The complexity of the simplest cell eludes our understanding – how could it be that any cell, even one simpler than the simplest that we know, emerged from the tangle of accidental reactions occurring in the molecular sludge that covered the prebiotic earth? We (or, at least, I) do not understand. It is not impossible, but it seems very, very improbable.

I must congratulate him for admitting that the self assembly of a cell is not impossible but I do not fully understand how he can claim it is improbable considering one area of his research is the self assembly of molecular structures and another is the origin of life. Not only are two areas of his research self assembly and the origin of life but it has been an area of immense research (self assembly of cells) since the 1960s and it is inconceivable that it was not known to George Whitesides.

In the rest of this article I will attempt to explain, keeping the chemistry to a minimum, how and why a cell can self assemble and what are the requirements that will allow that to happen. Before I begin I will say that already in this area of research not only have vesicles been shown to self assemble but they have also been shown to capture larger molecules inside. They have also been shown to grow when given access to the same lipid as in the bilayer of the vesicle. Lastly, they have been shown to split (reproduce) when subjected to ordinary shear forces as found in tidal pools. Additionally as if it really needed to be said the daughter vesicles after the split have grown after being exposed to the lipids that compose their bilayer. After writing this out, I changed my mind, it is not inconceivable that George Whitesides was unaware of this, it is however quite understandable that he ignored it so he can keep his extremely high Hirsch index (he holds the highest number among living chemists). Then again, the funding for this book came through the Tempelton foundation so it isn’t too surprising that valid science is ignored if it contradicts their goals.

The great theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson in his famous garbage bag model said

The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the cells would become more concentrated and the chemistry would gradually become more efficient. So these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It’s a simple statistical inheritance. When a cell became so big that it got cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance, it would then produce two cells which would be its daughters, which would inherit, more or less, but only statistically, the chemical machinery inside.

One thing I would like to address before I get into the actual chemistry side of this is why I (and apparently lots of scientific researchers) feel that a cell or rather a proto-cell or vesicle is a necessary component before life can begin. Let’s look at it in  this way, the emergence of life was a simple chemistry experiment and life could not emerge until the correct chemicals were combined under the correct conditions. Unquestionably there were many different chemicals available on the prebiotic Earth and just as in a university Chemistry lab where chemical experiments are done, a means of encapsulation is necessary to separate the chemicals that are needed in the reaction from those that are not necessary. This conveniently is done by naturally forming lipid bilayers called vesicles. These vesicles which are formed by a  two molecules thick layer of lipids (hence the term bilayer ), are natures equivalent of the chemistry labs test tubes and beakers. Without test tubes and beakers chemistry experiments would be near impossible and without a proto-cell first (a natural test tube), the grand chemistry experiment that led to the emergence of life would in fact be very improbable. That point I will agree on with George Whiteside but everything I have written above was known to him prior to his writing what he did and everything above unquestionably reduces the near improbability to an inevitability.

Now to the fun part. What is required for vesicle formation? First and foremost a source of amphiphilic hydrocarbon chains are required. Whether you consider the source to be a carbonaceous chondrite such as the Murchison meteorite or naturally formed on the prebiotic Earth the correct molecules were available. One of the reasons why research into life’s origin based on a cell first approach was not done till comparatively recently was because it was thought that the length of the hydrocarbon chain necessary to create enough impermeability was longer than what was available on the prebiotic Earth and that impermiability would prevent necessary chemicals from entering the proto-cell, also the length necessary for the stability of the proto-cell (modern cells use lengths between 16 and 18 carbons) again was not available on the prebiotic Earth. That definitely would have put a major obstacle in the path of a cell first approach but there are two small problems with that critique. Firstly impermeability is not an either or proposition as there is a vast range, just look at how oxygen diffuses from red blood cells (in less than a second) while glycerol will diffuse across cell membranes within a few minutes. As far as the stability problem, looking at the hydrocarbon chains in carbonaceous chondrites as an example (specifically the Murchison meteorite) the lengths were between 9 and 12 carbons long, could stable vesicles be formed by those short chains? Those of you who read my other articles could probably figure I am going to answer this affirmatively. In 1978 a then young graduate student named Will Hargreaves found that phospholipids (phospate group at one end of the chain) can self assemble into stable vesicles with a length as short as 10 carbons. Another graduate student in the same lab named Stefan Paula showed that permeability in the membrane could be increased by simply shortening the chain length. So much for the seemingly impenetrable hurdle to a cell first origin to life and research began in earnest.

