Cold Case Christianity: J. Warner Wallace's proof-texting for messianic prophecy

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity:
The Gift of Christmas Was PredictedWith the Gift of Prophecy
Posted: 21 Dec 2018 01:00 AM PST

As Christmas gift exchanges approach, the gift of Jesus is easily obscured.

 Worldly companies would be less successful if Christians stopped being such shameless consumerists.

But gifted prophets predicted the birth of the Messiah, and these prophesies, like other Old Testament prophecies, testify to the Divine nature of the Bible.

 Dream on.  I refute your attempts to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of any OT prophecy.  The problem is far more complex than your simple-minded proof-texting would indicate.

The New Testament contains two different types of prophetic declarations: the prophecies uttered by Jesus and the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Old Testament prophets declared the coming of a Savior (a Messiah who would save the Jewish people and the entire world from their sin). Here is a brief summary of the prophecies predicting the gift of Jesus:

The Messiah Would Come from the Tribe of Judah

Jacob made this prophetic prediction around 1400 BC.

Genesis 49:10

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Christians believe Jesus will establish an everlasting kingdom in the future. His ancestry is traced back to Jacob’s son, Judah, in Luke 3:23-34 and in Matthew 1:1-16.

 Then you must think Jesus was a drunkard, because drunkenness is one description of the Genesis 49 future Shiloh ruler:

 8 "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father's sons shall bow down to you.
 9 "Judah is a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up?
 10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
 11 "He ties his foal to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, And his robes in the blood of grapes.
 12 "His eyes are dull from wine, And his teeth white from milk.
 13 "Zebulun will dwell at the seashore; And he shall be a haven for ships, And his flank shall be toward Sidon. (Gen. 49:8-13 NAU)

 Evangelical Christian scholar G. J. Wenham on v. 12:

12 “His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk” seems to be a reference to the leader’s beauty (cf. 1 Sam 9:2; 16:12; cf. LXX, Vg, S, Caquot [Sem. 26 (1976) 5–32]), but it could be another reference to the abundance of wine and milk under the coming king. In this case, it would be preferable to translate the lines “His eyes are dark with wine and his teeth white with milk.” Canaan is often described as “flowing with milk and honey” (e.g., Exod 3:8, 17; Num 13:27; Deut 6:3). In an Arabic proverb, being “red with wine” is metaphorical for being very rich. And Isa 7:21–23 reflects on the erstwhile abundance of milk and vineyards. But the suggestion that his eyes will be “dark with wine” might suggest drunkenness as in Prov 23:29, which prompts the Targums to take the eyes and teeth as metaphors for the mountains and valleys of Palestine (e.g., Tg. Onq.).

Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 2: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 16-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 479). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Jesus' beauty? Nope, Christians think other OT predictions of Jesus say he was ugly:

 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. (Isa. 53:2 NAU)

 The abundance of wine and milk under the coming king? 
Whatever the metaphor might mean, it isn't explicit enough to intellectually obligate non-Christians to admit fulfillment in the 1st century.  Jesus probably did a lot of good, but his own family sure didn't think he was increasing the metaphorical wine and milk (Mark 3:21, they thought he was crazy and tried to put a stop to his public ministry,  the interpretation that most conservative Christian inerrantist scholars adopt).

I think the more likely interpretation of Genesis 49:10 is that the speaker in Genesis 49 meant that Judah in the future will get literally drunk very often and enjoy luxury and ease due to being wealthy, traits that fit the context well enough, but traits Jesus did not have (see Luke 9:58, Jesus was apparently homeless).

 That Genesis 49:10 is at best an ambiguity that fights against attempts to understand it with certainty, is clear from the admissions of such a bastion of fundamentalism as Keil and Delitzsch:

Some of the Rabbins supposed our Shiloh to refer to the city. This opinion has met with the approval of most of the expositors, from Teller and Eichhorn to Tuch, who regard the blessing as a vaticinium ex eventu, and deny not only its prophetic character, but for the most part its genuineness. Delitzsch has also decided in its favour, because Shiloh or Shilo is the name of a town in every other passage of the Old Testament; and in 1 Sam. 4:12, where the name is written as an accusative of direction, the words are written exactly as they are here.

Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Vol. 1, Page 254). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Furthermore, the originally intended audience of Genesis 49 would likely have understood "scepter" literally, that is, if it refers to a future ruler, it will be one who literally rules with a literal sceptor the way ancient Judean kings literally did. Jesus did not rule with a literal sceptor, and since other arguments prove that Jesus stayed dead consistently after the crucifixion, Genesis 49:10 is not talking about what Jesus will be like at his second coming.  And preterists are forced to admit that if Jesus made his second coming in the 1st century, then his ruling with a "sceptor" can only be limited to a typological fulfillment of this "prophecy".  

Nothing deflates the power of messianic prophecy quite like "typology".  You may as well say Nahum 2:4 was a prediction of speeding cars with headlights on.  Nobody would give a fuck.  Next?

The Messiah Will Appear After the Jews Return to Israel

Jeremiah uttered this prophecy between 626 BC and 586 BC. It was first fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly ministry and will be fulfilled again in the end times.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in using messianic prophecy to convince skeptics, you are only doing this to help those who already embrace the Christian faith, to believe that it has some intellectual basis.  Clearly the easier of the two possible goals.

Jeremiah 23:3-6

‘I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,’ declares the LORD. ‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.”

 First, the "gathering" of the "flock" would have been understood by Jeremiah's originally intended audience as literal, given that Jeremiah spoke while he and Israel were living under the Babylonian captivity.  So if this is about Jesus, then it is saying Jesus' coming will be attended by a literal gathering of God's flock, likely back to Israel.  That obviously didn't happen in the 1st century, and we can only guess at how many centuries need to pass without fulfillment, before you will agree that your "partial fulfillment" bullshit is nothing but desperate hot air.

Second, "they will no longer be afraid or terrified" would also be taken by the originally intended audience as signifying a literal gathering of the people upon the ending of the captivity.  Yet such comforting didn't happen when Jesus came the first time, and hasn't happened for 2,000 years.  You lose.

Third, the prophecy says "in his days Judah will be saved" and "saved" in its original context would have meant release from captivity, it would not have meant "accept Jesus into your heart and become born again".

Curiously, evangelical Christian scholar P.C. Craigie's comments say nothing about whether this passage is a prediction of Jesus:

Yahweh is about to raise up a new king, either a rightful (=legitimate) descendant of David, or a righteous one. This king will bring the covenant conditions to the people: righteousness and justice. Liberation will come and the people will dwell securely in their own land. This king will be named “Yahweh is our righteousness.”

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 26: Word Biblical Commentary : Jeremiah 1-25.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 331). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

It is also curious that Craigie understands this prophecy to be saying the coming of the predicted ruler will cause the liberation of the people, in the sense that they will dwell securely in their own land.  Jesus did precisely nothing during his lifetime to free Israel from foreign occupation, and Israel hasn't dwelt securely in any land for 2,000 years, and any exceptions were temporary. 

Feel free to tell yourself that Jesus will fulfill the liberation prediction at his second-coming, but be sure you google "preterism" first.  Many Christians believe Jesus' second-coming occurred in the 1st century...a serious problem since, regardless, the Jews were in dispersion  for centuries afterward and have never "dwelt securely" in any landd since.  Unless you think ceaseless wars and civil unrest for 2,000 years constitutes "dwelling securely"?

