is not Carrier's forte.

Not only does he set the bar too high for proving Christianity, Carrier's objections don't take into account other views which I myself don't necessarily hold, but which other professing Christians do. Views which have ramifications/reprecussions/consequences/entailments which undermine his case. For example, he doesn't factor into his critiques views like: inclusivism; universalism/apocatastasis; purgatory [even some Protestants like Jerry Walls are open to a version]; Soul & Character Building/Developing theodicies; Recompense theodicies whereby God ordains there be some epistemic & redemptive distance between humans and Himself in this present Age to allow for rewards and punishments in the afterlife; the concept of a God given conscience and innate knowledge; the sensus divinitatis; the doctrine of humanity's original Fall; the noetic effects of sin; the defense of Skeptical Theism which is [as SEP states] a "strategy for bringing human cognitive limitations to bear in reply to arguments from evil against the existence of God"; Molinistic middle knowledge; Reformed Epistemology; God's Greater Glory theodicy, et cetera. [Some of the things just listed I reject,while others I'm open to or positively hold]

He switches from internal critiques of Christianity to external critiques back and forth erratically. Something which muddles and weakens his argumentation. When doing an internal critique of a worldview, you're supposed to assume for the sake of argument everything that worldview includes in its system. Yet, he repeatedly only assumes only parts of the Christian position and then attacks that strawman representation.

He argues how his conception of a loving God would give everyone the same message and there wouldn't be disagreements in interpretation. That doesn't take into account how grace as unobligated toward ill-deserving sinners; the noetic effects of sin; cognitive biases; how traditions/presuppositions can interfere with interpretations; differences in intellectual aptitude; or even opportunity to investigate these issues, messages or claimed revelations [in terms of time and resources]; or even of intentional fraudulent claims of revelation [et cetera]. He writes:

//If everyone all over the world and throughout history, myself included, had the same religious experience, witnessing no other supernatural being—no other god, no other spirit—other than Jesus, and hearing no other message than the Gospel, I would believe.//

Such unianimity of religious experiences and/or testimony would be difficult to achieve if Christianity's claim that there exists deceiving evil spirits were true. Or, as I said above, if there were (outright) lying human con artists who have fabricated false religions based on false claims of received revelations. This is one of many examples where Carrier set's the bar too high in order to prove Christianity. Could God overcome such issues? Yes. But there are reasons why the Christian God possibily wouldn't always do so, and Carrier doesn't address those possibilities. Earlier I gave as examples the ramifications of Calvinism or Molinism [to mentioned just two of many others]. If I recall correctly, even in his debate with William Lane Craig, Craig presented Molinist options like God knowing via middle knowledge what would and wouldn't convince a person of the truth of Christianity and then God providentially placing people the appropriate places that would result in His plan being inexorably fulfilled. If Carrier didn't anticipate and respond inadvance to the milder view of predestination that Craig offered in this book, then all the more has he failed to respond to Calvinism. Yet Carrier confidently pounds his fists repeatedly saying his objections devastatingly destroy the possible truth of Christianity.

William Lane Craig has said in response to the question of why God didn't make His existence rationally coercive: "Indeed, I could well imagine that in such a world, after a while, people would begin to chafe under such brazen advertisements of their Creator. And in time, eventually come to resent His effrontery for such brazen advertisements of His existence." Elsewhere Craig invited people to imagine a situation in which God consistently interrupted us whenever we were about to do something that would be displeasing to Him.

Or take for example 17th century Augustinian Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal's statements in his Pensées:

////Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications [or "signs"] of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

Elsewhere in his Pensées he wrote:

The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it. ////

I myself believe God provides different levels of evidence at different times and places for His sovereign purposes. Sometimes they are undeniable and rationally coercive, other times they are balanced so as to afford an opportunity for us to express our bent and preference.

Elsewhere Pascal makes high predestinarian statements that some Calvinists might agree with:

////577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.

574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.

562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.

576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.////////

Carrier's book doesn't come close to addressing Molinist, or Augustinian or Calvinist counter-arguments.

Carrier has gone on record saying he's no less a philosopher than Aristotle himself [wow, what a boast!]. I've watched many YouTube videos of Carrier, but not until reading this book did I realize just how woefully ignorant of Christian theology and philosophy Carrier seems to be. Whether it be systematic theology, philosophical theology, historical theology, pastoral theology, biblical theology etc. It just goes to show that knowing the Bible well, as Carrier does, is not the same thing as understanding the Bible or its implications.