Now one can ask what is necessary for the amphiphilic hydrocarbon chains to self assemble? Short answer is four “forces.” They are covalent and hydrogen bonds, Van der Walls forces (electrostatic) and hydrophopic effects. I am not going to address covalent bonding as a separate topic since I can’t do that topic any justice with a short paragraph but I will discuss the remaining three “forces.”
Hydrogen bonding helps to stabilize the structure of the self assembled vesicle. Saying that is all well and good but it would benefit us if I were to explain hydrogen bonding to those readers that don’t have a chemistry background. Once again without delving into too much chemistry (just formulas) I’ll give a short description of a hydrogen bond. The rotten egg smell we all hate (except those really odd ones among us) comes from a molecule called hydrogen sulfide H₂S. Some of you readers might recognize the similarity to H₂O which is something all of us are familiar with. The reason I bring these two molecules up is because water is a liquid while hydrogen sulfide is a gas. You might ask why that is and the answer is hydrogen bonds. They are what holds water together as a liquid and as an aside, they become pretty much continuous below freezing and that is why water freezes solid. Hydrogen sulfide remains a gas simply because it doesn’t form hydrogen bonds. Linus Pauling was the first to recognize the importance of hydrogen bonding  in the process of self assembly and of course he has an excellent description of hydrogen bonds in his 1939 classic The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry. Not only did Pauling recognize the importance of hydrogen bonding, he understood that it was what stabilized the structure of DNA and prior to Watson and Crick’s discovery in 1953 Pauling proposed that DNA was a triple helix.

It is rather difficult to see what Van der Walls forces have to do with biology since it is chemical bonds that hold the hydrocarbon chains together. However the only interaction between the chains are Van der Wall’s forces (sort of like static electricity in a sense). It is Van der Walls forces that determine whether a hydrocarbon chain is a solid, liquid or gas at a given temperature.  Hydrocarbon chains up to three carbons long are gas at normal temperature and pressure. Butane which has four carbons is  balanced on a fine edge between a gas and a liquid (that is why it is used in cigarette lighters). Chains between five and ten carbons are all liquid while those of 11 and above are solid. The easiest way to see why this is is to look at the carbons as a zipper of sorts. The less teeth on the zipper (carbons are the teeth) the less “holding” force it has. The more teeth, the more force it generates. Guess the zipper makes it clearer than the static electricity similarity.

Lastly we come to the hydrophobic effects required for self assembly. The hydrophobic effects drive the separation of the chemical system from the environment. This is the reason I mentioned encapsulation earlier. Imagine without encapsulation (a test tube) what it would be like to perform a chemical experiment in the open seas. Getting back to hydrophobic effects, life itself can’t exist as a solution of molecules because molecules in solution (no matter how complex) diffuse in a random fashion. Without organization they could neither metabolize, grow or reproduce. From this it follows that all life is cellular and those cells are bound by a bilayer that self assembled from ampiphilic molecules. It is the hydrostatic effect that stabilizes the membrane.