That's quite sufficient to show that the passage is nowhere near so clear as to intellectually compel an objective person to see Jesus in it.  We have no doubts why many Christian scholars and apologists appeal to "partial fulfillment". They need a nice way to say "Jesus didn't correctly fulfill this prediction". 

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Born in Bethlehem

The prophet Micah predicted this between 750 BC and 686 BC.

Micah 5:2

‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’

To be fair, there is disagreement regarding the translation of Micah 5:2. Some say the reference to ‘Bethlehem’ is simply a reference to the bloodline of King David. Other people say it is a reference to the town of Bethlehem. Jesus meets both criteria; He is a descendant of King David and He was born in Bethlehem.

 What you aren't telling the reader is that Matthew changed the wording to make it sound more like Jesus than it originally did.  Compare:

Micah 5

Matthew 2

1 "Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of troops; They have laid siege against us; With a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek.   2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,  Too little to be among the  clans of Judah,  From you  One will go forth  for Me  to be ruler in Israel.  His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."  3 Therefore He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel.

4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.  5 They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:  6 'AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE  LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU  SHALL COME FORTH  A RULER  WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"  7 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.

 Micah merely says "to be a ruler in Israel", Matthew changes this in a way that conveniently makes the prophecy sound more Christian: "a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel".
 
Christian scholars agree that Matthew changed some of the wording:

This is one of the most familiar pericopes in Micah for Christians. Matthew quoted 5:1 in reference to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt 2:6). However, the OT text is slightly altered in Matthew’s account. Instead of saying, “little to be among the clans of Judah,” Matthew says, “by no means least among the rulers of Judah.” Also Matthew omits “Ephrathah,” and adds, “my people” Judah.

Smith, R. L. (2002). Vol. 32: Word Biblical Commentary : Micah-Malachi.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 44). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Gleason Archer, the doomed king of bible inerrancy, surprisingly admits that Matthew changed the wording:

Commentary

Micah 5:1(2); MT 5:1a hd'Why> ypel.a;B. tAyh.li ry[ic' ht'r'p.a, ~x,l,-tybe hT'a;w>; LXX kai. su,, bhqle,em oi=koj tou/ Efraqa, ovligosto.j (very small) ei= tou/ ei=nai evn cilia,sin Iouda. MT laer'f.yIB. lveAm tAyh.li aceyE yli ^M.mi; LXX evk sou/ moi evxeleu,setai tou/ ei=nai eivj a;rconta (“from thee shall one come forth for/to me in order to become a ruler”). MT ~l'A[ ymeymi ~d,Q,mi wyt'ac'AmW; LXX kai. ai` e;xodoi auvtou/ avpV avrch/j evx h`merw/n aivw/noj. The LXX furnishes a very accurate rendering of the MT. But Mt 2:6 has an entirely independent rendering that provides some challenging deviations: (1) NT kai. su. Bhqle,em, gh/ Iou,da (instead of ht'r'p.a,). Perhaps Ephrathah was taken as an identifier as to which of the two Bethlehems was to be the Messiah's birthplace, whether that of Zebulon to the north (Josh 19:15) up near Nazareth, or the one to the south of Jerusalem. Therefore Matthew, or the advisors of King Herod, saw fit to identify it as Judah, bringing out the implication of Ephrathah, which was the name of the region in which the town was located; (2) NT ouvdamw/j evlaci,sth ei= evn toi/j h`gemo,sin; the LXX states that Bethlehem was very small to be among the 1000-family (or 1000 militiamen) towns of Judah. But Matthew understands from the next clause that if the messianic ruler himself is to come from Bethlehem, then it is—regardless of its size—to be regarded as a town of outstanding importance and glory. So he uses the negative to bring out the implication that it is after all a very important town within the tribe of Judah, despite the modest size of its population. The next change was in the term h`gemo,nej, “rulers,” instead of ~ypil'a] “thousands,” referring to a community that could number 1000 families or even 1000 men at arms. (From this it was but a step to refer to the commander of these troops as a @l,a, varo (prince of 1000), or @l,a, for short, just as the Roman centurio was derived from centurium, or a company of 100 soldiers). But to the Greek reader it may have been more helpful to use a less confusing term than cilia,dej, i.e., h`gemw,n as the commander of 1000 soldiers. While it is true that in the first century h;geww,n was often used of a procurator like Pontius Pilate, it could also refer to the commander of a cohort, for which a more technical equivalent would be cilia,rcwn. But since the term h`genw,n several times is used in the LXX for the Hebrew @WLa; (Gen 36:15; Ex 15:1; 1 Chron 1:50; Psalm 54:14), some have suggested that Matthew may have read yPl.a; as ypeWLa; or ypeLua;. This is certainly a good possibility, for it would involve no consonantal change of the received consonantal text. (E)

 Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations  in the New Testament
(© 1983 Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, BibleWorks edition © 2005)

Sorry folks, but if you have to change the prophecy's wording to make it fit the "facts", you probably shouldn't be screaming your head off about the "amazing accuracy" of biblical prophecy.  Or you should at least cease doing so when you leave church and go back out into the real world where truth actually matters. 

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Preceded By a Messenger

Isaiah predicted there would be a messenger who would precede the Messiah and proclaim His coming. Isaiah made the prophecy between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 40:3

A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the LORD ; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.”

Christians believe this passage foreshadowed the life of John the Baptist who played an important role in preparing the groundwork for the ministry of Jesus Christ.

 But in the original context, Isaiah 40 wasn't talking about John the Baptist, for several reasons:

1 "Comfort, O comfort My people," says your God.
 2 "Speak kindly to Jerusalem; And call out to her, that her warfare has ended, That her iniquity has been removed, That she has received of the LORD'S hand Double for all her sins."
 3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
 4 "Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain, And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
 5 Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."
 6 A voice says, "Call out." Then he answered, "What shall I call out?" All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.
 7 The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass.
 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isa. 40:1-8 NAU)

 First, "speak kindly" (v. 1) interprets "a voice is calling" (v. 2) and the two verses make clear this is Isaiah himself addressing Israel's situation there during his lifetime in 700 b.c.

Second, Isaiah is obviously talking to his contemporaries and telling THEM to clear the way for the Lord.

 Curiously, evangelical Christian scholar J. D. W. Watts doesn't even mention future fulfillment or John the Baptist when commenting on the critical verse 3, nor does he mention John the Baptist anywhere in his entire commentary on Isaiah:

Isaiah 40:3 A solo voice calls for monstrous preparation, including a highway. One might expect that this would be for pilgrims returning to Jerusalem or for those who would resettle the land. But the highway does not come to Jerusalem from the northeast or from the north (i.e., from Babylon) or even from the south (i.e., from Egypt), where the Diaspora is located. The wilderness spoken of here is in the southeast, the Arabah. And the one to travel on it is Yahweh, our God. Ezekiel had pictured Yahweh abandoning the city (Ezek 9–11). Now he is returning, using the way that was familiar from Temple traditions of Yahweh coming from Sinai or from Edom (cf. chaps. 34 and 63:1–6) through the Arabah south of the Dead Sea to approach Jerusalem from the east (cf. Comment on 10:27–32). The heart of the announcement, the reason for the messages of good news, is that Yahweh is returning to take up residence in Jerusalem again. This calls for royal preparations.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 80). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

You lose.

The Messiah Would Enter Jerusalem While Riding on a Donkey

Zechariah made this unusual prediction between 520 BC and 518 BC.

Zechariah 9:9

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

As recorded in Luke 19:35-37, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and presented Himself as the Messiah, the King.