//The logic of this is again unassailable. So Christians feel compelled to contrive more ad hoc excuses to explain away the evidence—more speculations about free will, or “mysterious plans,” or a desire to test us or increase opportunities for us to do good, and a whole line of stuff like that. And yet Christians again have no evidence any of these excuses are actually true. They simply “make them up” in order to explain away the failure of their theory.//

//In fact, all the ad hoc excuses for God’s total and utter inaction amount to the same thing: claiming that different rules apply to God than to us. But this is not allowed by the terms of the theory, which hold that God is good—which must necessarily mean that God is “good” in the same sense that God expects us to be good. Otherwise, calling God “good” means something different than calling anyone else “good,” and therefore calling God “good” is essentially meaningless.//

Carrier doesn't blink an eye when making such blanket statements. He's apparently ignorant of the following and their implications to his basic objections: classical theism or neo-classical theism [with respect to the omni-attributes and divine simplicity, immutability, impassibility, timelessness], Thomism, analogical language in theology, perfect being theology etc. While I accept Divine Simplicity, I myself reject Thomism and ABSOLUTE Divine Simplicity. Carrier again fails to leave logical room for these topics which, if he factored in, would weaken the force of his critiques.

Believe it or not, at one point Carrier requires Christians to prove that Christians have eternal life [LOL!]. Presumably empirically. That's an unreasonablely high requirement. He sets the bar unreasonably high multiple times in the book. He doesn't seem to be self-aware enough to realize how ridiculous some of his requirements are. Are Christians expected to be able to empirically prove that upon death the immaterial soul of a Christian goes to heaven? Seriously? By definition the soul is immaterial. In which case it cannot be empirically detected. He writes:

//Right from the start, Christians can offer no evidence at all for their most important claim, that faith in Jesus Christ procures eternal life. Christians can’t point to a single proven case of this prediction coming true. They cannot show a single believer in Jesus actually enjoying eternal life, nor can they demonstrate the probability of such a fortunate outcome arising from any choice we make today. Even if they could prove God exists and created the universe, it still would not follow that belief in Jesus saves us. Even if they could prove Jesus performed miracles, claimed to speak for God, and rose from the dead, it still would not follow that belief in Jesus saves us.
Therefore, such a claim must itself be proven. Christians have yet to do that. We simply have no evidence that any believer ever has or ever will enjoy eternal life, or even that any unbeliever won’t.//

He writes:

//As many a good Christian will tell you, only God knows who will receive his grace. So the Christian cannot claim to know whether it’s true that “faith in Christ procures eternal life.” They have to admit there is no guarantee a believer will be saved, or that an unbeliever won’t be. God will do whatever he wants. And no one really knows what that is. At best, they propose that faith in Christ will “up your chances,” but they have no evidence of even that.//

This seems to contradict what he wrote earlier in the book where he seems to hinge the truth of Christianity on God having to make salvation and the knowledge of salvation equally available to all so that all can make an informed decision to submit to Him. Yet, here he seems to admit that at least some Christians believe that it might be possible to be saved irrespective of one's conscious faith in. and choice of, Christ in this life [cf. inclusivism, universalism, post-mortem evangelism, purgatory etc.]. This later admission completely undermines much of his argumentation in the earlier chapters.

//...until such time as every required element of that theory has been independently confirmed by empirical evidence.//
//This is a serious problem for the Christian religion as an actual theory capable of test and therefore of warranted belief.//

These statements verge on going past empiricism to scientism, and/or logical positivism, and/or verificationism. The latter three have hit hard times in the philosophical community. They are dead programs in the guild. He stipulates, "...until such time as EVERY required element of that theory has been independently confirmed..." Really? That's you're requirement? Setting the bar that high he might as well require Christians to also prove that King David was ruddy, Zacchaeus was short, Ehud was left-handed, and Timothy was circumcised.

//We have never observed anyone who had magical powers, or any evidence that such powers even exist in principle (what stories we do have of such people are always too dubious to trust, and always remain unconfirmed in practice). //
//No one has observed a real act of God, or any real evidence of his inhabiting or observing the universe. //
//We have no good evidence that we have death-surviving souls or that anyone can or will resurrect our bodies.......We have never observed anyone performing anything confirmed to be miraculous, much less rising from graves or any comparable ability. //
//As for those who claim to have “seen” or “spoken” to God, it turns out on close examination (when we even have the required access to find out) that they are lying, insane, or only imagining what they saw or heard.//

I'd invite people to examine the evidence for themselves and not take the word of skeptics as the final authority. For starters, read for example Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts; Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates; and the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle as well as his book Dialogues on Miracle.