I feel I have answered the original question asked by George Whitesides but this article is sure to have raised many other question such as how the first proto-cells nourished themselves, how the first proto-cells were able to capture and hold large molecules while allowing necessary chemicals to pass through the bilayer. The first question will have to wait for another article at a later date but the second question is one I will attempt to give a short answer for. First let me say this is pure conjecture on my part and not to be taken as a scientific theory in any way at all. Before my conjecture I’ll give you some actual science. One hypothesis is that the first nucleic acid on Earth was Threose Nucleic Acid (TNA). Threose is formed as an end product of the formose reaction which is where the simple aldehyde formaldehyde (methanal) reacts with itself and those products react with themselves ultimately ending the series with the tetrose sugars which threose is a member of. On the prebiotic Earth there were bodies of water (oceans, ponds, puddles). When a vesicle formed in a water source and was subsequently splashed onto another surface (such as a hot rock) and dried, the vesicle would straighten itself. When it got rehydrated (from rain for example) it would reform into a vesicle capturing the molecules that were between it’s layers. Ok, actual science is over now on to my conjecture. Sometimes that captured molecule just might have been TNA. It might have been another necessary molecule. Truth is we don’t know what actually happened but the scenario I put forth is certainly a plausible one and given the 750 million years or so that life had to emerge on Earth before it did gain a foothold, it really isn’t improbable and I would call it inevitable. It is just surprising that I, a man who does no research and is not on the Hirsch index (but does have an education in chemistry and an award from the American Chemical Society as George Whitesides does.) has to answer a question that he finds makes life’s self assembly without a god to be highly improbable.

Some further reading you might enjoy

• Researchers solve membrane protein mystery
• What is the role of lipids in cells

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.

and the explanation they ignored that was written in the same book a mere seven pages later

The rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is so very close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion was very carefully chosen.

It is clear neither value was fine tuned and I will attempt to explain after a little digression.

This morning I was sitting in the Starbucks inside Barnes And Nobles (in Bethlehem of all places) and was having a conversation with a friend of mine about atheism when a lady overheard us and remarked that her god is so obvious and she couldn’t understand how anyone could not see. I wasn’t in the mood to argue and my friend is somewhere between a nihilist and an ignostic so we both sat there sort of ignoring what was said. Finally I asked her if she minded answering a few questions. She didn’t mind so being the nice atheist I am, I pulled up a chair for her (even offered to buy her a coffee). I asked her if the god she meant was so obvious is the Christian god (in hindsight seeing the cross hanging from her neck made this a dumb question). Guess she read my mind cause she fingered the cross and said “of course.” I told her there are about 2.1 billion Christians in the world and most if not all would agree with her but there are something like 1.5 billion Muslims that think Allah is obvious not to mention the 900 million Hindus and the 375 million Buddhists. Then I said considering there are about 6.7 billion people on Earth, how is the obvious god of 2.1 billion (about 32% of the population) really obvious when the remaining 4.6 billion people don’t see him as god? Needless to say she moved the goalposts and said god is obvious to those who want to see he is god. I did say a few questions but I really meant two and after hearing her redefinition I wasn’t much interested in talking anymore so my friend and I got up and went to Best Buy where he brought a 1 TB external harddrive and I got jealous.

Now that the digression is done I can get to the fun fine tuning foolishness. First up the ratio of protons to electrons. At first glance I really can’t understand why anyone would claim this needed to be fine tuned in any sense. At second glance, most scientists seem to agree with my first impression. The number of electrons equals the number of protons in the universe as predicted by conservation of charge. This is exactly what would be expected if the universe were not miraculously created. No fine tuning here, my first impression and that of the vast majority of scientists is not swayed by this fine tuning claim.