 I think Wallace is being dishonest here, for while Luke 19 surely talks about Jesus riding on a donkey, Wallace surely knew that Matthew's version of the story is the one that a) contains a direct quote of this "prophecy" and b) Matthew's version is the one that has convinced many scholars that Matthew did not understand hendiatys, and misunderstood a parallel expression of one donkey, to signify two.  Compare:

Zechariah 9

Matthew 21

7 And I will remove their blood from their mouth And their detestable things from between their teeth. Then they also will be a remnant for our God, And be like a clan in Judah, And Ekron like a Jebusite.  8 But I will camp around My house because of an army, Because of him who passes by and returns; And no oppressor will pass over them anymore, For now I have seen with My eyes.  9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!   Behold, your king is coming to you;  He is just and endowed with salvation,  Humble, and mounted on a donkey,  Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.  10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim And the horse from Jerusalem; And the bow of war will be cut off. And He will speak peace to the nations; And His dominion will be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.

1 When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples,  2 saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me.  3 "If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them."  4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:  5 "SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION,  'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU,  GENTLE,  AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY,  EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.'"  6 The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them,  7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats. (Matt. 21:1-7 NAU)

 First, Matthew 21:3 has Jesus telling others that he has need of "them" (i.e., BOTH the donkey and her colt).  Well wait a minute...Zech. 9:9 wasn't talking about two animals.  It was talking about one, a colt.  The verse says "mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey".  That's not two animals, but one, because of a Hebrew parallelism technique called hendiatys.  Some examples:

Hebrews 11:13 The formulation ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι, “strangers and sojourners,” is a hendiadys, the expression of an idea by two nouns joined by the conjunction “and.” It is equivalent to “sojourning strangers.”

Lane, W. L. (2002). Vol. 47B: Word Biblical Commentary : Hebrews 9-13
. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 357). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

“Made well and live” (σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ) could refer to two distinct ideas (Taylor, 288). Yet since these two verbs render the Aramaic חיה, ḥayâh, some have taken them to be a hendiadys, two expressions for the same thing (Black, Approach, 71, n. 1; Klostermann, 51).

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 296). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Luke 2:4 “house and family,” is probably a hendiadys.

Nolland, J. (2002). Vol. 35A: Word Biblical Commentary : Luke 1:1-9:20.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 104). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Furthermore, under Markan priority, Matthew probably got this story from Mark 11 which says:

1 As they approached Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples,
 2 and said to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.
 3 "If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' you say, 'The Lord has need of it'; and immediately he will send it back here."
 4 They went away and found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street; and they untied it.
 5 Some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?"
 6 They spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission.
 7 They brought the colt to Jesus and put their coats on it; and He sat on it.
 8 And many spread their coats in the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields.
 9 Those who went in front and those who followed were shouting: "Hosanna! BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!"
 11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking around at everything, He left for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late. (Mk. 11:1-11 NAU)

 In other words, Matthew's likely source were these Markan admissions about a single colt, nothing expressed or implied about a second animal. 

Why then does Mark specify that "the Lord has need of IT" and Matthew specifies "the Lord has need of THEM"?  Most likely because the Matthean author of this part of Matthew mistakenly took Zechariah 9:9 literally, and was ignorant that the OT expression was describing one animal in two ways.  Otherwise, why would Matthew feel compelled to modify the singular to the plural, especially if he thought his Markan source was inerrant?

Sorry, but at best this "prophecy" could have been fulfilled improperly by any messianic pretender by simply obtaining a colt and riding it into Jerusalem.  You lose.  Next?

The Messiah Would Suffer and Be Rejected

Isaiah made this prediction as well, between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:3

He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Some scholars claim Isaiah was referring to Israel as a nation in this passage rather than the Messiah. But, many important, historic Rabbis believed this passage was indeed about the Messiah.

 You need to look at the context first, that's more objective than simply asking how some important Rabbis
 understood it.

Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, one of the great seventeenth-century expositors from Safed, Israel, said ‘Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.”

Ok, since you don't go to the context, I will.  The suffering servant in Isaiah is spoken of in past tense terms which is a rather confused way of predicting the future (!?). Isaiah 53:7 says the servant didn't open his mouth while his executors were slaughtering him, but Jesus obviously does plenty of talking during his execution, John 19:11, Luke 23:28, 34, 43, 46.  Also the Hebrew word for death in Isaiah 53:9 is a plural, so in your quest to show this stuff literally applies to Jesus, be sure you cite the evidence showing that he died several times.

Finally, again curiously, a Christian scholar doesn't even mention Jesus as a possible fulfillment of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, which would hardly be the case if Jesus being the fulfillment had been the least bit "clear": 

This commentary will show that “the sufferer passages” are distinct from “the servant passages” sufferer and the servant are not the same person and that the in the Vision. Israel and the Persian emperor (Cyrus or Darius) are called “the anointed” or “the servant of Yahweh” (See Excursus: Identifying the “Servant of Yahweh”). But the sufferer in 50:4–9 and the dead sufferer in chap. 53 is more likely to be a leader in Jerusalem (perhaps Zerubbabel) who has been executed before the arrival of authorities sent by Darius.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 227). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 later on he specifies:

53:2 He grew up like a plant before him. Pronouns without antecedents appear throughout these verses. The waw consecutive ties this verse closely to v 1. This interpretation understands most of the third person masculine pronouns to refer the “the servant” of 52:13 (Darius). The second pronoun may refer to his patron Cambyses. That is, Darius grew up in the court of Cambyses as an insignificant and unpromising person. A vine from dry ground is figurative language for one of parentage not in line for succession to the throne. No form, no beauty, no attraction imply that Darius was a most unlikely candidate to gain support for his seizure of the throne. We: the speakers are the many, the crowd, of 52:14. They are talking among themselves, not addressing the emperor.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). (id, 230)

 And later:

53:11 The heavenly perspective is accented by Yahweh’s words. The travail of his soul refers to the suffering and death of Zerubbabel. He will see; he will be satisfied. This speaks of Darius. He has a way out of his dilemma if he treats Zerubbabel’s death as atonement for the charge of rebellion. By knowing about him (Zerubbabel), he (Darius) can justify. The death of Zerubbabel provides Darius with a legal way to resolve the issue. My servant refers to Darius, who by this act proves his legitimacy as Yahweh’s servant. He vindicates Jerusalem and its people against the charges brought by the governor and neighboring peoples. He forgives their wrongs. This is presented as Yahweh’s realistic and practical solution to the problem posed in 52:14–15.

(Id, 232)

 Of course, the reader may suggest J.D.W. Watts perhaps wasn't a Christian when he wrote this commentary.  Wrong:  From logos.com:

John D.W. Watts, formerly Professor of Old Testament at Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky and Old Testament editor of the Word Biblical Commentary, well known for his scholarly contributions on the prophetic books.

 See here.

So if even Christian scholars say next to nothing about Jesus' relationship to Isaiah 53, you can hardly consider the non-Christian to be intellectually obligated to view Jesus as the fulfillment of that "prediction".

The Messiah Would Be Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver

Zechariah predicted the betrayal of Jesus when he wrote this prophecy between 520 BC and 518 BC.

Zechariah 11:12-13

I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’–the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

As recorded in Matthew 26:15, Judas was paid 30 silver coins for his betrayal of Jesus. Judas later tossed the money into the Temple (the house of the Lord) and the money was used to buy a potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.

