FacePalm of the Day #122: Debunking Christianity: Why the Idea of a Spirit is Full of Hot Air

TGBaker posted the following on the Debunking Christianity blog. I've put my comments in red.

Long ago in a cave a caveman looked at his friend who then died. He was upset. His friend would not move. He noticed that air no longer came out of his friends mouth. He knew the air had left him.

I wonder how long ago would something like this have taken place? Were these homo sapiens or one of the hominids who some people think we evolved from? Also weren't we descended from African hominids who lived on the African savanna and not cave-dwelling Europeans who came later if you believe evolutionists? Wouldn't our ancestor's been asking about this stuff well before they began living in caves?  What's the chronology?

So he gathered up his friend and some food and a few of his friend’s possessions and buried them all. Perhaps it would all go where ever his air went.

Not all human cultures bury their loved ones with their possessions. Where would this have come from?




Sounds silly doesn't it. But when we look at the words for spirit we are confronted with things like "ruach" the Hebrew word that means "spirit," "wind," "air" and "breath." So in the Old Testament God "breaths" into man his "breath" and man becomes a living "soul."

Yes, the scenario is indeed silly and can't be substantiated.  What if they those who lived before us actually understood more about reality than we do today? Why assume that we are so much better?  Remember a lot of information has been lost and needs to be rediscovered.

From the Greeks we get what still functions as our philosophy. But we find the word "pneuma" in Greek which means guess what, "spirit", 'wind," "air" and "breath." The Greeks thought that there were four elements: "air," "earth," "fire" and "water."

And how does that men that there is no such thing as a human spirit? Here's a hint: It doesn't.

Air was often seen as supreme and the ultimate nature which was like god. It was invisible but could move things and be felt. It went in and out of man. When it left you were dead!

Given that we are all more that material, they were smart enough to understand that while many people today try to run from that.  We should know that we are more than material because there is more than just brain, body, and DNA that makes you who and what you are.

"Spirit" comes from the Latin "spiritus" "to breath." Are you starting to see a pattern? It is interesting that we still have millions of primitives all around us that believe in such things as spirits but have no idea where their beliefs really originate

Here is the truly facepalm worthy comment. Just because the word "spirit" has roots in Latin and Greek and Hebrew regarding air, breath, and wind does not mean that this is where the concept of "Spirit" came from. Just because they decided to use the imagery does not mean that there is no "Spirit"..

Debunking Christianity: Why the Idea of a Spirit is Full of Hot Air

My Common Sense is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: Why the Q Hypothesis Works

Tommy G. Baker has posted another article attempting to discredit the Bible. He fails. But let's see how he fails. I find that his methods better than John Loftus;, however so I guess that's worth a little something. My comments are in red. 

Mark 1: 21-39 presents Jesus going to Simon Peter's house and curing Peter's mother-in-law. She has a fever which Jesus "cures'. She then gets up and serves them. That evening people brought the demon possessed and sick to the house. The whole city gathers about the door.

Notice how Baker just summarizes the text instead of quoting it. It's not that he doesn't get it right but it is interesting.


Jesus heals many of the cases and told them to keep quite. And the following morning before daylight he went out to a private place and prayed. he is interrupted by Peter and the rest telling him that the crowds were looking for him. He gets the new followers to go the the next towns in Galilee preaching and exorcizing demons.

Until we get to here

³² That evening after sunset, the people brought to Jesus all who were sick. They also brought all who were controlled by demons. ³³ All the people in town gathered at the door. ³⁴ Jesus healed many of them. They had all kinds of sicknesses. He also drove out many demons. But he would not let the demons speak, because they knew who he was. - Mark 1:32-34

Notice how Baker seems to say that that Jesus only heals some of the people who are there as if there were some people who were sick that Jesus did not heal. This isn't what the text says. It says that Jesus healed some of the people who were there because obviously not every single person there was sick. Second the text does not tell us that he told all the people he healed to be quite but Jesus told the demons He cast out to be quiet.  I wonder why was Baker saying the Bible says things it does not say.

When we look at Matthew and Luke the story changes. Matthew 8:14 -27 has been rewritten by its author:

Let's see if he can prove that.

1) Matthew as throughout the Gospel intensifies the situation to make it ore outstanding. Here instead of Jesus curing many of those brought. Matthew now says he cures all of who was brought to him.

Guess not

¹⁶ When evening came, many people controlled by demons were brought to Jesus. He drove out the spirits with a word. He healed all who were sick. Matthew 8:16

This isn't a conflict with Mark at all. They are both saying that Jesus healed all those who are sick.

2) Matthew adds an Old Testament quote to claim that the event was a fulfilment of prophecy, " He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases (Isaiah 53:4)." The Jewish interpretation is that this applies to the whole of Israel. Here we see it taken to create the Suffering Servant as a prophecy of the messiah (Origen, Contra Celsus).

And how is adding the detail that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament a problem? I agree with Baker that Matthew was written to Jews. It's written in such a way that Jewish sensibilities are brought out.  Explaining that Jesus fulfilled the New Testament would be very important to Jewish leaders. It would not have been as important to Romans (Mark) or Greeks (Luke).

3) Here the events will change dramatically. Instead of Jesus going to bed and getting up early in the morning to pray he commands his new followers to get a boat to cross the lake. This is a fabrication by Matthew. It acts as a "seam" to stitch a passage from Q into his reworking of the text of Mark.

