Things You Didn't Know About The New Testament

THE GOSPELS

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all actually ANONYMOUS.  No one knows who wrote them.  The early church attributed, for unknown reasons, these identities to the four gospels.  But in actuality, there’s nothing to indicate that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote them.

Mark appears to be the first Gospel written.  It’s thought to be written between 65 and 80 AD.  Matthew and Luke both borrow from Mark’s Gospel heavily.  This is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.  Though there are clear differences between the Synoptic Gospels, they largely have the same stories and many times, all three gospels quite literally use the exact same sentences, word for word.  John was written independently, and if read side by side with one of the Synoptic Gospels, that becomes quite clear.

So, why is this important?  The only reason that books are included in the New Testament is because they were thought to have been written from apostolic authorities.  The Gospels were not.  The earliest Gospel was written at least 30 years after Jesus died.  30 years until our earliest written record of the life of Jesus.  If you’ve ever played the popular party game “telephone”, then you know that trying to keep a story accurate by only oral means is impossible.  You can’t do it with 10 people in a room at one time.  Imagine 30 years of trying to keep it accurate.

It also shows that there are no recorded eyewitnesses to Jesus.  And I know what you’re thinking.  What about 1st and 2nd Peter?  What about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John?  Don’t worry - I’m getting to them.

ACTS IS A LOT LIKE THE GOSPELS

The book of Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.  Again, we don’t actually know who that was.   It’s sort of like a sequel to the Gospel of Luke.  What happened after Jesus ascended to Heaven?  What did Peter and John do?  How did Saul turn into Paul?  When you read it without context, you get the impression that someone who knew all of these people and watched them work or interviewed them after events, wrote the book.

But, the book of Acts was written long after Peter, John, and Paul were dead.  Between the years of 80 and 130 AD.  Paul died about 67 AD.  So, at least 13 years after Paul’s death, the book of Acts can give us an accurate account of his conversion and early Christian life?  Most scholars are well aware of the inaccuracies shown in Acts when comparing them to Paul’s own epistles.  But it’s easy to gloss over all of that when you’re under the impression that the author was in the thick of the events he was recording.  But he wasn’t.  He was recording events that had happened decades ago.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

Paul is the earliest Christian writer we know about.  His writings predate the Gospels, and he is easily the best source from which to draw about Christian teachings.  But even the works of Paul do no come away unscathed when examined.  Here’s the general consensus.

Undisputed Works:  Romans, Galatians, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon

These are the letters of Paul that scholars and historians all generally agree were actually written by him.  They offer no reason to suggest otherwise.  However, the following books offer no such security.

Disputed Works:  II Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians

These three letters are more disputed.  Why?  Mostly due to style, tone, vocabulary, pace, and inconsistencies with the other letters of Paul.  It could be argued that some of these differences could be Paul’s views changing with age or simply a scribe imprinting his style onto Paul’s words.  But that rationale is a stretch.  The best way to put it is that it’s highly doubtful these letters were written by Paul.

Forgery was in wide practice during this time.  And writing in the name of Paul would have held a lot of weight.  Furthermore, both II Thessalonians and Ephesians are thought to be written between 80-100 AD - after the death of Paul.  Colossians may have been written during Paul’s lifetime, but everything else indicates it was probably forged.

The Pastoral Works:  I & II Timothy and Titus

The Pastoral Epistles are accepted by nearly all scholars as NOT being written by Paul, since Paul was not a time-traveler and could not have possibly written anything after he died.  All three letters were written between 100-150 AD.  Not to mention that there’s nothing in them that suggests the author of those three, or authors, had anything in common with the actual Paul.

So 13 letters, 7 of which are surely his, 3 of which are doubtful, and 3 of which are definitely not his.

THE MYSTERY BOOK

Hebrews

Most people think that Hebrews was written by Paul.  You know that rude buzzer sound that goes off when the wrong answer is given on game shows?  Yeah, I don’t know how to spell that, but imagine that sound then INSERT HERE.  I actually knew about Hebrews a long time ago.  Paul did not write it, though the reason it’s included in the Bible is because the church fathers at the time of the development of the Biblical canon attributed it to Paul.  So, again, we have an anonymous book.

THE REST (EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THAT INSPIRES ALL THE MOVIES)

I & II Peter

Not written by Peter the Apostle.  Peter died sometime before 68 AD.  I Peter was written, at its earliest, in 80 AD.  It ranges from 80-110 AD.  II Peter is even more egregiously obvious not to be written by Peter.  The earliest date of its composition is 100 AD and the latest estimate is 160 AD.  II Peter is obviously not written by the same author as I Peter, which if you contend that I Peter was written by Peter, then who was II Peter written by?  It’s not just the dates that disprove that Peter did not write these books.  The books, especially II Peter, allude to things that historically do not match up with the time period in which Peter lived.  Also, Jewish fishermen were not normally educated to read and write in their own language, let alone Greek - which is what I and II Peter were written in.  So who wrote these books?  No one knows.

I, II, & III John

I’m sure you’ll be surprised to find out that these books were not written by the Apostle John.  All three were probably written between 90 and 120 AD.  Now, if you do research, you might see that John the Apostle supposedly died in 100 AD at the ripe old age of 94.  So, it is theoretically possible that he wrote these books, and the gospel that bears his name.  However, it is highly unlikely.