 And responsible Christian scholars tell us the original OT passage wasn't talking about the future:

Although NT writers connect this passage about the thirty pieces of silver paid to the prophet for his unappreciated service as a shepherd to his people to the money Judas received for betraying Jesus, the original passage makes no reference to a future Messiah. S. R. Driver says that the evangelist (Matthew) makes the connection because he “follows the exegetical methods current among the Jews of his time” (cf. Matt 2:15, 18; Driver 259).

Although no strict messianic view should be seen in the original passage, the quality of leadership is its central theme.

Smith, R. L. (2002). Vol. 32: Word Biblical Commentary : Micah-Malachi.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 272). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Fuhr and Yates consider this prophecy fulfillment to be typological, not literal prediction:




see here.

The publisher acknowledges these scholars are Christians with a Christian purpose:

Old Testament scholars Richard Alan Fuhr, Jr. and Gary E. Yates believe that the message of the twelve Minor Prophets is relevant for the church today, and they re-introduce these important books of the Bible to contemporary Christians.  (source)

 Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Silent Before His Accusers

Isaiah predicted this between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:7

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

In the book of Isaiah, chapter 53, Isaiah wrote about a “servant of God”. As recorded in Matthew 27:12-14, Jesus was falsely accused but remained silent and did not protest the accusations. Jesus was crucified by the Romans a short time later.

 This is a non-starter.  Isaiah doesn't say the servant refused to protest the accusations, Isaiah says the sufferer was silent before his accusers the way a lamb is silent before the shearer, but the NT has Jesus saying much to his accusers.  Compare:

Isaiah 53

John 18

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.

33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"  34 Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?"  35 Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?"  36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."  37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

I think this is the part where mouthy apologists suddenly discover who wise Christian scholar Craig Evans was in saying that Jesus probably didn't say most of the things the gospel of John puts in his mouth.  See here.

The Messiah Would Suffer at the Crucifixion

The Psalmist, King David wrote Psalm 22 and repeatedly predicted the events on the cross that would happen centuries later. Here are a few examples:

Psalm 22:1

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?

Psalm 22:7

All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

Psalm 22:8

‘He trusts in the LORD ; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.’

Psalm 22:16

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Psalm 22:17

I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

Psalm 22:18

They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Why did Jesus, while dying on the cross, say ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Those words are actually the first line of Psalm 22, which according to Jewish tradition was written by King David about 1,000 years before Jesus was crucified. There are many parallels between the details in Psalm 22 and the manner in which Jesus died.

 First, the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 shows his own effort to "fulfill" that passage, which means there is no intellectually forceful argument that divine inspiration is the only way this fulfillment could have happened.

Second, Psalm 22:16's "pierce my hands and feet", in context, is referring to the Psalmist's metaphorical complaint that his enemies are chewing him up the way an animal would piece your hands and feet by biting them.

 16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;
 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
 19 But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance.
 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog.
 21 Save me from the lion's mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me. (Ps. 22:16-21 NAU)

Third, responsible Christian scholars translate 22:16 in a way that gets rid of the "pieced" crap that Christians need to link it up Jesus' crucifixion:

For dogs have surrounded me;

     a pack^a of thugs have encompassed me;

     my hands and my feet were exhausted.^b

a 17.a. On the nuance “pack” for עדת, see Dahood, Psalms I, 140.

b 17.b. MT’s כָּאֲרִי (“like a lion”) presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct. One must suppose that incorrect vocalization of the consonantal text occurred, perhaps through association with a marginal gloss at v 14; see note a at v 14 and L. C. Allen, “Cuckoos in the Textual Nest,” JTS 22 (1971) 148–50. It is probably best to read a consonantal text כארו or כרו; see the massive discussion of the manuscript evidence in De-Rossi, IV, 14–20. G’s translation, “they pierced my hands and feet” (ὤρυξαν), may perhaps presuppose a verb כרה, “to dig,” or כור (II), “to pierce, bore” (though the latter verb is dubious). Some scholars have supposed a verb אָרָה (“to pluck, pick clean”), prefixed by כְּ‍; for different approaches to this solution of the problem, see Dahood, “The Verb ĀRĀH, ‘pick clean,’” VT 24 (1974) 370–71, and Tournay, VT 23 (1973) 111–12. Still another solution is the proposal of a verb כרה (V), “to be shrunken, shriveled” (on the basis of Akk. and Syriac), as proposed by Roberts, VT 23 (1973) 247–52. The starting point for the translation which is adopted above is provided by E. J. Kissane (The Book of Psalms, 97–101). He proposes an original text כלו, changed to כרו (noting the occasional interchange of ל and ר), and translates “consumed.” This is basically the position adopted above; on the consonantal interchange, see A. Fitzgerald, “The Interchange of L, N and R in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 97 (1978) 481–88. Thus the verb is a form of כלה (3 plur. perf.); on the nuance “to be exhausted,” for this verb, see BDB, 477.

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 195). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Craigie also makes the "typological" interpretation the most likely when he says the original intent of the Psalm wasn't messianic:

Though the psalm is not messianic in its original sense or setting (though some scholars would interpret vv 28–32 as a messianic relecture: see MartinAchard, art. cit.), it may be interpreted from a NT perspective as a messianic psalm par excellence.

NT New Testament

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 202). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Buried in a Rich Man’s Tomb

In yet another prophecy of Isaiah, made between 701 BC and 681 BC, the prophet predicted the burial of the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:9

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Seven hundred years after this was written, Jesus was killed with two criminals and buried in a tomb owned by a wealthy man. Jesus was resurrected three days later and eventually ascended into Heaven.

 Maybe so.  But since he was buried in a rich man's tomb, the rich man could also have easily bribed the guards to simply say they found the tomb empty upon arrival...and that particular story would not have subjected them to any punishment, whereas the bribery story Matthew gives (i.e., they were bribed to say they were asleep when the disciples stole the body) not only would subject the guards to severe punishment, but would not make sense anyway, they'd obviously anticipate their boss asking "how could you know who the grave robbers were, if it happened while you were asleep?"  In this case, the historicity of the burial account opens historiographical doors the apologists don't want to open, doors that are more plausible than the bullshit story Matthew gives.  So yes, the disciples stole the body before the guards arrived (if Joe can move a stone in front of the tomb, other men can just as easily move it aside).

It would seem that skeptics are winning the messianic prophecy debate.  Christian Research Institute ('CRI') has always stood for standard Protestant orthodoxy and apologetics, but in one of its articles (attributed to Hank Hanegraaff but more than likely ghost-written for him mostly by actual bible scholars, as was the case with his best-selling books), it specifically denies that Isaiah 7:14 was a literal prediction of Jesus' birth, it rather admits the fulfillment in Jesus is "typological":

As with double-fulfillment, single-fulfillment does violence to the biblical text. Indeed, Isaiah 7:14 does not constitute a direct prediction about the Messiah at all. Though Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin, Isaiah did not predict the virgin birth of Jesus. As we will now see, when Matthew says the virgin birth of Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, he speaks of typological fulfillment, not predictive fulfillment.

 See here.

Message to Dennis Ingolfsland: No, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, if your arguments are the best you can do

This is my reply to an article by Dennis Ingolfsland entitled

Jesus Christ: Did he really rise from the dead?
Friday, April 6, 2012
Published in the Shakopee ValleyNews, March 21, 2012

 

Christians around the world will soon celebrate Easter in remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 While being ignorant of just how poorly supported that hypothesis is historically.  I say that after reviewing Craig's, Licona's and Habermas' best efforts otherwise.