Now to address the expansion rate of the universe. This is a little harder to show (without using maths), but once the maths is done the non-fine tuning should be readily apparent or obvious in the sense that my Christian friend from Starbucks used (before moving the goalposts). The rate of expansion of the universe is called the Hubble parameter for the obvious reason that is was named after the astronomer that discovered it who was named, get ready for it, better sit down for it, Edwin Hubble. The measurements he made indicated that galaxies were receding from one another at a rate that was proportional to their distance from each other (paradoxically Andromeda seems to be nearing us instead of receding in it’s gravitational dance of death with our Milky Way). Call the rate v and the distance r so v = Hr where H is the Hubble constant. This makes some sense intuitively even though the big bang wasn’t exactly an explosion (since it has no center), like in an explosion it makes perfect sense that the farthest chunks are moving away faster than those close to the center. Getting back to the fun formulas, The age of the universe can be calculated from Hubble’s law. The expansion of the universe has been going on for some time (doesn’t matter how long) which we call t. We can write this as v = r/t or t = r/v = H^-1 since the Hubble constant is the slope of a line of v vs. r.  I apologize but the maths are done and we need no more formulas (just a big number or two). The current calculated value for the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. Going by Craig and D’Souza’s misquote and further ignoring of Hawking the universe would have an age of plus or minus 1 billion years if the rate were changed by the value they cite. Last time anyone checked, the Earth was formed well before 12.7 billion years ago and life would have had plenty of time to evolve through natural means. A universe older by 1 billion years wouldn’t change that in any way. Now this should make it obvious to anyone that this value was not fine tuned by any meaning of the term. It also should make it perfectly obvious that William Lane Craig and Dinesh D’Souza are nothing but liars intent on promoting their agenda.

In the last two articles we have looked at three values claimed by fine tuning advocates that prove the fine tuning of the universe for human life. Not surprisingly those three values have all been shown to not agree with fine tuning. If anyone reading this believes in fine tuning, I seriously recommend you reexamine that belief.

Some further reading you might enjoy

• Fine Tuning Foolishness
• Hubble views the star that changed the universe
• Why the universe wasn’t fine-tuned for life
• The Hubble Space Telescope: Photographing the Final Frontier
• The God Delusion on the Anthropic Principle
• The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: A Review

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause.

To be honest the logic is sound but the conclusion is true only if the two premises are true. Does everything that exists have a cause? William Lane Craig nor any of the many others that use the KCA to “prove” god exists have apparently never cracked open a physics text for at least 50 years and I will give you an example showing that each premise is false.Addressing premise one

Everything that begins to exist has a cause

The emission of a photon when an electron drops from a higher energy state to a lower one is a spontaneous event, in other words the photon that began to exist had no cause. This shows premise one to be false and that proponents of the KCA are less than honest.Nuclear decay is also another uncaused event. Some may claim that since quantum theory can predict nuclear decay it isn’t an uncaused event. This belies an unfamiliarity with physics. Quantum theory does predict nuclear decay and does so with a very high degree of accuracy only it predicts an average rate of decay but says nothing as far as any atom in particular. That makes the emission of a photon in nuclear decay an uncaused event which shows premise one to be false.

Addressing premise two

The universe began to exist.

This is a bit harder to show to be false as it is based(by William Lane Craig et al) on the big bang which is established as true beyond any reasonable doubt. There is nothing in the big bang theory that requires it to be the beginning of the universe. This also means that the second premise is also false.  This is all I will say about Craig’s version of the KCA as I already said that a deductive argument says nothing more than what is assumed in it’s premises. Both premises have been shown to be false.

In this installment of my series on the untuned constants I want to address what has plagued some physicists and countless Christian apologists that claimed their version of god was proven by this. I am speaking of the large number puzzle found by the mathematician and theoretical physicist Hermann Weyl in 1919. This was the first of the anthropic coincidences (leading to the fine tuning argument) so I thought it deserved to be addressed first. This was the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between the electron and the proton. This ratio is 10³⁹. That means the electromagnetic force is much stronger than the gravitational force 9for the electron/proton ratio but realize that each particle has mass and a defined charge). As the argument goes, if the gravitational attraction were not  so much smaller than the electromagnetic, the universe would have collapsed long before there were stars much less life. Even physics texts speak about gravity being such a weak force, unintentionally lending some credence to the argument, but is it true? A few of you might have noticed that I mentioned the electron and proton both have defined masses and electric charges which should let you know that I am going to show this constant isn’t constant as it depends on both the charges and masses. I really don’t want to bother my readers with maths but it is sadly unavoidable so I promise to keep it simple. The ratio uses both Columb’s law and Newton’s law of Gravitation. Wikipedia (used for convenience) gives Columb’s law as

