Easter video posted by sister-in-law

[♦ Fuego ♦]

My sister-in-law thought this video (on Facebook, have to be logged in to see it probably) was great. It is pablum for making believers feel good about themselves.

 

Link to video

 

Here is my detailed reaction to the video:

 

1. The video says that numerous scholars accept his historicity as true. That is an appeal to authority rather than a fact. To date there is still not a single non-Christian historical source that verifies any of the stories of the gospels (miraculous birth of Jesus, wise men from the East, Herod's slaughter of the innocents, the many public miracles of Jesus, the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the many people who rose from the dead at the time Jesus died, and the resurrection.) There are many other scholars that don't believe that Jesus was historical but was a mixture of other pre-existing gods with a semi-Jewish coating.

 

 

2. The only basis for any understanding of what his disciples believed is in the 4 gospels. Historically, the gospels were anonymous books to which names were later applied (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Most critics I've read seem to think "Mark" came first and did not include a resurrection until years later after the other books were circulated.

 

The stories are said to be eyewitness accounts, but include conversations between people they did not witness (angels talking to shepherds, Jewish leaders and Pilate, Herod and the wise men) or the prayer of Jesus in the garden (when they were all asleep) indicating clearly that these are not eyewitness accounts but simply stories written to convert.

 

Typically, we question strongly the writings of any cult because they tend to embellish their leaders. For example, most Christians reject the stories of Joseph Smith and the golden plates as non-historical evangelizing even though millions of Mormons believe it and publish supporting writings. Most cult writings are intended to create converts. Recall the verse "These things were written so that you might believe..." (John 20:31)?

 

 

3. There is no evidence from secular sources that Paul existed either. Recent critics seem to think that his epistles were created long after the cult had become established. The primary purpose was to solidify teachings that countered the Aryan teaching of a non-physical resurrection.

 

4. James the brother of Jesus is just another character in the stories.  

 

5. The tomb story is a story from the same cult, completely not substantiated or even mentioned by any non-Christians of the time.

 

None of the "facts" from this video are facts. No Roman, Jewish, or other non-Christian writings back up the existence of any of the gospel characters (including Jesus) or any of their actions. Nor do any of the writings back up the claimed actions of known historical figures (Pilate, Herod, etc).

 

The "conspiracy theory" of the resurrection also relies on the anonymous writings of the cult to establish the veracity of the other writings.

 

"But the disciples went to their deaths defending their claims"
We really don't know how they died other than legends. But regardless, cults lie about their leaders all the time. I closely followed the preaching of a missionary and promoted him for 9 years on the Internet. He seemed legit, as did the many outstanding miracles he claimed. His closest men backed up his claims of miracles. Eventually, I caught the guy making up long detailed stories about events that never happened. I had videotapes of the churches where he claimed these events happened, and they clearly didn't. It was quite a slap in the face to me emotionally, but stuck with me. But the guys that work for him became even more insistent that all the miracles are real and started insulting me for asking questions. They are "in" with the guy they adore, that's all that matters to them emotionally because they are convinced he's the "man of God" even though they know at some level that it isn't real. These guys would willingly die for him.

 

"Science hasn't disproven miracles". This was a particular poorly done part of the video. Various brances of science help us describe reality through demonstrable and repeatable evidence. Claims of miracles (the overriding of natural laws) are simply claims without evidence. Most religions claim miracles of some kind, but none demonstrate them. Science requires evidence to prove something is real, so claims that something that conflicts with those observations will need quite a lot of proof, not just a claim. This is how science stands against the likelyhood of miracles, and awaits repeatable proof. Additionally, a single occurance of something unusual should be considered unexplained rather than assuming it verifies all the non-historical stories and beliefs in a religion.

 

"Why have I never heard this stuff before?" Seriously? This was written by believers pretending to give arguments from non-believers. The real arguments are those that I gave above.

Here are the short versions:

 

1. No historical corroboration whatsoever of the characters (other than secular leaders like Pilate and Herod) in the gospels, nor of the many allegedly public miracles.

 

2,3,4,5. Cults (like the one I promoted) always embellish stories about their leaders, and so their writings are not considered trustworthy. Could there have been a rabbi who challenged entrenched leaders about hypocrisy and called them back to spirituality? Sure. But in the case of Jesus, nobody mentions him outside of his anonymous cult authors. All of the "Evidence that demands a verdict" points to later writings of people dealing with Christians, not about Jesus or the disciples, so none of those writings offer any verification of the claimed existence or actions described in the gospels.

 

There are rather a lot of ex-Christians like myself who have lived through conversion, and faithful dedication to Jesus for decades. Some were pastors or missionaries, or lay-people that had questions that needed real answers and got nothing but silence from God and exhortations from believers. Others came out by comparing the Bible with actual history, or reading the whole Bible and finding that the God of the Bible wasn't at all love, but a narcissistic psychotic with a taste for bloodshed. He's more like an abusive husband beating his wife and blaming her for it, and expecting her to agree and submit until she finally "dies to self".

 

This time of year, believers are out in force trying to convert others, and typically don't want to hear any of the above. "Why don't you just shut up and keep your beliefs to yourself?" That statement cuts both ways.

 

 

I haven't responded on FB. Technically, I'm still cloaked. This would de-cloak me rather substantially, and still not have any effect on her family (the kids would never be allowed to see it). But that day is coming sooner or later.