Most people understand, however, that no one comes back to life after being dead for “three days.” How could any intelligent person believe such a thing?

 Good question.  

We could be cynical and say the key word is “intelligent” but there are many people with Ph.D.’s who believe that Jesus rose from the dead. What reasons could they possibly have?

One thing appears certain, they don't have any explanation for why Jesus' family rejected his claims during his earthly ministry.

First, Jesus’ crucifixion is considered to be historical fact. It is confirmed even by ancient non-Christian sources like Josephus, Lucian and Mara Bar Serapion. In addition, since crucifixion was considered such a shameful way to die, most biblical scholars don’t believe Christians would have invented a crucifixion story that would expose them to ridicule and hinder the spread of their message.

Second, Jesus’ tomb was found empty.

My explanation for the empty tomb is easy:  it is nothing but legendary embellishment.  I do not believe Jesus was perceived by the Romans or Jews to be anywhere near the significant threat that the gospels pretend they perceived him to be.  Jesus was a common blasphemous criminal whose miracle claims were even denied by his own family, most of whom were allegedly absent from the crucifixion, and after the authorities were satisfied he was really dead, they didn't give two shits what happened to his body, nor about his alleged claims that he would rise from the dead.  All this malarkey about the Jews complained that Jesus predicted his own resurrection and thus the disciples might steal the body then claim the prophecy came true, is total bullshit. 

Either way, there was a period of time between a disciple of Jesus burying him in a tomb, and the arrival of the guards at that tomb, for foul play to occur.  If the guards could be bribed with money to say they were asleep on the job and that's how the body disappeared (the biblical excuse that would render them deserving of the death penalty) they would be more susceptible to a bribe from the "rich" Joseph of Arimathea to tell a lie that would not warrant the death penalty (i.e., when we came to the tomb to guard it, we found the body already missing).  And indeed the guards would find that particular lie more attractive since the emptiness of the tomb would be exactly what they in fact experienced, and having been gone during the foul play, their boss could not be reasonably expected to fault them for the loss of the body while it was outside their custodial reach.  All they need to do is avoid saying that they accepted a bribe to tell that story.  They arrived, the body was already gone, simple.

Or even easier:  when the guards arrived, the body was already missing, somebody had stolen the body before the guards arrived.  No need to bribe, simply march back to headquarters and report the body went missing before the guards arrived.

You will say "Matthew 27:60 says Joe rolled a large stone against the tomb, so it was secure before the guards got there!"

Really? If Joe could move the stone over the mouth of the tomb, somebody could also roll it away before the guards got there.  The only way you can avoid this is to sinfully add to the word of the Lord and pretend that when it says "he" rolled the stone, it really means a group of men.  But even that doesn't work, since if a group of men could roll it in place, another group, like the disciples, could roll it away before the guards arrived.


Regardless, the empty tomb dies under my theory that Mark intended to end at 16:8, which means the earliest gospel had nothing to say about anybody actually seeing the risen Christ.  Nothing you do with the empty tomb theory can overcome the historical problems created by Mark's unwillingness to say people actually saw the risen Christ.

All four biblical Gospels claim that Jesus’ tomb was empty (as does the second century “Gospel of Peter). The Gospels are unanimous in presenting women as the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb.

 But Paul's "creed" in 1st Cor. 15 doesn't mention the women, and you cannot show that your explanatory theory (female testimony not considered reliable) is more plausible than the skeptical theory (the version of the story Paul heard did not involve women being the first witnesses).  After all, it was Paul himself who believed women were not inferior to men. 

And your "unanimous" argument is weak, if we give credence to the majority scholarly Christian consensus that Matthew and Luke borrowed most of their gospel material from Mark.  Gee, the copy reflects the source?

Since women were not regarded as reliable witnesses in those days,

 Apparently you are unaware that a religion called Christianity started with the testimony of women...which shows that the Christians themselves, who made up this resurrection story, didn't view female testimony as negatively as non-Christians did.  So don't forget about the Christians.

even many skeptical scholars are convinced that early Christians would not fabricate a story in which the earliest eyewitnesses were thought to be unreliable.

It's not typical Jews saying the women were the first eyewitnesses, it is Christians who tell this gospel story, and the Christian view of women wasn't as negative as the non-Christian view.

The earliest explanation for the empty tomb is found in the Gospel of Matthew which says that the guards reported that someone stole the body while they slept (if they were sleeping, how would they know)?

 Your question is precisely why that story doesn't ring true.  Were the guards so stupid, they didn't anticipate that their boss would naturally ask "how could you possibly know what happened to the body, if it happened while you were asleep?"  Furthermore, to lose the guarded object would likely warrant severe punishment possibly including execution, making it highy unlikely the guards would be willing to tell such a tale. 

You are also forgetting that Joseph of Arimathea, allegedly the guy who buried Jesus, was "rich" (Matthew 27:57), and thus it is equally as plausible to suggest that Joe bribed the guards to say "the body was gone when we first arrived at the tomb".  Between Matthew 27:60-62, a full day transpired between Joseph burying Jesus and the arrival of the guards. 

You will insist they would surely check that the body was still there before sealing the tomb, but on the contrary, modern history is plagued with examples in which the authorities did a shocking piss-poor job of evidence collection and otherwise violated common sense in their effort to secure evidence.  Combined with Joe's being rich and thus having capacity to offer the guards even more money than the earlier Jews who first bribed the guards, you are a fool to pretend that Matthew's version is the most historically plausible version of the events.

And if the body was indeed gone when the guards arrived, they could truthfully say to their boss that the body was missing when they arrived, and this misleading impression would carry far less risk to their lives than the bullshit "disciples-stole-the-body-while-we-were-asleep" yarn that no fool would fall for. Since Joe's bribing the guards this way makes them far less prone to the fearful penalties of failing their task, Joe's bribing the guards to truthfully say the body was gone when they first arrived, sounds like the more likely historical truth.  Feel free to keep your own theory alive by speculating that the guards were retarded, drunk or stupid but sheer possibilities can never trump the probability you just read.

The stolen body theory might explain why the tomb was empty but we would still have to account for the stories that say Jesus was seen alive after his death.

I do account for them.  They are legendary embellishments, because they only appear in the later gospels, the earliest gospel, Mark, stops at 16:8, exactly the point where Matthew and Luke diverge.  Doesn't matter if Marcan priority is technically false, reasonableness doesn't require accuracy or comprehensive rebuttal to counter-theories.  Markan priority is what most Christian scholars agree with, so its obviously reasonable to accept.  If any reader wishes to mount the case against Markan priority, they can consider themselves invited to try.

Some have suggested that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Most biblical scholars find this unconvincing. Three crucified friends of Josephus (a first century historian) were taken off their crosses after only a few hours. Although all of them presumably received medical attention, two of them died the same day, and the third one died shortly thereafter. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986) concluded that theories about Jesus’ survival are contrary to the evidence. Even if Jesus had survived, however, it seems a bit silly to think that early Christians would have hailed this very bruised and broken man (most likely in critical condition) as their resurrected Messiah!

 I don't bother with such foolishness.  Dismissed.  Next?

Third, Jesus was believed to have appeared alive physically after his execution (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39-43; John 20:17, 27-28). Recent scholars have argued that in the Gospels we are in touch with what early Christians believed about Jesus.