Why does it have to be a fabrication? Baker admits that he doesn't know who wrote Matthew. For all we know it could be the man whom tradition says it was who wrote it. And in that case there is no reason to think that Matthew just gives more information than Mark does in this instance.  There is no need to complicate matters introducing a third source that no one can prove ever existed.

Matthew 8:

9 Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
20 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
21 Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
22 But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.

This is followed by the next seam in which Jesus gets into the boat and Jesus calms the storm. With this addition we see that Jesus no longer sleeps or prays early the next day. This addition of the "Would-be Follower" changes the original story of Mark. This is at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus according to Matthew.

Again Baker assumes that Matthew changes a story and can't prove any such thing happened. He merely asserts it.

When we compare the section in Luke 4:38-41 we see Luke also intensifies the event:

1) all of the people are cured by laying on of hands. The demons coming out testify that Jesus "is the Son of God." He rebukes the demons to be silent rather than the people as in Mark.

No, in Mark the demons are rebuked not the people,.  What translation is Baker reading?

2) As in Mark Jesus come the next morning goes out to a private place to pray.

Still doesn't contradict Matthew. One Gospel has a detail the other two do not have. That's not a conflict. That is what one would expect if they were based on eyewitness testimony. 

3) But Luke 9:57-62 still has the Would-be Followers passage. He uses it from Q at the end of the ministry of Jesus. The event is made to occur while going through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem where he will die.

Wow! This time Baker asserts much without any proof whatsoever. If Luke copied from Mark and didn't have access to "Q" then how could he have taken material from Q if it's not part of Mark? I find it humorous. The "Q" hypothesis is not really one hypothesis but comes in multiple flavors. And there are versions where Matthew and Luke did not have access to "Q" and Mark and  where Matthew and Luke only had Mark. They all can't be true. And again a  hypothesis is only a guess not fact. And here I don't even think "hypothesis" is a good description. "Pipe Dream" seems more fitting.

As an atheistic Bible study we can show to Christians that their scripture is not inerrant since the events are changed by the editing of Mark by Matthew and Luke. We can show that a sayings source that had no contextual setting was given context by inserting its collection of Jesus sayings into Mark. Mark thus becomes a convenient context.

If Baker means atheistic Bible study is a good example of eisogesis and how one should not read anything, then  I agree that the approach is useful. 

This also demonstrates that there is nothing historical in these presentations. This approach throughout the Synoptic Gospels shows an early Mark that has an all too human Jesus who does not know who touches his robe, who gets angry with people and insults several who seek his help. He has a human temper.

Baker is pontificating. He proved no such thing. I find nothing but fantasy in his presentation and no fact. Who said Jesus was not fully human? The orthodox Christian viewpoint is that Jesus is fully human and fully God. Why wouldn't he get angry? God got angry in the Old Testament a lot. When the woman with the issue of Blood touched Him, Jesus did not know who it was for the same reason He didn't know the day or the hour of his second coming: He voluntarily limited Himself in His humanity, but that doesn't mean He ceased being God at any time. And no I would not classify Jesus' temper as human as like us. If He were He would have wiped out everyone who had a hand in his crucifixion and kangaroo trial 

Matthew removes all of this. Jesus becomes a heavenly emissary with perfect knowledge and super human powers. Luke shows him to be a divine agent similar to Matthew's restructuring. We can see the progress in a temporal manner from Q an early sayings source of a human Jewish teacher to Mark as a man adopted by God in a Gentile view. Jesus is seen as an Enochican heavenly messenger in Matthew. And finally he becomes a Gentile demi-god in Luke. John will make him a pre-existent property of God, Logos, His Wisdom and Reason.

No, Matthew gives other details that shows how  Jesus was/is the king Israel has  been waiting for. How can you see any progression from "Q" given that we don't know what was all in "Q"? Mark's goal in writing His Gospel was very different from Matthew, Luke, and John. The audience is different. Of course the details included would be different. This does not mean that there is conflict. If I tell you Sue went to the store and then I told someone else that Sue and Jane went to the store, is this a conflict? Did I lie? No, I did not. This is the nature of the differences between the Gospels.

Q becomes the only source of primary attention for a historical Jesus. It shows a human being who is not a sacrifice for salvation as in the later Gospels. It is his teachings that are the source of salvation for the original hearers who were Jewish Palestinans.

Correction "Q" could be a source of primary attention for a historical Jesus if we knew what was in "Q"  and we don't even know if such a document really existed outside of the minds of the men who dreamed it up. 

Written by Tommy G. Baker

So was Baker able to show why the Q hypothesis works and why we should accept it in understanding who Jesus is from a historical standpoint? Nope, not even close. At least Baker is trying to support his atheism by attacking the Bible instead of hiding behind a stupid charge of circular reasoning.- claiming that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. He seems convinced that the Bible discredits itself. Hopefully as he keeps studying the scriptures, God will open his mind and he will truly see them.

Debunking Christianity: Why the Q Hypothesis Works

FacePalm of the Day - #103 - Debunking Christianity: Personified Myth or Mythologized Person?

Tommy G Baker has written a post on Debunking Christianity in which he attempts to explain why Christians today believe Jesus is the divine Son of God when he claims that Jesus' first followers did not. I'd argue that Paul's teachings did not differ from the teachings of Jesusl or the Apostles.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (Galatians 1:18-20)

What writings of the New Testament are actually from Paul? I know of no serious scholars that deny that Paul wrote Galatians. In fact you will read in any search or book that is of any reputable scholar that Galatians is authentic. Paul claims in these verses to have met James, the brother of the Lord.