John was a Jewish fishermen.  It’s very unlikely that he would have been educated enough to read, let alone write.  It’s even more unlikely that he would have done so in Greek, rather than Hebrew.

Also, I have a hard time believing that someone in the time period of the first century AD would have lived to be 94 years old.  Most people were probably lucky to make it to 60.

II and III John were almost undoubtedly written by the same person, and it is more than likely that the I John was also composed by the same author.  Whoever penned these letter did not write the Gospel of John - at least if you put any stock into the studying of writing styles.  The Gospel and the three Epistles have very distinct writing styles.

James

No one can figure this book out.  It was written sometimes between the years of 70 and 100 AD.  The reason that the book was accepted into the canon, and it almost wasn’t, is because it is claimed that the book was written by James, the brother of Jesus.  That dude died sometime in 62-69 AD - so that might be reason to consider him as a no.  We also go back to the problem of it being written in accomplished Greek.  Why and how would a Jew, fluent in Aramaic - though probably not in writing - write a letter in Greek?

Jude

The Epistle was written between the years of 90 and 120 AD.  The Jude that this letter is attributed to supposedly died in 65 AD.  Again, no time travelling allowed.

EVERYONE’S FAVORITE

The Book of Revelation

Out of all of the books of the Bible, this one is the most readable.  Because it reads like a novel.  It’s so intense.  It has ups, downs, climactic showdowns between dragons and archangels, not to mention whores sitting on said dragons.  Seven-headed beasts.  Best-selling novels have been inspired by it, which has inspired big movies (okay, not that big, but still).

This is like, the book.  This is the book that Mom, Dad, the sunday school teacher, the youth pastor, the real pastor, and that crazy lady at church all scare you with.  This is the book that has all those predictions that have come true.  You know, the mark of the beast and all the wars, blah, blah, blah.

If your preacher ever says, “we are living in the end times” and I’m 100,000% sure he or she does, this is the book that he or she is referring to.  The great mystery of Revelation.  The book that proves that Christianity is true.

Anytime I think about Revelation, I’m flooded with memories of awe.  I’ve probably read the manuscript at least 20 times.  I loved it.  But I learned to hate it - mind you, before I became an atheist.  I hated it because we would always get the guest preacher in for a whole weekend study.  You know, that guy who spent 3 years locked in a closet with only the book of Revelation, a flashlight, and 6 ounces of water a day.  The one who had a revelation about Revelation.  The one who could tell you what all the signs were, and what the beast from the sea really was, and who the whore was, and on and on and on.

I hated it because they almost always ended their weekend of intense revelatory teaching by giving you an “estimation” on when Jesus was coming back.  I can’t tell you how much I hated that.  It seemed so wrong to me.  To think that the Bible itself says that not even the angels in heaven know the day or the hour when the Son of God would return, but then to have that challenged by some goofball with a bad combover who thought he knew better made no sense to me.  And I never understood how others didn’t see that.  I was actually always afraid to bring it up when one of them came to town.

But it’s not just one or two whackos that believe this.  There’s a very, very, very popular preacher within the UPCI that is actively telling people that Jesus is coming back before he dies.  He knows this.  And hell, why shouldn’t he?  When he dies and Jesus doesn’t come back, he’s not going to be around to face the questions.  Not that it would matter, since these kinds of slip-ups and falsehoods are quickly forgotten by believers.  There’s another guy - not part of the UPCI -  that makes a prediction every so often with an exact date.  He’s been wrong so far, but it doesn’t stop his followers from quitting their jobs and believing his lie every time he’s decided that he’s decoded the Bible.

Anyway, let’s move on to the actual manuscript.  Revelation was written between 90-95 AD.  Scholars are very sure about this date because of what the book has to say about some of the things going on during its time.  This is pretty awesome, because this kind of surety is hard to come by with ancient texts.  A lot of times, you’re looking at 20, 30, 40, or more years as a buffer for texts.

The book claims to be written by John of Patmos - Patmos being a Greek island.  According to theologians, this was John the Apostle imprisoned on the island of Patmos.  The facts disagree.  The author of Revelation never makes the claim that he is John the Apostle.  Just that his name is John.  Can you think of a more common name?  Also, it was written in Greek.  John was not Greek, and as I have said above concerning the Gospel attributed to him and the three letters, it’s very illogical to believe that he could write at all, let alone in a language that was not his native language.

There are a thousand interpretations of this book, and each one is oh so uniquely creative.  This post is not really about going into why each and every one of them is wrong, and pointing out all of the small logical fallacies.  I’m hooking the big fish, and there’s one big ass fish that you need to know about when it comes to people “interpreting” the Book of Revelation.

When people interpret a book that’s nearly 2,000 years old as if what it says explicitly applies to their time period - they are showing a very high level of narcissism.  The book has been around for two millennia and it’s been waiting for YOU to interpret its real meaning for YOUR time.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.  And the reason the sky is blue is because blue is your favorite color.

Also, these lovely interpretations that sound so convincing always have the same problem.  They use ZERO critical thinking skills.  For an example, let’s talk about the Mark of the Beast.  It’s everyone’s favorite.