 But most scholars deny the apostolic authorship of the gospels, so without good argument that they are wrong, to trust the word of the canonical gospels is to trust the word of several different authors and redactors, whose unique contributions making up the final canonical form can no longer be distinguished from the "original", a situation you'd scream your head off about, if the eyewitness affidavit showing you committed murder, suffered the same degree of multiple authorship and textual changes and borrowing extensively from a prior similar affidavit.

But the fact that Matthew and Luke often "tone down" Mark's version of things might indicate that these two gospel authors didn't view Mark as inerrant.  If they thought Mark's choice of wording was "inerrant", then what could possibly motivate them to think inerrant wording inspired by God needed the least bit of alteration?

Regardless of whether anyone today believes their stories, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Gospel writers taught that the resurrection of Jesus was physical, not merely “spiritual.”

 Agreed.

Even Ignatius, writing shortly after the last New Testament book was written, said that that Jesus was still in the flesh after his resurrection.
Years before the Gospels were written St. Paul also affirmed the physical resurrection of Jesus. In First Corinthians—which even the most skeptical scholars believe is genuine

 You mean the epistle that shows that some of the Christians in his church irrationally denied the possibility of resurrection from the dead?  1st Cor. 15:12.  Isn't that about as believable as followers of Paul who deny the existence of God?  Gee, what could have motivated these "some" to conclude that resurrection doesn't happen? It couldn't be their serious investigation into the gospel sources, could it? 

—Paul writes that the resurrected Jesus was seen by more than 500 people.

A fact the gospels don't mention, a fact gospel authors wouldn't likely remain silent about if they knew such a thing had happened.

Paul also said he would pretend to believe things he didn't truly believe, if he felt doing so would help him gain converts.  1st Cor, 9:20-21.  When Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews (Acts 16:3), what was he saying while using the knife?  Maybe "all things in my Jewish past that were gain to me, like my heritage and circumcision, I count as dung "(Phil. 3:8)?

Paul also confessed, that, 14 years after the fact, he still couldn't tell whether his flying into the sky happened to his physical body or only to his spirit. 2nd Cor. 12:1-4.  And you set forth this hack as if his credibility is beyond question? FUCK YOU.

It seems pretty clear that Paul is not intending to say that 500 people had hallucinations or visions!

 No, that's not clear at all.  Mass hallucination does not require that the exact same mental image be shared by everybody during the experience, only that they are all having the same general delusion.  Just look at today's Pentecostals.  They insist they are all slain by the single selfsame Holy Spirit, but that hardly implies that they are claiming to have shared the exact same mental images during the experience.  once you correct that misunderstanding, mass hallucination becomes a far more likely candidate.  It's what happened at Fatima.

Not only that, but Paul uses the word “resurrection” to describe what happened to Jesus. Resurrection” meant that the body came back to life, not that the spirit lived on after death which is something most people believed anyway.

 Paul is not credible.  If he wanted to say Jesus' body came back to life, he could have done so in a couple of paragraphs instead of a whole chapter going off into eotericc nonsense about how the glory of the sun is different than the glory of the moon, etc.  Paul apparently knew how to phrase things in order to convey that Jesus' flesh came back to life, see Acts 2:31.

Worse for Paul, he allegedly could have simply quoted the specific resurrection tradition unique to his follower Luke, namely, that when Jesus rose, he proved he wasn't a spirit (Luke 24:39).  Paul's choice to go into a mile-long rant about spiritual bodies makes me suspicious that the matter of his belief about resurrection is a bit more complex that you are letting on.

What you appear to have overlooked is that Paul felt his bodily resurrection beliefs needed to be taught to the Corinthians because some were denying the whole idea.  It's hard to believe that Paul would have taken this much time to correct them, if their denial of bodily resurrection was "clear" error.  How much time would you spend with a "Trinitarian" who denies that the Holy Spirit is a person?   I thus reasonably conjecture that the reason Paul devoted so much time to the subject is because exactly how Jesus "rose" was NOT "clear" to the Corinthians, but rather a subject of significant dispute.

In Second Corinthians, Paul reminds his readers of the persecution he faced for preaching the gospel, including imprisonment, beatings and life-threatening danger like being stoned (with real stones)!

 My grandpa also told me lots of stories from WW2, which under your trusting logic apparently means I have no choice but to assume he was incapable of exaggerating what really happened to make it more dramatic.

Paul was so convinced of the resurrection that he staked his whole life on it!

Paul started out persecuting the Christian violently, then suddenly started agreeing with them.  I don't have a lot of faith in people who can teleport between two such extremes at the speed of light.  I'm also suspicious that Paul's tendency to go to extremes likely manifested itself by him exaggerating what really happened to him.  Yes, grandpa was in the army and suffered many things.  No, that doesn't mean every shocking detail he related was the historical truth.  You also overlook that Paul was aware that his churches couldn't easily "check" his facts, unless they were willing to take dangerous first-century trips over long distances, which would involve leaving their families and jobs, sacrifices most people in honor/shame cultures would have difficulty with unless they were rich and bored.  I see no motive for Paul to fear he might be caught lying.  Look at Benny Hinn, any fool can tell that asshole is nothing but a con artist...but does the prospect of being exposed bother Hinn in the least?  NO. 

And you know what sinners will do if they think they can get away with it.  Paul himself said all men should be presumed to be liars.

Many other early Christians staked their lives on the same conviction.

 They were deluded Pentecostals just like Paul.  Did you have a point?

Finally, the resurrection of Jesus could be treated as a historical hypothesis; a hypothesis which explains a lot that is difficult to explain otherwise. For example:
The hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection explains the conversion of Paul.

A stupid internally conflicted extremist would also explain Paul's radical shift in thinking.

By his own testimony Paul had violently opposed Christianity.

Something also not corroborated by any independent or first-hand source.  Once again, its just grandpa embellishing the historical truth to make it more dramatically memorable.

How did this rabid opponent of Christianity became one of its most ardent promoters?

Maybe the way a know-nothing farm boy became the founder of Mormonism?  Claim a vision, seek gullible followers, and wait a few years to see if the plan works?

Also, you don't know what exact historical accidents happened so that among all the Christian talkers of the first century, Paul ended up having the most popularity.

Paul himself would say it was due to his conviction that Jesus had risen.

And Benny Hinn lies when telling people they are healed. An obvious liar, easily verfied, yet the harsh truth doesn't slow him down at all.

The hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection explains the change in worship from the Sabbath to the first day of the week.

 More correctly, the belief that Jesus rose, would explain this.  The hypothesis of Santa Claus would also explain presents under the tree that nobody claims responsibility for.

Sabbath observance was so central to ancient Jewish identity that for Jewish Christians (The earliest Christians were all Jewish) to start worshiping on Sunday would be more shocking than if PETA started sacrificing puppies!

 No, you are just falsely classifying all first-century Jews as extreme devotees, when in fact that was hardly the case.  Cornelius was allegedly a "devout" follower of Judaism, yet he didn't even recognize that worship of human beings constituted idolatry.  Acts 10:25-26.

It would demand an explanation. Belief that Jesus had risen on the first day of the week would explain the change.

 Lots of false hypotheses would also explain the evidence in a murder trial, that hardly does anything to help answer the question of what actually DID happen.

This hypothesis also explains the continuation of the Jesus movement even after his death.

 Well then, since Mormonism continued to grow after Smith and Young died...

Many Jews expected their Messiah to kick the Romans out of Judea.

 Probably because the OT made it fairly clear that the messiah would be nothing more than an earthly ruler.