Okay, finally, a point of consensus and agreement.

The mythicist position is one in which there is a claim that no historical person exists behind the myth of the Christian Christ. A mythicist must therefore go against all of scholarship and state that Galatians is a forgery. Or she must make another statement that is even harder to demonstrate. Paul is lying!!!

Just like the no rational and informed person would argue that Paul did not write Galatians, they would not argue that Jesus was not a historical person. Let's see if Paul is lying.

Now certainly we can show how wrong Paul is about claims such as a resurrection or the idea that there is a god that requires a human sacrifice. But these are his real beliefs. They are not intentional deception. If he is deluded about such things could he be deluded about something like visiting actual flesh and blood people? Kidding aside these are different categories of knowledge. We are left with whether Paul is telling the truth or he is lying.

Baker states that we can show that Paul is wrong about the Resurrection and that his sacrifice was necessary. He doesn't elaborate his point but I'll let him skate because it's not the point of his article and Paul more than ably destroys this silly notion. Instead let us focus on whether Paul was telling the truth about meeting James and at least some of the original apostles.

If he is lying we are required to prove that Paul is taking a mythological pattern found in the Mystery Cults and attempting to create a historical Jewish figure. He would also have to be lying about persecuting previous followers of the Jesus movement. But if he was making up this account then many could have challenged him. Much of his work presupposes that the recipients know some of what he claims and what has transpired.

I think we can agree with this above paragraph. We don't see such challenges made against Paul and the recipients of the epistles he wrote would have indeed been knowledgeable of what he claimed. Paul's story is also validated in external Jewish sources.

Let us assume that this passage is an interpolation as a few scholars have hypothesised[sic].

And here comes the first facepalm. There is no need to make such assumption. If you do, then you claim Paul lied without proving that he did.

Then we are still confronted with Paul's claim in another passage to have spoken to James, the Brother of Jesus, Peter and John who were disciples and knew Jesus:

Galatians 2.... Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. ² I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. ³ Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. ⁴ This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. ⁵ We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. ⁶ As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favouritism—they added nothing to my message. ⁷ On the contrary, they recognised that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.^{[ 8} For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. ⁹ James, Cephas^[ and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Galatians 2:1-10

We can see that he speaks again of a historical encounter with people who supposedly knew Jesus or were in fact related to him. Finally we have Paul stating that he opposed Peter in Antioch, an event that was apparently known or at least verifiable to the recipients of Paul's letter:

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
¹⁴ When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Galatians 2:11-14

We are left with one more possibility that Paul did meet with James who claimed to be the brother of Jesus but James made it up and the fact that he had a brother. Peter and John went along with it and perhaps much of Jerusalem.

And here comes another facepalm! Why would that even be a possibility and why would Peter, John, and anyone in Jerusalem back up such a story about Jesus having siblings if it were not so? We know emphatically that Jesus had siblings and his brothers did not believe in Him and were in fact embarrassed by him.

³⁰ He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”
³¹ Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. ³² A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
³³ “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

³⁴ Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! ³⁵ Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” - Mark3:30-35

⁵⁴ Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. ⁵⁵ “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? ⁵⁶ Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? - Matthew 13:54-56

¹ After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want^[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. ² But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, ³ Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. ⁴ No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” ⁵ For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
⁶ Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. - John 7:1-6

These arguments of Paul are to a historical situation. The followers of Jesus were Jewish and had no teachings from Jesus that they were to stop following the Jewish Law. Why because Jesus was Jewish. He was a human brother of James. They thought that he was a great teacher ( as refelcted[sic] in Q) and a blameless man that would return soon at the end of the ages as Messiah and in the general resurrection.

First the existence of a "Q" source is conjecture at best. You have to do better than that. The Gospel according to Mark clears expresses that Jesus taught that he would be killed and resurrected. He applies the divine name to himself and does things that only God can do like claiming the authority to forgive sin. Ever read Mark 1? Doesn't look like it if you think Mark conflicts with Paul.

How do we know this? Because there are two major movements from the first century that cause many more by the second century. There is the movement in Jerusalem as pointed to by Paul and headed by the original followers of Jesus. And there is Paul who opposes their understanding of the very person they followed.

Hmmm...references? None? If Baker is still speaking of Galatians and referring to the Judaizers, then he must have forgotten about all the Gentiles who became Christians through the ministries of Philip and Peter before Paul's own conversion! The Apostles were not in their camp but they agreed with Paul!

The beliefs that we find Paul complaining about that James, John and Peter hold are the same claims that the Ebionites held until the early second century. This view was followed by Theodotus and much of the Roman Church authority until suppressed by the mythically oriented movements that viewed Jesus as God. We find this movement in Paul and the Gospel of John.

There is no proof of James, Peter, or John holding the same claims as the Ebionites. They however did agree with Paul. Here Baker seems to be making the same claims Muslims make against Paul. Do you really think Peter and James, who allowed themselves to be martyred would just stand by and let Paul misrepresent them? IF you think that, I have some swamp land on Tatooine I could sell you with George Lucas' signature on the deed!