//The most popular—and really, the only evidence people have for God’s existence and role as Creator—is the apparent “fine tuning” of the universe to produce life. That’s at least something remarkable, requiring an explanation better than mere chance. As it turns out, there are godless explanations that make more sense of the actual universe we find ourselves in than Christianity does—but we shall examine this point in the next chapter (pp. 66-80).//

I'm glad to see that Carrier does acknowledge that fine-tuning is prima facie evidence for a cosmic designer. In the end he doesn't find it convincing. But fine-tuning could be one data point of many evidences and arguments that Christian apologists can provide which could be used in a cummulative case that makes theism, even Christianity, the more (or most) plausible worldview. The converging lines of evidence for Christianity are there if one will do the research.

//Therefore, the Christian theory has insufficient support to justify believing it. And this remains so even if Christianity is true. For even if it is true, we still don’t have enough evidence to know it is true.//

But even wholly apart from rigorous apologetical evidences and arguments for God, one can be justified in believing in the existence of God. Here Carrier completely side steps the insights of Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology and its appeal to properly basic beliefs, the sensus divinitaris, the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, &c.

With respect to the origin of life and biological evolution, while I don't positively subscribe to it, macro-evolution is compatible with Christianity. I would recommend Stephen Meyer's books, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design", "Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design". Also the upcoming book, "The Return of the God Hypothesis". Along with the other books/resources recommended by the Discovery Institute [e.g. Michael Denton's books], and Hugh Ross' apologetical ministry Reasons to Believe.

//After all, what need does an intelligent engineer have of billions of years and trillions of galaxies filled with billions of stars apiece? That tremendous waste is only needed if life had to arise by natural accident.//

There's a long history in both non-Christian & Christian theology/philosophy of the concept of the "principle of plenitude" whereby God wants to express His infinite creativity by producing the maximal [or nearly so] diversity of kinds of existences of everything that's possible. A concern for efficiency is only needed with limited time, power and resources. God is infinite on those areas. Moreover, according to the Bible the vastness and the innumerable number of stars is meant to manifest the glory, greatness, wisdom and transcendence of God.

//Because if there is no God, then life could have arisen only in a world that large and old. So that would be the only world we would ever see around us. And lo and behold, that’s exactly the world we see around us.//

That's just not true. As William Lane Craig has written, "Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of our solar system’s forming instantaneously through the random collision of particles is incomprehensibly more probable that the universe’s being fine-tuned, as it is. So if we were a random member of a World Ensemble, we should be observing a patch of order no larger than our solar system in a sea of chaos. Worlds like that are simply incomprehensibly more plentiful in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and so ought to be observed by us if we were but a random member of such an ensemble." Moreover, Hugh Ross has, rightly or wrongly, argued in his books that the size of our universe was needed for our benefit given God's plan and methods.

//There is no good reason God would need any of these things to create and sustain life. He could, and almost certainly would, use an infallible spiritual essence to accomplish the same ends—exactly as all Christians thought for nearly two thousand years.//

Yet even Augustine [who lived in the 4th & 5th centuries] believed God could have created the world with certain potentialities that would develop and unfold through time. So, it's not the case that biological evolution was incompatible with Christianity and was exposed to be such with the coming of Darwin in the 19th century. Think again of the plenitude principle.

//At most a very minimal brain would be needed to provide interaction between the senses, nerves, and soul.//

This doesn't take into account the many cases in the scientific literature where people who apparently had little to virtually no brain who nevertheless had average levels of intelligence, or higher than would be expected. See, InspiringPhilosophy's [i.e. Michael Jones'] videos on the soul, consciousness, and related topics.

//Even the Christian proposal that God designed the universe, indeed “finely tuned” it to be the perfect mechanism for producing life, fails to predict the universe we see. //

This statement doesn't take into account the spiritual Fall of mankind and the effects on the world. It may have even had retroactive effects [as argued by William Dembski]. Also, how did Carrier conclude that Christianity and/or the Bible teaches "it to be the perfect mechanism for producing life"? As far as I can tell, that can't be deduced or induced from Scripture.

//Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life—in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the submicroscopic speck of area that sustains life.//

Imagine the following thought experiement where life was abundant in every nook and cranny of the universe. In such a situation humans could possibly think it was a such a natural and universal state of reality that we might not consider the need a c/Creator. However, by contrast a tiny amount of life in an inhospitable universe where life would be very difficult to develop or be sustained, and was probabilistically unlikely to produce life, could point to a c/Creator without necessarily coercing a rational belief in God. It's easy to take for granted things in abudance. Often it takes losing those things or their being rare that we can appreciate how special they are. The fact that SETI has failed to detect other civilizations of sentient life highlights how special and precious human life on planet earth is.

//The fact that the universe is actually very poorly designed to sustain and benefit life is already a refutation of the Christian theory, which entails the purpose of the universe is to sustain and benefit life—human life in particular.//

//This is exactly what we are facing when we look at the universe: it is not very well designed for life, though life is an inevitable byproduct of what the universe was more obviously designed for: black holes. So if the universe was intelligently designed, it clearly was not designed for us.//

Even the writers of the movie Contact [with Jodie Foster] knew that super-intelligent beings could have multivalent purposes. Yet, Carrier can't seem to think that God might have various purposes for why He created our universe the way that He did. Even human makers consider both form AND function when designing things. Even human artists don't create all their art for everyone to see. Sometimes even human artists will create pieces of art for only herself or a select few to enjoy. Or enjoyed in a given context. For example, a statue that's displayed in a washroom, or a painting in a library, or a poem to only family members. The beauty of fractals was only discovered with the invention of the computer. Who knows what other mathematical and/or other aspects of our physical universe God alone can enjoy. Or which He made for angels to enjoy. Blackholes by themselves, or in conjunction with other things may be pleasing to God. Think of the underside of a rug. It may seem chaotic, but when one looks at the other side, the chaos evidently has purpose [literally] behind it. Or think of the dots of a newspaper. Up close, the dots seem random, but when see at the right distance, they can produce meaning in words and pictures. According to the Bible the existence of human beings, and their welfare aren't the sole reasons why God created the physical universe. Without the false assumption that humans are the only reason for creation, Carrier's objections crumble.

//The natural world is like an autistic idiot savant, a marvelous machine wholly uncomprehending of itself or others.//

See Robin Collins papers and videos on fine-tuning, scientific discovery and the discovery OF DISCOVERY. Also, the book and documentary Privileged Planet  by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards which shows a serendipitous correllation between scientific discovery and human flourishing that smacks of intelligent design.

//Conversely, all the causes whose existence we have confirmed are unintelligent, immutable forces and objects. //

See the videos by InspiringPhilosophy on quantum mechanics. Experiments in QM has demonstrated conscious observation affects the physical world. That suggests that mind is as fundamental, if not more so, than matter.

//And the fact that Christianity is identical in all these respects to other religions—like Hinduism or Islam, which every Christian must agree are false faiths yet are nevertheless just as firmly believed, on essentially the same force of evidence, and defended with essentially the same excuses—should finally shake anyone out of their complacency and compel them to ask whether they, too, are as blind as all those other people with false religions. //

The case for Christianity is vastly superior to those other faiths. See Nabeel Qureshi's books and David Wood's YouTube videos  which refute Islam. See J. Isamu Yamamoto's books and Vishal Mangalwadi's books on Hinduism.

This review has gotten too lengthy, so I'll end it here. In fine, Carrier's "Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith" are NOT AT ALL CONCLUSIVE. He's overly confident that his simplistic and introductory criticisms refute Christianity. At most they might possibly justify agnosticism with respect to Christianity. But there is a range of balance with respect to the evidence "for" and "against" Christianity that's compatible with Christianity still being true. For example, 50/50 is compatible. In my fallible opinion, when one takes a more comprehensive look at the overall evidence, the case for the Christian worldview way better than 50/50, and beats all other competing alternative worldviews out of the water. Though, admittedly, I barely touched on that postive evidence. The focus of this review was to examine the case Carrier made against Christianity. Like Belshazzar in the Old Testament, it has been weighed in the balances and "found wanting".

Is Christianity the "White Man's Religion"? Why it is NOT!

3 Reasons Why Christianity is NOT the White Man's Religion (The REAL Black History!)

https://youtu.be/1Yrv66pVvM8

3 Quick Reasons Christianity is NOT the White Man's Religion (w/ Tru ID)

https://youtu.be/a4yYdt6qCi0