The very famous mark of the beast, as spelled out in the Book of Revelation, tells us that everyone will be forced to get the mark of the beast on either the back of the hand or on the forehead, and that you won’t be able to buy or sell without it.  Also, that the number associated with the mark is 666.  For clarity, that’s six hundred and sixty-six - not three individual sixes.

The popular Christian teaching of what this might mean has found solid ground in the theory that digital chips, which would take the place of credit cards and cash, will be inserted into everyone’s hands.  And once that chip’s inserted, you won’t be able to buy or sell anything without it.

Now that is a very literal interpretation of a couple of verses.  And not just literal, but a pinpoint assertion as to what the mark is.  But the logical fallacy is that that kind of literalism is only applied to those verses.  Previous to that, the chapter talks about a beast from the sea and another beast from the earth.  There’s seven heads, ten horns, a bunch of diadems, chimera-like descriptions of the beasts, and on and on and on.

No one’s given a literal interpretation of that.

Oh, they’ll tell you all sorts of ideas about what those beasts might represent.  But that doesn’t follow the logic used when interpreting the mark of the beast.  They treat the beasts and all the incredulous descriptions of the said beasts as METAPHORICAL.

How does that work?  Either the book is literal or metaphorical.  You can’t claim both, and even if you did, then you DEFINITELY can’t look at a single passage and divide it between metaphorical and literal for no reason.

OVERVIEW

In conclusion, I’ll wrap this up by saying that it should be obvious by now that the Bible is not what most Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, claim it is.  I haven’t gone over the Old Testament, texts that really are only meant for Judaism but get hijacked by Christianity, but the New Testament is all you really need to see.

None of the four Gospel writers were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life.  All four are written anonymously.  Furthermore, the names given to the authors of the Gospels by the early church fathers are undoubtedly false.

Acts was not written during the events it recorded.

Of Paul’s 13 writings, only 7 can be reasonably shown to be written by him.  3 are very doubtful.  Another 3 are definitely not his.

All other letters/books were not written by who they were either claimed to be written by or associated with afterward by church fathers.

If the claim is that the Bible is true, then the truth should stand up to questions.  The Bible does not.  It’s really that simple.  In order to believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God, that it is perfect, that it is true, and that it is inerrant, you must remain ignorant of its origins, its history, and its context.

No thanks.

Psychics, Faith Healers, and Prosperity Preachers

Believing ≠ Achieving

I’m writing this to address certain religious claims.  This is an attempt to to point out atrocious logic used by many of the most prominent Christian preachers.  The key point being that believing you will get rich will make you get rich.  In the world of Christendom, these people are known as “prosperity preachers” and they suck.

Three of the most famous of these preachers are Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, and Benny Hinn.  It’s important to differentiate between these three.  Benny Hinn is a swindler, a fraud, and a conman.  Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes, while I think they definitely love the money, truly strike me as believers of the prosperity doctrine.  That if you faithfully give tithes and offerings into the church, that God will financially bless you.  That Christians, specifically, should have a God-given financial inheritance.

Benny Hinn is really no different than Theresa Caputo, also know as the “Long Island Medium.”  Or just about any other famous psychic.  They use well-known techniques to make people believe that they have supernatural powers/insight.  It’s really just illusions.  But people fall for it, and pay these charlatans for their time and services.

Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes fall for a classic fallacy. If I succeeded, that means anyone can. The harsh truth is, people will fail. The harsh truth is, only a certain amount of people will ever get the immense financial "blessings" that they have. Why? Because of math. And because of the way capitalistic society functions. That's just the truth. I'd expound more, but I'd be here all day.

And you may notice that you'll hear "success" stories of people that followed what they preached and found money. Oooooohhhhh . . . . aaaaahhhh. But that's an unfair measurement. If you want to find out the validity of a doctrine, then include all of the people that have followed what they said and failed. You would then see that the failures outweigh the successes. Therefore, prosperity preaching is just like the magic pills they sell on TV at 2 A.M.

It's horse****. I'll let your imagination fill in the four-letter word.

If you are reading this, and you believe people like Benny Hinn and Theresa Caputo are genuine, I would encourage you to do critical research.  Truth holds up to questions, and their actions and claims do not hold up.  The thing is, there’s nothing unique about what they do or claim.  And it’s sad in today’s world of information, which would teach you that they are rehashing the scams that others before them used, that their claims are taken at face value.

Logic dictates, as Carl Sagan once put it, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Over and over, psychics and faith-healers make extraordinary claims without ever presenting evidence.  Over and over, what evidence they do try to present is torn apart in the face of investigation.

The investigations of James Randi are probably the best place to start when looking at frauds being exposed.  Mr. Randi is a magician that specializes in debunking people who claim to have supernatural abilities.

Here’s a link that will show you how he exposed Uri Geller, an illusionist claiming to have supernatural powers, and Peter Popoff, a faith healer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo

And there’s plenty more videos of his.  Just type in “James Randi debunks” or “James Randi exposes” in Google to see more of his work.  He’s made a career out of it.  And if you like him, check out Penn & Teller, both of whom were influenced heavily by James Randi to form their iconic act.

The reason for the success of psychics and faith healers leaves me with two opinions on why.