In Paul Jesus is not yet God he is the son of God. In the Gospel of John Jesus is viewed as a god or divine in the sense of pre-existence. These late first century beliefs became even more diverse by the second century when docetism ( Christ is God but not human ) became popular and a competition in Rome against the views as expressed by Theodotus. Gnosticism also was on the rise where Jesus only appeared to be a human but was a Spirit. Another form of Gnosticsm saw Jesus as a human in which the God or Spirit of Christ came down into until the crucifixion. At that time Jesus was abandoned. Finally the Trinitarians showed up to try and account for both a human and God in one person. This occurred late second or early third century.

Let's see what Paul wrote about who Jesus is in Galatians

¹ It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. - Galatians 5:1

There is no way that Paul is suggesting that Jesus is ontologically less than God because as a Jew he wold not give glory of emancipation from slavery to anyone less that the Almighty God who brought his people out of Egypt. If one thinks that "son of God" mean "not God" they need to do more research. Might I suggest you read the work of Dr Darryl Bock for help. Clearly neither Docetism nor Gnosticism were in anyway part of what Paul and the other Apostles taught .

As we can see the easiest and most logical explanation for the information that we have is the typical and traditional critical historical view. There was a historical person that shows up in the source called Q in sayings. He is made Gentile by Mark.

Where? Major FacePalm.

Some of the competing movements have a resolution. The Gospel of Matthew is written for the Jewish Churches while the Gospel of Luke and Acts are written for the Gentile Churches ( for example James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus ).

Um Matthew, Luke, and Acts do not conflict.

Both allow for the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. But Matthew requires all of the Law to be followed. Jesus states that he has not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. Not one iota of it will ever change. For Luke and Paul, Jesus complete s and replaces the law.

Matthew does not reject Gentiles. In Matthew Jesus interacts with and heals gentiles remember?

⁵ When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ⁶ “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
⁷ Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
⁸ The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. ⁹ For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
¹⁰ When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. ¹¹ I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. ¹² But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” ¹³ Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.- Matthew 8:5-12

For all the New Testament, Jesus is an "and" not a "but" To think that Paul is making up something new, means a complete and sad misunderstanding of what he wrote. He quotes from the Old Testament constantly and uses them to show Jesus is Messiah, Lord, and salvation is but through Jesus.


The Jerusalem Church produced nothing in writing because they were expecting an immediate return of Jesus. And supposedly James, John and Peter were illiterate peasants. It is after the fall of Jerusalem that any thing other than the Saying of Jesus as in Q are written about him. Mark reflects a time right after the fall of the Temple. Matthew and Luke are decades later reflecting apologetics as to why Jesus had not returned though the Temple had fallen.

That sure is a lot of hand-waving. Too bad there isn't a shred of proof offered to show that these conclusions are valid.

As the return of Jesus was delayed and delayed he became portrayed as more and more divine with salvation occurring in believing in "Him" rather than his message. His resurrection was into a Trinitarian dogma instead of a historical event. A failed Jewish teacher who had some good ideas became a mythological God whose following has caused 2000 years of superstition and bloodshed in the name of the Prince of Peace and Christian love.

Last I checked, Jesus far from failed. His Resurrection and promised forgiveness of sin through Him was preached from the beginning. And I don't mean just Mark, try Genesis. In addition the problems of 2000 years superstition and blood shed is at the feet of people not obeying what is in the Word of God not because of it.

Written by Tommy G. Baker

If Baker is wrong about Jesus not having brothers and sisters, why should anyone take any of his conclusions seriously? They should be dismissed due to their failure but not lack of imagination.



Debunking Christianity: Personified Myth or Mythologized Person?

Related articles

• Reading Galatians (womenembracingfaith.wordpress.com)
• Have The "Christian" Zionists Accused You Of Preaching A "Replacement Theology" Concerning Israel? (soulrefuge.org)

FacePalm of the Day #94 - Debunking Christianity: For the Love of God: Or Hell as a Tool for Secular Morality

It's been a while since TGBaker has posted on Debunking Christianity. Today, I was reminded of why that is a good thing.  He again makes some serious errors that make me think that he does not understand what the Bible says.

I developed this ditty from a Facebook spat with a friend of mine who is a Christian Philosopher, Dr. James F. Sennett. I had never really thought about this area before. But I think it produces another problem with the omni-attributes of a proposed god.



I sure hope the TGBaker keeps corresponding with Dr. Sennett because God may use the discussions to bring TGBaker into right relationship with God. It would be an answered prayer.

Does God love something because it is good? Or is it good because God loves it? If God does or loves something because it is good, then the good looks to something that is more sovereign than God to which he must conform to be good. If God were to oppose these standards called good then God would not be god since he lacks omni-benevolence. So God's omniscience is limited by the good. If on the other hand what is good is simply what God loves and commands ( the Divine Command Theory), then the good is simply whatever is the whim of God (such as killing all the babies in the Canaanite genocide). If there are no standards apart from God other than what he wants or commands then apart from him there is no good.

The Bible clearly says that God love us. It says that we are evil. Therefore the line of reasoning is flawed from the beginning.  There is no standard that is apart from God and there is no good apart from Him. If we do anything "good" it is because of God's grace and God's restraining of our evil. 

The former idea that there is a good apart from god means that humanity should follow that standard and obey God only if he is compliant to that standard. The latter view which state that the good is simply God's whim is obeyed only because of the threat of punishment or damnation. This dilemma is called the Euthyphro dilemma and has been left to us by Socrates.