When the Romans crushed these Messiah wannabees their movements always died with them. Only in the case of Jesus did the movement continue after his death.

Incorrect, the Jesus-cult died out before the 5th century.  That crap you call "Christianity" today is nothing close to the legalistic temple worship that constituted original Christianity.

The hypothesis would also explain the worship of Jesus by early Christians who were fiercely monotheistic Jews!

Nope, Cornelius was a "devout" Jew, and yet if you conclude he surely knew what types of worship constituted idolatry, you'd be wrong.  Acts 10, supra.   You are dishonestly painting the first-century Jews as a group of theologians who were in confident agreement about what constituted idolatry.  You are mistaken.  Philo couldn't even avoid admitting his doctrine of the Logos implied that the wisdom of God was a "second god" (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62) 

And don't even get me started on how hopeless it is to pretend the author of 2nd Kings 3:27 was a monotheist.  He clearly thought the Moabite deity turned the tide of the battle, that's the best explanation for the "wrath" that came against Israel after the pagan king sacrificed his son during a stand-off.  If you think that wrath was your god or something else, consider yourself challenged.

We really haven’t even scratched the surface on this topic but evidence like this has convinced even highly skeptical scholars that Jesus’ earliest followers sincerely believed that he had risen from the dead.

These skeptical scholars are quick to add, however, that we can be absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead because dead people just don’t come back to life.

 You will never show that it is irrational to use our personal pool of life experience to draw conclusions about stories whose content contradict the way we experience life to work.  How the fuck else do you expect cops and criminal investigators to detect when somebody's logically possible story sounds suspicious?  Prayer?  

Some might say that their philosophical presuppositions (faith) outweigh historical considerations.

Just like it is the philosophical presuppositions of Protestants that outweigh the historical evidence and testimony to the Catholic miracles at Fatima, Lourdes, etc.   You've already decided that Catholicism is false. Don't tell me you are Mr. Truth-Robot and you are always eager to let the chips fall where they may even when evidence potentially contradicting your chosen religion comes down the pike.  I don't fault you for choosing to make up your mind before you turn 98 years old, so you cannot fairly fault skeptics for choosing to making up their minds before they turn 98 years old either.  Life is also about arriving at conclusions, it's not limited to just being objectively open to every new theory that comes along.  I've made up my mind that Mormonism is false.  I will NEVER be open to the possibility that it might actually be true.  Now under your own religion, isn't this closed-minded stance a mark of virtue?

In the final analysis, nothing can be “proven” beyond all possible doubt.

 Which is irrelevant, since it is only stupid amateurs who think the non-existence of absolute proof is somehow compelling one way or the other.

There is always a gap that can be crossed only by faith (this is also true in science).

It's nice to know you have a Ph.d and yet you clearly understand "faith" to be something that fills in evidentiary gaps.  Perhaps that has something to do with your "passion" for Christianity.  $10 says you are either a charismatic or a Pentecostal.

Those of us who have examined the evidence, however, and have experienced what we believe to be the grace and power of God in our lives, and the witness of the Spirit in our hearts, have no trouble proclaiming with Christians around the world that He is risen indeed!

 Do you ever tell skeptics to avoid appeals to emotion?  Why?  Is there some law of the cosmos that says only Christians are allowed to do that?

Dennis Ingolfsland's blind appeal to the Big Bang

This is my reply to an article by Dennis Ingolfsland entitled

Not enough faith to be an atheist

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Some fascinating facts:

    "The expansion rate of the Big Bang had to be accurate to within one part in [10 followed by 55 zeros--The actual quotes use scientific notation but as far as I know, that's not possible in blogger]. Any slower and the universe would have collapsed. Any faster and there would be no stars or planetary systems. In either case, life would not be possible."

 The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is composed of Christians who have advanced degrees in scientific fields, and they push biblical creationism, yet they also declare that the big bang is both biblically untenable and scientifically false.  See "The Big Bang Theory Collapses", here.  Answers in Genesis is another Christan creationist organization that considers the Big Bang to be a naturalistic invention that is contrary to biblical teaching.  See here. 

See also

Christian apologists should abandon the big bang 

Jonathan F. Henry 

Some prominent Christian apologists claim that the big bang was God’s method of creation. Another common view is that the big bang is an apologetic for biblical creation. By this reasoning, Genesis 1:1 says that there was a beginning, and the big bang was also the beginning of the universe. Thus the big bang is an evidence for creation, not evolution. This is a mistaken conclusion. The ministries of the Christian apologists named in this paper, as well as others that could be named, generally take a high view of Scripture which strengthens Christian faith. The critique

That was from JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) 2009, link to pdf here.

Is it reasonable for the unbeliever to ask whether Christianity's internal disagreements on the big bang indicate that there is no god of truth guiding either side?  Sure, anything's possible: maybe God wants young-earthers to be wrong in their view of the BB "for the sake of a greater good", but is that speculation remotely near "compelling" upon the unbeliever?  No.  Then we can be rationally warranted and reasonable to dismiss Christian efforts to use the BB to prove god, just like we cite to the several different interpretations of quantum mechanics to justify turning away from the absurd sophistry put out by the Copenhagen school.

    "The force of gravity had to be accurate to within on part in [10 followed by 40 zeros]. Otherwise, stars could not form, and life would be impossible."

 Take a cup full of pennies, toss them onto the carpet.  Take extensive notes about how each coin landed, its proximity to other coins, and which exact carpet fibers were implicated.  If the power of your toss, the shape of the cup, the design of the carpet or the movement of air through the room had been different at the time of the toss, the resulting pattern would have been very different than the one you recorded. 

So obviously the pattern you recorded could not have been the result of randomly throwing coins on the floor, but only the result of intelligent design.  Yeah right.  The pattern exhibits what could be viewed as "specified complexity", yet we also know the design appeared without intelligent intervention or purpose, as a similarly complex design would have emerged if such a cup of pennies had been knocked over during an earthquake.

    "The mass density of the universe had to be accurate to within on part in [10 followed by 60 zeros]. Otherwise, life-sustaining stars could not have formed."

 Same answer.

This comes from The Making of an Atheist by philosopher James S. Spiegel (pg 46), quoting from former atheist philosopher Antony Flew.

 Anthony Flew was a dipshit who seems to have avoided doing his best to combat Christian theism.  Your use of Flew to "show what atheists argue" is akin to me using the WestBoro Baptist church to "show what Christians do".

And all of this was just for conditions for the development of life to be theoretically possible! (Antony Flew was influenced by MIT scientist Gerald Schroeder). The actual appearance of life is much more problematic:

    "...two scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, calculated the odds of life emerging from non-living matter to be on in [10 followed by 40,000 zeros]." To put this enormous figure in perspectice, consider that the number of atoms in the known universe is [10 followed by 80 zeros]--a paltry sum by comparison. Moreover, consider the fact that statisticians, as a general rule, consider any 'possibility' less than on in [10 followed by 50 zeros] to be impossible" (Spiegel, 48).

Dr. Ingolfsland, come on:  Do you seriously think the average Christian reading this stuff has the first fucking clue about its actual mathematical basis?  If you have a Ph.d, you need to rise above the "prove-by-anecdote" fallacy and shape up. 

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

 The faith required to be an atheist is far less blind than the faith it takes to believe that 2,000 year old  reports of unknown provenance and authorship, which speak about a resurrected man, are "reliable".  At least atheists are dealing with things that can be empirically detected.  Their theories about how the visible world works might be wrong, but at least they are dealing with matters that are clearly part of reality (excluding the idiots who push "dark matter" and other such nonsense).  But Christians posit an invisible immaterial deity that lives "outside of time" and "beyond the natural", concepts that are incoherent.