1. People want to be deceived
2. Evolutionary flaws leave us vulnerable to tricks

To expound on the first point, I think this really is the reason why anyone believes in anything other than reality.  Everyone, including the most hard-nosed atheists, love mysteries.  We love the idea of the unknown, the idea of something existing beyond what reality indicates.  Why?  Several reasons.

We fear death.  We can’t help it.  Almost all biological creatures fear death outside of things with no brains.  A possible exception might be wolverines and honey badgers.  And maybe the whole damn weasel family.  Seriously, look them up.  They’re nuts.

We fear death because on the most basic, instinctual level, we are compelled to survive.  Why?  Mainly to reproduce.  On an evolutionary scale, that really is all there is to our purpose.  Passing on genes as much as possible.

Evolution is a perv.

But passing on our genetic code is the very definition of life.  It is how we identify living things from nonliving things.  Sex is life.  That’s really all there is to it.  That’s why we hate aging, that’s why prey fights so desperately to escape predators, and that’s why we fear death.  We’re not even wired to process death as a part of our reality.  We cannot imagine the world without us in it.

Is there anything more self-centered and yet more understandable?  And isn’t that why religion is so appealing?  It feels so intuitive to believe that there is life after death.  That there’s something more than just this mortal existence.

Not many people admit to themselves that death is in fact, the end.  Not many people will even admit it as a possibility.  Do you know why?

Because opening that door leads to so many other questions that you would never ask otherwise.  Scary questions.  Like, if this life is all that we have, what is the purpose?  Is there purpose?  What is purpose and why does it matter?  If this is it, how should I live?  Where do I derive my morality?  What is moral?

What if these questions don’t have absolute answers?  *GASP*  But how can that be?  We must have absolute answers.  Because . . . . because . . . . what the hell would we do without answers?!?!?!

That’s the toughest part about being an atheist.  Atheists are the most honest people in the world.  We admit that we don’t know.  We don’t know if there is a god or gods.  We don’t know if there is an afterlife.  We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we CHOOSE to be honest with ourselves and allow the same criticism that we apply to all other parts of our lives to be applied to religion and the afterlife.

(By the way, that’s what qualifies as being as atheist.  There’s a misunderstanding that atheists deny God exists, but that’s not true.  We don’t believe he, she, or it exists because there is no evidence.  I would go further into detail, but this rabbit hole is already too long.  Another time, another post.)

Follow along on how this might work.  Unicorns do not exist.  Yet, in some books, I find unicorns.  If unicorns are in a book, doesn’t that mean that unicorns exist?  No.  But why?  Unicorns have only ever been written about but not actually seen.  There’s no evidence that unicorns exist or have ever existed, even though, at one time there existed a great many people who believed in their existence.  Yet, unicorns have never been photographed or documented.

Do you believe in unicorns?  How about leprechauns?  Dragons?  Griffins?  Zeus?  Thor?  Why not?  They’re written down in books and ancient writings as if they did exist.  So why not believe them?

Answering that is hard to put into words, isn't it?  It’s kind of like, “Where do I even start?”  Now, you know what an atheist thinks about all religion.  Where do I even start?  It all boils down to evidence.  There is no evidence.

None.  Nada.  Zero.  Zilch.

What about the afterlife?  Well, that really comes down to the same thing as anything else.  Is there evidence?  No.  It’s a nice thought, and a lot of cultures share the sentiment, though in vastly different ways.  But all the evidence points to there being no afterlife.  I’m sorry.

Believe what you want, but understand that beliefs do not equal truth.  Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean that it is.  Also understand that when you want something to be true, you have ceased thinking critically about the subject.  Now, in any little experience, you may be skewing the reality of what’s around you to fit your belief.  We’re all guilty of this, but the only way to stop it is to recognize it and fight it.

Thinking critically doesn't come naturally.  It is something we learn.

Now, for the evolutionary side of things, I think we’re just wired to be tricked.  It’s sort of a side-effect of our nature.  For instance, all humans have a blind spot.  Yet, we don’t notice.  Our brains compensate for the blind spot and we don’t catch it.

Your brain lies.

For a very cool demonstration, see the link below and take the simple test at the bottom of the page:

http://io9.com/5804116/why-every-human-has-a-blind-spot---and-how-to-find-yours

You may also notice that accomplished illusionists can make things, such as playing cards, “disappear” into thin air.  Now, even they will tell you that it’s not real magic.  It’s an illusion.  By holding the card a certain way, moving his or her hand a up and down and at the same time folding the card to be behind his or her hand at a particular speed, our eyes do not catch it.  It looks like it has disappeared.

For a demonstration, see the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wMpWy1lpFA

Our brains just can’t keep up, and the result is that we automatically think it’s magic.  We can’t explain it, therefore magic.  Of course, a little investigation proves that it’s not magic.  For instance, all it would take is for someone to stand on the other side of the illusionist to see how the trick works.

This is why education is so important.  Why understanding who you are, not just on a personal level, but on a scientific, evolutionary scale is vital.  We have brains that have flaws, eyes that can only see certain things at certain speeds.  Understanding this gives us perspective, which is the one thing that helps us make sense of the world.

Think about it.  We cannot see bullets flying through the air once they have been shot from a gun.  However, we understand that is what they are doing.  We know that a bullet is propelled through a controlled explosion of gunpowder out of a chamber and through the air until it reaches something that can stop it.