Who said that there is good apart from God. TGBaker presupposes this and offers no proof for it being true. On the other hand, morality is not based on God's whim. God's nature does not change. Basing our morality on God is truly objective because God is perfect and unchanging. God's standard is not a moving target.

Sam Harris has offered us a beginning means whereby to ground well-being in empirical science. I would like to call his tool Hell. Harris asks us to imagine a world with as much suffering, as intense suffering as possible, with as many people suffering and all of that for as long as can be imagined. Let's call this "Hell." It sounds like the Christian tradition and might be a good thing to rescue from them. Harris present the empirically based obvious. we would all agree that any movement from that designated measurement is a movement toward well-being, less suffering and more contentment. Obviously there are comparisons and considerations along the way to the antithesis of our Hell but our path will by that of human improvement. Our goal will be that of a paradise or heaven where well-being like physical health will be maximized.

Here is the problem with Harris' ideas: Hell is not just a plane of existence of maximum and intense suffering!  Hell is torment because of total separation from God. We were created to be in relationship with God. That is what the goal of religion is. That is what we search our lives for. People try to fill that void in their lives, often unconsciously. It doesn't matter how much pain is avoided in life because without that fulfillment in God, one can never be whole.

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 ²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

 ²⁶ In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. ²⁷ And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

 ²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.- Romans 8:18-30

With the removal of god from the mix the Euthypho dilemma becomes manageable. The idea of a transcendent good which God (much less any other being) is removed. An empirically based "landscape" of evidence and information for reasoning humanity to a better course is opened up as a field of promise. The fear of compliance of a tyrant that threatens eternal suffering is dethroned and replaced with a view toward paradise.

Removing God from the mix, make the dilemma unanswerable. Humanity is unable to reason adequately about what is right and wrong. And who can perfectly keep the standard that they know is right let alone what they don't understand? Jesus was clear. Entertaining the thought of sins like lust, coveting, and hatred are just as bad as adultery, stealing, and murder. This is because entertaining the thought may lead to actually performing the act. Be honest. Our hearts are filled with lusts and greed - sometimes beyond our control. Even when we seek to do good, as we understand it, evil is always present. How do you expect to get free?  Can you free yourself? Nope. God isn't a tyrant that threatens eternal suffering. God is a liberator from sin and death to which you are enslaved. Hell is not a possible destination - it is a foregone conclusion without Jesus.

Debunking Christianity: For the Love of God: Or Hell as a Tool for Secular Morality

Related articles

• Biblical Christianity vs. Secular Humanism (whateverstateiam.com)
• David Marshall and My Refutation of His Work (arizonaatheist.blogspot.com)
• Beware of Christian Hell (atheistrev.com)
• Hell Lecture with Mike Licona and Jeremy Evans (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
• MORALS: GOD vs man (jstfishinman.wordpress.com)

Debunking Christianity: When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses

Give an unbeliever or a heretic enough time, they immediately and never disappoint in refuting themselves. On Debunking Christianity today, TGBaker has really put his foot in his mouth in grand fashion. Again my comments are in red.

As an atheist I often quote from the Jehovah's Witness New Testament. Why? Because their translators are not effected by certain doctrines like Trinity. They rely on the most likely version of the Greek text under consideration. Most believers look at John 1:1-4 to argue for Jesus as God.

Jehovah's Witnesses rely on a translation that the consensus of scholars is that it's poorly translated. It's called the New World Translation. And it is untrue that it is influenced the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite the the opposite. The translators who were not experts in Kione Greek or Ancient Hebrew mistranslated the Bible is several instances differently than other great English translations like the Kings James Version so that they could dispense with things like the Trinity. The New World translation is inferior and it's like bringing a dull pocket knife to a gun fight in a scholarly debate.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Here is where TGBaker shows some dishonesty. He extols the value of the New World Translation but he doesn't point out that it renders John 1:1 differently and side-steps the fact that most translations do not render it into English that way.

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. - John 1:1 (New World Translation)

It reads really differently to avoid referring to Jesus as God. This is a horrible translation and people who really know Kione Greek agrees. If you want to read documentation on a trial during the early 20th century about the reliability of the New World Translation, you can read the Jehovah's Witness chapter in Dr Walter Martin's book Kingdom of the Cults.

But the much neglected verses of John 1:17-18 not only clarifiy these verses but point to how Jesus as a human teacher became a messiah and then became a god.

17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. 18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

The Law was given through Moses, Grace and Truth came about through Jesus Christ, No one has seen God at any time, but the only begotten god which is in the bosom of god has made him known (exegeted him).

We find here in these verses are an elevation of Jesus to a divine person that replaces the law. This is a teaching no different than of Paul. We see a shift from Paul's presentation of Jesus as Wisdom to a Hellenistic function of reason as an agent of creation (Logos). This is already known in Philo of Alexandria's work. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55625043/33/The-Logos-as-Agent-of-Creation

Where does this passage tell us that Jesus replaces the Law? It doesn't. Where does this passage tells us that any of Jesus' first followers considered him just a human teacher. From Matthew to Revelations, Jesus is presented as Messiah and Lord. I know about Philo of Alexander but his description of the Logos does not even compare to a personal being. Paul does not refer to Jesus as a living embodiment of Wisdom.

We also see this term identified as “image” by Philo of Alexandria. Christ as the “image of God” or “form of God” is a way pre-existence enters into the earlier Pauline writings. Verse 17 shows the comparison of the pre-existent Law with the pre-existent Messiah:

Pesachim 54a on the name of the Messiah "Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah... The name of the Messiah, as it is written, His [sc. the Messiah's] name shall endure forever, and has (Yanun) exited before the sun."