Clearly the Christian view is a faith more blind than the atheist viewpoint I argue for.

And I don't worship deities that cause men to rape women, that's why I say the Christian god, if he exists, is nothing but a demon:

 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children. (Isa. 13:13-18 NAU)

 Lest you mistake your quick dismissal of my "interpretation" for the very presence of God, yes, there are conservative evangelical Christian scholars who admit that this text means exactly what it says:

17–18 As the macabre scene resulting from the cosmic quake passes, the finger points to historical movement. Yahweh calls attention to stirrings among the feared Medes for which he claims responsibility.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 198). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 If interpreting this part of Isaiah was so "clearly" wrong, how likely is it that OT Christian scholar J.D.W. Watts would have missed it?  Can you really blame the atheist bible critic who agrees with Christian scholars that God is taking responsibility for causing some men to rape women here?

What Isaiah is talking about are standard atrocities that were a known part of real ANE warfare.

Dennis Ingolfsland: how to use tragedy in the lives of other to more effectively sell Jesus

This is my reply to an article by Dennis Ingolfsland entitled

Massacre in Newtown, Connecticut
Saturday, December 15, 2012

Let’s imagine that God decided, through some form of supernatural coercion, to force human beings against their will to always obey his law.  In other words, imagine that human beings were supernaturally prevented from ever behaving in ways that were violent, immoral, hateful, dishonest, greedy, envious, manipulative, unloving or selfish. Imagine if we were all required to be generous with our money. Imagine if we were required to set aside one day a week to rest and worship God. Imagine if we were supernaturally prevented from ever giving our own comforts, entertainments, pleasures or pastimes a higher priority than God.

 That's not hard to imagine.  You Christians call it "heaven" or "incorruptible resurrection body".  That state of affairs is, according to your own beliefs, an actual reality whereby people authentically love and worship God while yet also lacking the ability to sin.

In such a world there would be no murder, rape, robbery, assault, immorality or dishonesty but in such a world there can be no doubt that most people would view God as a micro-managing tyrannical dictator and would hate him with every fiber of their being. They would only worship him out of compulsion, not love.

 Then you are saying that the people who have previously died and are now in heaven, only worship god out of compulsion, not love, because after getting to heaven, they lost their ability to sin.

So God has taken the alternate approach—probably one of the worst things he could have done to us. He lets us have our way, or in Paul’s words, “God gave them up.”

 Sure, that's in the bible.  But so are stories about God forcing people to sin, then punishing the puppets for their moving in the same sinful direction that God was pulling their strings, see Ezekiel 38:4 ff.  Maybe you can explain to your class why modern day Christians like you never go around using the "hook in your jaws" metaphor to give people a correct notion about the extent to which God claims responsibility for a human being's choices?  Yeah, "hook in your jaws" sort of sounds like the metaphor only a hyper-Calvinist would use, amen?

God gives us the freedom to gossip, lie, cheat, steal, slander, get drunk, take drugs, fornicate, commit adultery, rape, rob and murder.

And if an earthly father gave his teen kids the same degree of freedom, we'd consider him to be a very stupid irresponsible parent.

In other words, he gives us freedom and allows us to suffer the consequences for our sin.

 Right, like the earthly father who allows his 5 year old son to play with a real loaded pistol, then allows him to suffer the consequence of being deprived of his 4 year old brother for the rest of his life.  And then you wonder why non-Christians are bothered when you talk about god as if he were a "father" and was "loving".

Humans then shake their puny fists in God’s face demanding to know why he allows such evil in the world.

Not much different than the 5 year old daughter who is being raped in her dad's presence, and she shakes her puny fist at him and asks why he is allowing this evil.  Then her dad, the godly man that he is, reminds her that it is fallacious to automatically assume that because she cannot currently see the dad's alleged greater purposes, there are no such purposes.

But Christianity teaches that God then did the most amazing thing. He became human himself—a fact celebrated in the Christmas season—and entered the world of suffering that we largely created.

 A bit of theological nonsense that Christians borrowed from earlier pagan motifs about the gods becoming men.  See Acts 14:11 for one example.  And don't forget: this is not compelling to unbelievers who notice that many Christian groups deny that Jesus was God.  Gee, are we intellectually compelled to spend the next 5 years studying the differences between Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses before we can be rationally warranted to make a decision about whose theology is more biblical?

He allowed himself to be mocked, beaten and tortured—all so he could deliver us from the consequences of our own sin.

Which was rather stupid, sadistic and wasteful on his part since other bible verses make it clear that God can get rid of sin with a mere wave of his magic wand, no bloodshed required...like he did so conveniently in the case of King David's death-deserving crimes of adultery and murder:

 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die." (2 Sam. 12:11-14 NAU)

 There is nothing in the context to indicate the means by which God took away that sin, so we are fully justified to believe that this is the textual case precisely because it was by no means beyond divine fiat that the sins should be taken away (i.e., like a presidential pardon).

Well?  If God can get rid of David's death-deserving sins of adultery and murder by simply declaring that they are, in fact "taken away", God can get rid of the sins of everybody else in the world likewise by mere divine fiat that those sins are now "taken away".  Presto, problem solved.  So if God really did come to earth and allow himself to get beaten and killed in the effort to placate his own wrath against sin, we are forced to conclude that God sometimes forgets about the power he actually possesses to get rid of sin by mere decree.

At a time when atheists demand to know where God was during the tragedy in Connecticut we should note that if atheism is true there will never, ever be justice for the victims and their families.

So what you are saying is that our wish that such people obtain justice, is a rational justification to tell ourselves that surely there must be a great Justice out there in another dimension who will make everything better at the end of time? Count me out.

If atheism is true the parents will never, ever see their children again.

If Christianity is true, a mother-elephant will never see her baby elephant ever again after it gets torn apart by lions.  Did you have a point?

There is no hope. There is no real comfort. There is only unfathomable grief and despair.

I prefer reality to false hope.  If you seriously do find comfort in such hope, I encourage you to keeping believing.  But expect that hope to be dashed if you dare to insult atheists and tell us that our views are "foolish".

The Bible teaches that the gunman will not escape justice,

 Then it should, because it teaches that God was the cause of the gunman's murders (Deut. 32:39, Job 14:5).

and holds out hope that through Christ the parents could see their children again at a time when “our present sufferings are not worth comparing” with the glory God has for us; a time when “the former things will not be remembered” and God will wipe away all tears (Romans 8:18; Isaiah 65:17; 25:8; Revelation 7:17; 21:4).

Then your theology is heterodox at best and heretical at worst:  the bible nowhere expresses or implies that family members on this earth will recognize each other after they get to heaven, despite how wonderfully comforting such hope is.  You are moving beyond the word of the Lord and trying to give your followers more comfort than the bible actually promises.  And under the conservative hermeneutic which says you remain silent where the bible is silent, you either show from the bible that loved ones who make it to heaven will recognize each other there, or remain silent about the subject.

Our hope is that the tragedy in Connecticut will ultimately lead people to turn their hearts to God who is able to re-unite parents with their children and turn temporal tragedy into eternal triumph.

 That's the typical Christian, trying to turn the plight of others into an opportunity to more effectively market your religion.  And maybe that tragedy will cause some people to sign up at Crown College at a discounted tuition rate to listen to your speculations?

FUCK YOU.