But imagine if there was a time-traveler from the Bronze Age who happened to materialize in a gun range.  He would hear and see the firing of the gun, and then he would see the target get hit simultaneously.  He wouldn't see the object leaving the gun and following all of the laws of natural world to travel through the air and impact the target.  He would just see one thing make a loud sound and something not connected to that loud thing react violently.

Magic.

This is why perspective is so important.  This is also the argument used to dismiss claims of people who point to a mystery and claim that because it is a mystery, it must be supernatural.  As an example, I’ll use an argument most theists use.

Argument:  The Big Bang may be true, but there must be a cause of the Big Bang.  And because all things must have a cause, that cause must be some sort of supreme intelligence. A god.

Counter-Argument:  Just because we don’t know the cause of the Big Bang doesn't mean that it is a god.  You’re assuming that because there is no knowledge of the subject, a god must be the explanation.  The time-traveling Bronze-age man doesn't know how the gun can impact the target from a great distance.  He may think it's magic, but that doesn't mean that it is.  A positive claim can’t be made because no knowledge of the subject exists.

This also goes back to the “God of the Gaps” problem.  If that is how you invoke knowledge of there being a god or gods, then he or she or it is an ever-shrinking idea.  At one point, humans thought lightning was something that a god was responsible for.  Now we know differently.  It can be explained through nature.  At one point, humans thought volcanic eruptions were something supernatural.  Now we know differently.  They are a normal process of our planet.

So the next time you see a convincing psychic, even if he or she does something amazing, remember that it’s a trick.  Until one of them can actually prove that they are reading someone’s mind or talking to the dead, you shouldn't believe them.  They are well-practiced tricksters.  The famous ones have purposefully practiced techniques like “cold-reading” to create illusions that what they do is real.  They take advantage of our brains natural functions to deceive.  The not-so-famous ones who actually believe they are psychic are as deceived as the subjects of famous psychics.  Mostly because everyone wants to believe they are special.  (Another time, another post.)

The next time you’re in a church service, and the preacher starts talking about healing people, watch to see if anyone’s healed.  Watch that they “heal” people with cancer, chronic back pain, arthritis, and other invisible ailments.  Notice that they don’t try to heal the deaf, the blind, the amputees, the mentally retarded, or the wheelchair bound.  And if they do try, notice that nothing happens.

Also notice that the something does happen when they do “heal” the people with invisible ailments.  Those people feel better.  This is called the placebo effect.  They are not actually healed, but they feel like they are.  This effect is well-documented in the medical community, and there’s nothing special about it.

How about if I use Eliza and Wendy as an example.  Both Eliza and Wendy attend an evangelical church.  Both Eliza and Wendy get regular medical exams from their respective doctors, and both of their doctors have sounded an alarm because Eliza and Wendy both have a lump in their left breast.

Appointments are made with specialists to determine whether the lumps are benign or malignant.  Eliza and Wendy go to their churches and ask for prayers, citing that they have lumps in their breasts.  Prayers of healing are made over both of them.

Elize goes to the specialist, and through the wonders of modern medicine, her lump is found to be completely benign.  Nothing to worry about at all.  Eliza goes back to church with the good news and with the claim that God has healed her.  She tells everyone that she knows, whether it be in person or on Facebook, that God has healed her.

Wendy goes to the specialist, and through the wonders of modern medicine, her lump is found to be malignant.  It’s cancer.  More appointments are made and a treatment of chemo and radiation is prescribed.  Wendy goes back to church, and more prayers of healing are now made week in and week out.

So, is prayer only effective some of the time?  Does it depend on the type of person?  Is it because God is a mystery and no one knows his ways?  Then what?  You pray but don’t expect?  Aren't you supposed to pray with expectation?

What does logic say?  Well, logic looks at raw data.  Certain numbers of people will have lumps that are benign, and others will have lumps that turn out to be cancerous.  There’s no obvious reason behind it.  Some Christians get cancer, and some Satanists don’t.  Some Satanists get cancer, and some Christians don’t.

Therefore, there’s no reason to believe that prayers healed Eliza.  It’s more logical and more easily explained through the data.  Some people will get benign lumps.  Eliza was one of those people.  Unfortunately, Wendy was one in the group that gets malignant tumors.  There’s no overarching cause we can identify, though that avenue is being explored through genetic research.  But if one were to insist that it was God who healed Eliza, one runs into another problem.

If God is the cause of Eliza’s lump being benign, then he must also be the cause of Wendy’s lump being malignant.  Both prayed to the same God.  Both are sincere and good church folk.  And if God is responsible for the good, he must also be responsible for the bad.

You cannot make the claim that God is only responsible for the good things, but when bad things happen, all of the sudden take that responsibility away.  If you say “Oh, it’s a mystery” then Eliza’s benign lump must also be a mystery.

This has been a long post written by your friendly, neighborhood atheist.  I hope you enjoyed the read.  I’m looking for ideas and specific subjects to write about, so please leave something in the comments section.  If you want to remain anonymous, then please email me at mvecore@gmail.com.

HELL

Hell is not real.  That’s a very hard truth to try and acknowledge if you’re a Christian or have been a Christian at any time.  Damn near impossible if you’re raised in it.  H-E-Double Hockey Sticks is perhaps the most effective tool in Christianity’s arsenal for keeping inquisitive minds from looking too closely at its validity.  After all, would you want to risk going to Hell just to answer a few questions?