The Jewish idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah's name combined with “image” that we see in Philo is a further opening for Jesus, a mortal soul, to be uplifted by metaphor of worship hymns to literal belief. The Name of the Messiah becomes the Image of God in the hymnal passages of Paul. Again we find Philo who equates the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 with Logos, Image and Spirit:

Proverbs 8:22-30 "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him..."

I agree that metaphorically "Wisdom" in Proverb 8 can be mapped to Logos but TGBaker take the analogy much farther than what is warranted. By showing the the idea that the pre-existence of the Messiah was already a part of Jewish thought, shows that the Deity and Messiahship of Christ is not out of pocket in the slightest.

In this we can see a first begotten prior to creation. So the potential already resides in Judaism. The intensification of this belief and its rise to a literal per-existent entity that becomes flesh are readily identifiable elements in external literature. The only flaw of the Arians were they were more conservative theologically than the Trinitarians. They were more routed in the meaning of scripture than theological/philosophical speculation. Their motto, There was a time when He was not” point directly to the translation in the Jehovah's Witness and to there doctrine. Their scholars simply continue the second century line of thought:

“Similarly, though Wisdom has had her own independent history within Israelite culture, she has already been identified with the Angel of the LORD long before early Christianity. This is clear from Sirach 24:4 where Wisdom takes up the position of the Angel of the LORD in the cloud of Exodus 14:19 and Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2, 18:15-16 where Wisdom, Logos and Angel of the Lord are equated. Wisdom and Logos, then, both point to the importance of angelic categories as the common denominator in Jewish mediatorial speculation.” http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/09/high-angel-christology-is-jesus-christ.html

I agree that Jehovah's Witness are just carrying on the 2nd Century heresies of the Arians and Gnostics. That is the problem. John 1 speaks against the idea that the Logos ever came into existence. The scriptures do not allow us the luxury of thinking that there was ever a time when the Logos was not and if Jesus is the Logos there was never a time when He was not! The other thing most Protestants, Jews, and Jehovah's Witness agree on is that Sirach is not scripture. Failure all around in this argument.

Please do not misunderstand my usage of Watchtower research. I do not believe in their presentation of a god any more than normative Trinitarian Christianities. But they are not blinded by the presuppositions that trinitarian doctrine entails. The validity of their observations point to the source of their differences from normative Christianities. They like the Restoration Movement of The Campbell's and Barton W. Stone sought to have Christianity based only with what was in the Bible. Stone in fact debated Alexander Campbell for years contending that Trinity was non-biblical and espoused an Arianism long before the Jehovah's Witnesses existed. ( The Millennial Harbinger and The Baptist volumes). What this biblical research of “non-orthodox” Christian movements do is allow us to circumvent doctrines that have blinded many Biblical scholars unconsciously and see what is actually there in its native environment and original historical context.

TGBaker is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are so blinded by their desire to reject the normative Christianity that they have gone as far as twisting scripture to support their ideas. They have not made valid observation about the Bible or scripture. They are blinded by other presuppositions. Their doctrines can't be found in the Bible. What the research of "non-orthodox" Christian movements does is further deceive and distort the truth.

² Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. ³ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴ They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. - 2 Timothy 4:2-4

Debunking Christianity: When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses

Debunking Christianity: A Quick View to the Evolution of the Trinity

I saw multiple FacePalm-worthy post on Debunking Christianity today. I decided that this one was bad but not the worst so it's not gonna get a FacePalm. TGBaker keeps churning out material that makes me doubt if he ever even picked up a Bible. So here we go again.

The idea of trinity was not found in the original manuscripts of the New Testament. The pronouns that refer to the holy spirit were neuter meaning "it" not "He." By the fourth century copies of the Greek started showing some of the pronouns changes from 'it" to the masculine, He. (such as Ephesians 1:14). Even in the Gospel of John the Paraclete (Advocate) is referred to by neuter pronouns and is itself a neuter noun.

The word "Trinity" is not in the New Testament, but it's wrong to say the "idea" is not in it. The Father is called God. Jesus is called God (and it's more than just in the Pauline letters and John) . The Holy Spirit is called God. TGBaker insinuates that no neuter personal pronouns, referring to the Holy Spirit, exist in any manuscripts before the 4th Century, yet he provides no reference.  Besides the point is moot because Christian doctrine does not include that the Holy Spirit has gender - only personhood.

The idea of holy spirit in the New Testament is demonstrated by Paul's statement in I Corinthians 2: 10

these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

The understanding of the Spirit of God is that God has a spirit like any human has a spirit. This is why we see the term is neuter throughout the New Testament.

No, not at all. The relationship between the Holy Spirit and the rest of the God-Head is more complimented than that. Recall what Jesus told the woman at the well

²¹ “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³ Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” - John 4:21-24

God doesn't just have a Spirit. God is Spirit. TGBaker shows a complete misunderstanding of what the Trinity is. God is one being! Monotheism. We experience and interact with God in a personal way. Three Persons in the one being. I completely agree with what Paul wrote, but it doesn't go against Acts 5:    I' am surprised that he left it out of this discussion.

³ Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ⁴ Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”  Acts 5:3-4

So the  Apostle Peter said that Annanias lied to the Holy Spirit and equated the Holy Spirit to God. On rtop of that, can you lie to an "it"? No, you can only lie to person(s).

This changed when Jesus began to be viewed as divine:

John 1:18, Θεν οὐδες ἑώρακεν πώποτε ὁ μονογεν θεός, ὁ ὤν εἱς τὸν κὀλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten god which is in the bosom of the Father has declared Him.

With Jesus as Logos and therefore the only begotten god monotheism was compromised. For two centuries the churches wrestled with the problem. Arianism which stated about Jesus, "There was a time when he was not" and several Trinitarian theories of co-eternal existence were competing . A plethora of Trinitarian formulas were running a muck. One won politically in part because Constantine bullied the counsel to come to a conclusion so that there would be one type of Christianity. One type won. Everybody else ran or was killed as heretics over the next several years.

People like TGBaker love to try to point out that the deity of Jesus is only supported by the Gospel of John, and many such individual want to date John as late as possible so they can conclude the belief evolved. Their problem is that  You don't need John to conclude that the first Christians did believe Jesus was God incarnate.

One of my favorites is the accounts (it is even in John) of  Jesus walking on water (see Matthew 14:22-34; Mark 6:45-56;  John 6:16-24). So why did Jesus walk on the water? To get to the other side, of course!!!  (Joking) The Old Testament says that God walks on water so by doing it, Jesus is identifying himself.

He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. - Job 9:8

Not to mention most of the epistles wicho all these skeptics also want to date before John;'s Gospel.

¹⁵ The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶ For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. ¹⁷ He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸ And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹ For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰ and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.- Colossians 1 :15-20

⁵ In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
 ⁶ Who, being in very nature God,
   did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
   by taking the very nature of a servant,
   being made in human likeness.
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
   he humbled himself
   by becoming obedient to death—
      even death on a cross!
 ⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
   and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
   in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
   to the glory of God the Father.- Philippians 2::5-11

And there are others passages outside of the Gospel of John!

Debunking Christianity: A Quick View to the Evolution of the Trinity

Related articles

• The God discussion (New Testament) - Why do I believe (Part 4) (melsmind.wordpress.com)
• BP. DESMOND TUTU's BOOK - "God is not a Christian" (kiwianglo.wordpress.com)
• May the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with You (sjbrown58.wordpress.com)
• Why I Love The Holy Spirit Of The Living GOD (thegreatreport.com)
• Bible Study Notes - The Trinity (xercised.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of the Day #87 - Debunking Christianity: I Do Believe, I Do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

Yet another post has gone up Debunking Christianity from TGBaker and yet another FacePalm. Instead of more eisogesis and scripture twisting, this time he opts for bare assertion without any shred of substantiation. Let's look at his post carefully:

It's sad and dangerous that people continue to fall for myths of Christianity. What is worse is the intentional affirmation and legitimating of these myths as absolute truths that are an imposition upon the activities of humankind. In seminary when I was a theological neophyte there was a worse myth. The neo-orthodoxy of World War I evolved into a theology that would make truth claims that the bible IS a collection of myth and fable as a positive thing.

Presupposition: Where is TGBaker's proof that Christianity is a myth? This is important. If he's right about the Bible being full of myths, then he has a leg to stand on, yet he offers nothing but an assertion.

BUT these myths and narratives are the way that god truly reveals himself in time. They are the revelation of truth in narrative. The virgin birth was not historical but it was more truthful than fact in that it revealed Jesus as both god and man. The resurrection was not historical because the transcendent intersected at that point in history whereby god manifested in the story. In other words the body stayed dead but the spirit of Jesus spread through the world in the mythic story. Die Sache Jesu geht Weider... The cause of Jesus lives on. (Willi Marxen ) Jesus rose into his on kerygma (gospel or preaching) Rudolf Bultmann, the resurrection occurred as revelation at communion after Jesus's death as disciples began to understand the meaning of the bread and wine Rudolf Schnackenburg (Catholic).

The above paragraphs illustrates where modern "Christianity" often falls off the wagon and the wheels of their wagon fall off. Where is TGBaker's proof that there was no virgin birth or resurrection? How does he know that these were not historical events? He says nothing but asserts it. I understand that TGBaker is merely descsribing "neo-orthodoxy" but I do not recognize my understanding of history or scripture in this at all. People who think this way cannot be truly born-again Christians according to what the Bible says a Christian believes.

These examples show why it is important to end the dysfunctional systems of these types of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. There is nothing sophisticated about such theologies. They actually reflect a desperation to cling to the security of a past life of delusional answers concerning questions about living rather than to face the responsibility of finding the real answers in living itself. The problem we face, however, is as my examples demonstrates, the intent to believe regardless of the facts.

I do agree that such theology is dysfunctional because it's not based on what the Bible teaches...that makes it worthy of disregard not sophisticated. It's at the end of this that TGBaker misses the fundamental point that the Bible does offer real answers for living and it is based on evidence and facts. I say this without offering proof since TGBaker did not offer any. I can make assertions too. If anyone would like to discuss the reasons why we can trust the Bible is true, I'd more than welcome it.


Debunking Christianity: I Do Believe, I Do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

FacePalm of the Day #86 - Debunking Christianity: Jesus Was Baptized for His Sins

I've noticed quite a few posts on Debunking Christianity from TGBaker. I guess John Loftus needs help eisogeting scripture. It really pains me to see scripture abused in this way, based on some unfounded presuppositions. I've annotated one of these posts with my comments in red font.