This is a long journey, and it’s one that has many stops.  Is Hell real?  No.  But that “no” shouldn’t just be shown in one way.  So, I’ve devised stages in answering this question.  And all of my stages deal directly with Christianity’s claims about Hell.  My answers will range in who they address, from the ardent Christian to the agnostic Christian.

STAGE 1:  Hell has no moral justification
I’m going to start with this one first, because I can argue this point without pointing out the historical and fundamental discrepancies/mistakes of the Bible.  In fact, for this argument, let’s assume that Scripture is indeed true.  That the Bible is the ultimate truth, and Christianity is the correct branch of the religion to stem from it.

But taking from this truth, that tells us that God is just, we run into a problem.  If he’s just, why do people go to Hell?  Even the worst of people.  If someone does something evil – let’s say kill somebody – do they actually deserve Hell?  Their actions led to pain for another individual and ultimately death.  But Hell will supposedly torture him for eternity.  The action he took had a beginning and an ending.  But the reaction is infinite? How is that just?

Here’s a list of synonyms for the word JUST:

Upright

Equitable

Fair

Impartial

Legitimate

Legal

Accurate

Exact

Honest

Merited

Appropriate

Does an eternal burning lake that does not allow you to die but instead be tortured forever and ever and ever sound just for any crime?  Unfortunately, this Hell is not for just criminals.  In fact, good people can go there, too.  If you don’t believe in a god, you go to Hell.  If you don’t believe in the right god, you go to Hell.  If you commit adultery, fornicate, do drugs, are an alcoholic, are a glutton, are homosexual, or belong to any other religion or creed, you will burn in Hell for all time along with the evil.  There’s forgiveness, of course, but that only comes with belief, and it also presumes the truth behind those things being sins.  But, if we go ahead and presume that they are, then the truth is clear.  All sin is equal because the punishment is equal.  Both the fornicator and the serial killer share the same fate.  Both the glutton and child molester share the same fate.  Both the religious Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, Scientologist, Shaman, and Hindu are all going to the same place as Hitler.  As far as God is concerned, leading a moral, productive, positive life as a Tibetan Monk is as bad as being a genocidal megalomaniac responsible for killing over six million Jews, and millions of others through a war whose intent was to advance the Arian race over all other races.

Can anyone really call that just?  Do any of the synonyms on that list fit?

How about benevolence?  According to dictionary.com, benevolence means:  desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness.  How is God being benevolent in sending people to Hell?  How about merciful?  Is that his/her idea of mercy.  Loving? That's what you would consider loving?

God, supposedly, is infinitely more loving, merciful, benevolent, and just than any human being.  Yet, if you were to give a moral human being all of God’s powers, he or she would most certainly not send anyone to Hell.  It’s a repugnant idea to consider, even for your worst enemy.  There’s absolutely no moral justification for it.  EVER.

Now, I’ve heard the following apposing term a thousand and one times. “God doesn’t send you to Hell, you send you to Hell.”

Really?  How?  Isn’t God responsible for everything, including Hell and sin?  Isn’t he the judge?  If it weren’t for him, would I be going to Hell?  If God is all knowing, then he knew that his creation would falter.  In which case, he knew they would be condemned to Hell.  Did he not create this Hell?  And why does his failed creation have to be condemned to it?

Implying that it’s not God sending you to Hell is completely false, if the this God and Hell exist.  Because God is supposed to be all powerful, yet he’s powerless to stop you from going to Hell.  The only moral decision for an all-powerful being to do would be to destroy Hell or send no one there.  And if he can’t do that, then he is not all powerful.  And if he is the judge, he then therefore judges you and pronounces judgment.  AKA - he sends people to Hell.  So, no, God is the one to send people to Hell.

This vein of thought is specifically aimed at fundamentalist Christians who absolutely believe in a torturous, eternal fiery pit of despair from which there is no escape.  I understand there are many more types of people out there that may believe differently or are unsure.  When I was a Christian, I was never sure about Hell, though I was terrified of it.  Eventually, as I got into my twenties, I became less and less sure of Hell until I was fairly convinced that it wasn’t real.  When I became an agnostic for all of two weeks before admitting that I was an atheist, I understandably viewed the reality of Hell as a steaming pile of caca.

How did I begin to doubt Hell’s existence even as a Christian?  Well, that leads me to my next point.

STAGE 2:  THE BIBLE GIVES NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN HELL

If you ever decide to “dive deep” into your faith, as I once called it, you will undoubtedly be compelled to enter theological study.  At which point, you will have to understand where the foundation of your faith rests.  And it rests upon Judaism.  The Old Testament is a Jewish collection of books.  Christianity claims the Old Testament as its own, though not completely.  Christianity, for the most part, believes that the god of the Old Testament is God the Father, and that Jesus, the son of said god, fulfilled the law of the Old Testament.  So, though the Old Testament is still used, preached from, believed in (though, I don’t know why), it’s the New Testament that really matter.