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

"Observation" and "interpretation" are not synonymous. The thought that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions is still only a theory, but let's leave that aside for the time being. Only a point that is in the text can be observed and any interpretation can be shoehorned into any text. First the observation that "eis" is used in the narrative in Mark describing Jesus' baptism. Let's look at Mark. No text reference is given but it seems that he is referring to the following:

⁹ At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. - Mark 1:9 (NIV)

However the author seems to want to translate this verse to say that Jesus was baptized to get rid of his sin. But I can't find a single English translation that agree with this author. What about Matthew?

¹³ Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. - Matthew 3:13 (NIV)

Hmmm...reads the same in English. Let's see if he's right about the Greek texts?

Τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. - Matthew 3:13

 

Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου. Mark 1:9

Can you really get out of these passages what TGBaker says you can. I don't think so.

The statement of what the baptism is for in Matthew is dropped. We see the term "into the remission of sins' added instead by Matthew to the pericope of the Last Supper. 26:28. There communion becomes for the remission of sin. Matthew creates a conversation where John the Baptist tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized and Jesus tells him to go on with it to fulfill all righteousness.

I would like to know which manuscripts TGBaker is getting this from. The Phrase "into the remission of sins" is not in Mark 1:9.. And none of the canonical Gospels show Jesus getting baptized more than once. In addition I see fundamental mistake here in that neither Communion nor Baptism save you or takes away your sins. These are only symbolic of the work God does in the hearts and minds of His people. There is not a single passage in the Bible that make salvation contingent on Communion or Baptism. Also I see a lot of "poisoning the well" here. Why would TGBaker insinuate that Matthew manufactures the conversation between Jesus and John the Baptist? Why couldn't Matthew just have a detail that Mark does not? TGBaker has presumptions that the texts cannot be reliable and he spins his interpretation in what ever way he has to validate those assumptions. 

This answers the problem of why a sinless person would need baptism as in Mark and also makes John subservient to Jesus. This makes obvious the church is dealing with the fact that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and does not begin his ministry until John is arrested. The author of the Gospel of John will have Jesus baptizing and ministering at the same time as the Baptist and does not have Jesus baptized by John.

Another presumptions offered with no proof of any kind. There is the theory going around that Jesus was one of  John the Baptist's followers, but no proof is ever seeming given beyond raising the speculation. John and Mark are not in conflict because John does not say that Jesus was not baptized by John the Baptist.all. Mark said that Jesus went into Galilee after John was arrested not that he did no ministry before John the Baptist was arrested. Sure wish people would not read things into the Bible that is not there.

In Mark Jesus comes up out of the water and the Holy Spirit comes into ( again eis) him. Matthew changes this to the spirit descends upon ( epi) him. The idea of the spirit after baptism coming into a person is consistent with the idea in Acts 2:38: Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Again the message was not that Baptism was the prerequisite for forgiveness of sin. Baptism is a sign of repentance. I sure would like to know what translation this guy is using because I can't find an English translation that agrees with him.

In Mark Jesus alone hears god saying that he is well pleased. In Matthew god addresses his pleasure to the crowds. Luke maintains Mark's terminology about baptism, changes the adoptionistic reception of the Spirit into Jesus to a confirmation like Matthew to the spirit as dove comes down upon (epi) him. The change of the preposition by Matthew and Luke are intentional because of the theological implications and the addition of the infancy narratives wherein Jesus has the spirit from birth! Luke quotes mark and maintains gods announcement of pleasure to Jesus.

Um, Luke did not say that Jesus has the spirit from Birth. It says that John the Baptist did. Just because Mark does not have the detail that other people heard the voice and understood the sign at Jesus' baptism does not mean the Luke made it up. Notice that Mark does not say that only Jesus saw the dove and heard the voice. The voice was for the crowd's benefit not Jesus' benefit.

When one looks at the quoted OT verses in Mark 1:2f they are combined and perhaps reflect a pre-exiting proof text designed from Isaiah and Malachi not just Isaiah as stated. The pronouns are changed so that the verses can apply to the idea of the Baptist as precursor. Instead of "Behold I send my messenger before your face the original in Malachi 3:1 reads "I will send my messenger before me ( i.e.; God)." The change is from god talking to his prophet about his own coming to god talking to Christ about sending the Baptist before him. The messenger in Malachi was originally the Messiah and not the Baptist. The change is from god to messiah or Jesus in doing so and an example of a forged prophecy. Thus the preparing of the way of the Lord (Yahweh) shifts to a Messianic interpretation and the make straight his paths is substituted for the paths of our God.

I think that TGBaker oversteps yet again. If you look at many Old Testament quotations in the New Testament you will find that they differ when you look up the corresponding passages. Why?  The answer is because the writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint - the Greek Translations at the time of the 1st Century AD. Few Jews at the time read Hebrew but Greek was the common language. Most of our new translations of the Old Testament are based on the Hebrew texts - therefore they are going to read a little different,. I disagree that means that  the New  Testament  is based on false prophecies because I think you have to agree that the Jews who made the Septuagint knew how to translate Hebrew into Greek better than most people alive today. If anything it improves the reliability of our texts. Having the Septuagint gives us even more data to understand the New Testament manuscripts and how idioms and words were used in the First Cenutry! Praise God for such a gift!


Debunking Christianity: Jesus Was Baptized for His Sins