And there is a large contrast between the two.  Including a change of language.  A lot of what is meant in the Bible, both OT and NT, is lost in translation.  Not to mention the context of the original meanings.  One of the first things you have to understand is that the authors of whatever book you are reading of the Bible were not writing their words specifically for you and this time.  There’s an incredible arrogance in that line of thinking.  That’s why I stayed home on the Sunday’s that had the “End Times” sermon scheduled.

The authors of the books that you read today were writing them for and to the people of THAT day, not this day.  Twisting their English meaning away from their original meaning in their original time is just moronic.  Why not just make everything up and skip a step?

Back to Judaism.  It may come as a shock that religious Jews don’t have much to say on the matter of the afterlife, and that they don’t believe in Hell.  They’re quite liberal about the whole matter.  A number of Jews do believe in a sort of afterlife called Olam Ha-Ba which is translated to mean “the world to come”.  It’s a complex and wonderful sort of belief that I find much more satisfying and exact when compared to the Christian Heaven and Hell.  Though, ultimately, still quite ridiculous.

For a good read on the subject, follow the link:  http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

If you don’t want to read the link, I’ll give you the short and sweet of it.  Judaism is quite varied in their beliefs about the afterlife.  Some Jews do not believe in an afterlife at all.  Some do, and others actually believe in a kind of reincarnation.  Interesting stuff.  But, what they all agree on is that the chief concern of their lives should be about how they live now.  This belief comes from the Torah (the first five books of the Bible).  It’s very specific in its instructions about living for the NOW.

By and large, Judaism isn’t all that concerned with the afterlife.  Whatever happens happens.  They trust that their god will take care of them if they are faithful and do good deeds.  This is leading a moral life without expectation of a reward.  Which is why, if you have a religious Jewish friends and ask them about Hell or the afterlife in general, they may appear to be somewhat taken aback.

The closest approximation of Hell that you come across in Judaism is Gehinnom, sometimes referred to as She’ol.  And all souls, except for the very righteous descend to it.  Once there, depending on your belief, several things may happen.  A branch of Judaism believes that every bad action you make in this life creates a demon.  Once you die, said demon punishes you.  Some see it kind of like the Christian Hell - a place of severe punishment.  Others see it as a place where you reflect upon your life.

Either way, you aren’t there more than 12 months.  The very wicked souls might be there for the full year, and the more righteous might be there much shorter before ascending to Olam Ha-Ba.  Some believe that the most wicked (Hitler, Stalin, Darth Vader) might have their souls destroyed, obliterated from existence so that they cannot take their place in Olam Ha-Ba.

That’s the short and sweet of it.  If you’re Jewish, hopefully I didn’t completely butcher your belief system.  I tried to do my research.  But the point of all of this is, the belief of Hell, and Heaven for that matter, is a very Christian belief.  One not based on the Old Testament.  So, religiously speaking, it’s a recent belief and must have its source in the New Testament.

But before moving on to the NT, let me just provide one last look at the OT.  Because maybe showing you that Judaism holds no belief in Hell isn’t enough.  After all, what if the Jews are reading the Old Testament wrong?  Although, to be fair, imagine a resident of Thailand picking up the US Constitution and forming a new nation out of it that holds completely different principles from its origin country, the U.S.A. and then saying, “No, America, you’re reading it wrong.”

Anywho, please see the link:  http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html

In the Old Testament, the word “hell” is always in reference to the Hebrew word “Sheol.”  If you follow the above link you’ll see that Sheol is mentioned in the Old Testament a grand total of 64 times.  In our English translation - I’m assuming KJV - “hell” is mentioned 32 times, “grave” is mentioned 29 times, and “pit” 3 times.  But in the original Hebrew, they all said Sheol.  A place or state of the dead.  It doesn’t really mean an eternal torture pot.  Both the good and the bad souls reside in Sheol.

In more recent translations of the Bible, scholars and translators have fixed this little blunder.  Both the NIV and NASB translations of the Bible - both more accurate than the KJV - have 0 mentions of hell in the Old Testament.  And correctly so.  Sorry Christians, YOU’RE reading it wrong.

There’s simply no reason to think that the concept of Hell has any roots in the Old Testament.  If that were so, why would Job beg to be hidden from suffering in hell?

Job 14:13 - “Oh that You would hide me in [a]Sheol,

That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,

That You would set a limit for me and remember me!”

If you read the KJV, just remember that anytime you see the word “hell”, it actually means Sheol.  A place of the dead.  A word that is used both literally and metaphorically.  The meaning can be stretched.  For instance, it’s sometimes used by authors as a bad thing.  But, as you can see above, Job saw it as a relief from his earthly torment.

You’ll want to continue following the second link that I gave, as I’ll be using it to show why even the New Testament really never addresses Hell.  Not the way that the church, by and large, believe in it.

There are three different words translated as HELL in the New Testament.  Hades and Tartarus which are Greek in origin, and Gehenna which comes from the Hebrew words Gee and Hinnom which means “the valley of Hinnom.”

Hades appears 11 times in the New Testament, and is translated as “grave” once and “hell” ten times.  But it always means Hades.  And Hades is pretty much the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Sheol.  A place of the dead.  All people, when they die, go to Hades.  It’s the underworld.  It, most certainly, is not Hell as the modern Christian imagines it.

If it helps, people of this time believed in a 3-story universe.  You had the firmament above, which separated the waters above - where God dwelt - from the waters below.  The earth was where we were, at the middle story.  Hades or Sheol was below.

Tartarus is only found once, in II Peter 2:4.  This passage refers to Tartarus, the place of imprisonment/suffering in the Greek underworld of Hades.  But it’s a concept derived from the “heathen” and that’s probably more a reflection on the composition of II Peter, and just who wrote it and when.  But that’s for another time and another blog.

The point is, the author is referring to a heathen hell, not a Christian one.  And he wouldn’t believe in a heathen hell, so it can be pretty safe to assume that he’s speaking figuratively, not literally.  But please click the link to really get a more in depth view of that, as it might require some extra reading.

Moving on.

Gehenna is written 12 times in the New Testament, and it is always translated as “hell.” This is probably the most significant little journey we will go on.  And to do it, I’ll quote directly from the site that I’m referencing.

Here’s the link again:  http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html

Quote:  The following from Schleusner, a distinguished lexicographer and critic, will show the origin of the word, and indicate its scriptural usage: "Gehenna, originally a Hebrew word, which signifies valley of Hinnom. Here the Jews placed that brazen image of Moloch. It is said, on the authority of the ancient Rabbins, that to this image the idolatrous Jews were wont not only to sacrifice doves, pigeons, lambs, &c., but even to offer their own children. In the prophecies of Jeremiah (vii 31), this valley is called Tophet, from Toph, a drum; because they beat a drum during these horrible rites, lest the cries and shrieks of the infants who were burned should be heard by the assembly. At length these nefarious practices were abolished by Josiah, and the Jews brought back to the pure worship of God. 2 Kings xxiiI After this they held the place in such abomination that they cast into it all kinds of filth, and the carcasses of beasts, and the unburied bodies of criminals who had been executed. Continual fires were necessary in order to consume these, lest the putrefaction should infect the air; and there were always worms feeding on the remaining relics. Hence it came, that any severe punishment, especially an infamous kind of death, was described by the word Gehenna, or hell.”

So what am I getting at?  Well, a lot of times when the New Testament references “hell”, it actually means this place.  A physical place.  Not an eternal torture chamber.  Is it fair that some of the authors reference Gehenna in a spiritual manner as a place of suffering in the afterlife?  Yes, that’s fair.  But that’s also an admittance to reading the Bible more figuratively than literally, which is probably the author’s original intent.

For that to make sense, you have to understand a little more about the ancient world and the history of Christianity, along with pagan beliefs of the people surrounding them as well.  This idea of “literal” is somewhat new.  Early Christians probably thought more figuratively than you might think.

Interesting fact?  The word Gehenna is only used by two people in the New Testament.  Jesus, who uses it most often, though because you have 4 gospels, most of the count is driven up by mere repetition.  And other is James.  Paul never mentions it in any of his letters, and neither does the book of Revelation.

So, why do you believe in Hell?  I don’t know.  Why the hell would you believe in hell?

STAGE 3:  INSPIRING FEAR

The truth is, most of these non-Biblical doctrines like Heaven, Hell, and the Rapture are all inspired by misplaced context and passed on traditions inspired by the church after the Council of Nicea.  There’s quite literally nothing in the Bible pointing toward a literal Hell where sinners and unbelievers will burn forever and ever.  You can find it through stringing together different Scriptures and making assumptions based on the English language - not the original - while ignoring proper context.

But that’s rorschach theology.  Seeing whatever you want to see.

You don’t learn this stuff in church, or even at Bible colleges.  Considering that you do believe in a literal Hell, wouldn’t you want to know WHY you believe in it.  Wouldn’t you want to know that when you see the word “hell” in the New Testament that it means either Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna - all of which have three very different meanings and none of which match the modern Christian theology of Hell?

If there’s no moral justification for it, and the Bible - the book you claim to adhere to - does not show its existence, why do you believe it?  Why?  Why would you want to?  Hell sucks.  No one would want to believe in Hell, right?  Who would want that?

Well, fear is powerful.  And there’s nothing like fear to keep you from questioning something.  For instance, if I were to raise a child and tell them that unicorns were real, despite him not being able to see them, hear them, feel them, or sense them in any way, I might expect that child to become skeptical at some point and then figure out that I’m lying.  However, if were to not only tell this child that unicorns were real but also that if he stops believing in them, he will immediately be impaled by one and die a slow, painful death, I might expect that child to cling to his belief in unicorns.

He would be afraid to even be skeptical.

Quite motivating.  It’s no wonder really why Christians as a whole have not dispensed with the doctrine.  After all, if there’s no eternal punishment for not being a Christian, and no eternal reward FOR being a Christian - why be a Christian.  And that’s really what Christianity is all about.  Punishment and reward.

You don’t love God because you want to.  At least I didn’t.  I loved him because I had to, because I was afraid I would go to Hell.  Why else?  That’s a pretty good motivator.

But I would ask you, because all of the information I’ve laid out is just a Google search away, why haven’t you found this out?  Why haven’t you questioned it?  Why believe something for no other reason than to believe it?  Is it because your pastors and ministers tell you that Hell is real?  Shouldn’t they know better?  Why do they continue to teach it if the Bible they teach it from doesn’t say what they say it says?  Surely, a pastor would know the proper context.

So, why believe in Hell?

Simply because it works.