The scalar form of Coulomb’s law is an expression for the magnitude and sign of the electrostatic force between two idealized point charges, small in size compared to their separation. This force (F) acting simultaneously on point charges (q₁) and (q₂), is given by

where r is the separation distance and k_e is a proportionality constant. A positive force implies it is repulsive, while a negative force implies it is attractive.^[2] The proportionality constant k_e, called the Coulomb constant (sometimes called the Coulomb force constant.

and it gives Newtons law of Gravitation as

Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:^[3]

,

where:

• F is the force between the masses,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• m₁ is the first mass,
• m₂ is the second mass, and
• r is the distance between the masses.

In the ratio the distances cancel out so we are left with Ke/Gm₁m₂ where e is the electron.
Before I even attempt to show that this constant isn’t a constant, I have to ask why the ratio is for an electron/proton combination. The electron is a fundamental particle but the proton isn’t. A proton is made of three quarks while an electron is, well – an electron. Now back to the math fun. If instead of a ratio between an electron/proton we look at the ratio of an electron/electron pair we find it inst 10³⁹ but 10⁴⁷. Not exactly showing the ratio is a fine tuned constant but contradicting what I said about gravity not being weak. Now let’s look at two particles of unit charge with similar masses of 1.85 x 10^-9. Now the two forces are equal and it still looks bad for the fine tuned constant and the weakness of gravity. But wait, I am not done. Let’s again use two unit charged particles but with the  most fundamental  mass possible (the Planck mass). Now gravity is 137 times stronger than the electromagnetic force.

Seems that the death knell can be sounded for this fine tuned constant which is neither constant not finely tuned. Not to mention the oft quoted foolishness that gravity is the weakest force (which is even said by lots of scientists). And finally, the KCA can be seen as the piece of deductive idiocy it really is . In the following weeks I will be writing more articles on the fine tuned constants which will be seen to be not finely tuned as some can vary without any effects on life while others sure enough will cause some unwanted effects but they can be cancelled out by changing a different constant.

The microevolution versus macroevolution distinction made by people that deny evolution is in my opinion nothing more than a tacit admission that they do not understand the modern theory of evolution because either they have not been taught it or they are approaching it from a preconceived bias generally based on a fundajelical belief in the creation as found in Genesis. A fundajelical definition of micro and macroevolution is as follows (from Prayson Daniel)

Macro-evolution – Refers to the emergence of major innovations or the unguided development of new structures(like wings) new organs(like lungs), and body plans(like the origin of insects and birds). It includes changes above the species level.

Micro-evolution – Refers to minor variations that occur in populations over time. Examples include variation in moth coloration and finch beaks, and the emergence of different breeds of dogs.

As is quite clear from the above, the modern theory of evolution is not understood. Earlier i said I would attempt to explain it so please bear with me as I try to do so. The theory of evolution has six different components. They are

1. Evolution
2. Gradualism
3. Speciation
4. Common ancestry
5. Natural selection
6. Nonselective mechanisms for evolutionary change.

For the most part these component parts are connected to each other but one in particular is independent of the others and that is gradualism (natural selection is somewhat independent too). At times, evolution does happen quite fast and can even be seen in a laboratory. In general though, evolution is gradual.

Right about now some of you are probably thinking “great he takes evolution which is one thing to misunderstand and transforms it into six things to misunderstand.” Ok, you are right so I will explain each point in detail (and it will be short, happy now?).

Point 1 is evolution. Simply put that just means change over time. Since this is about biological evolution, more specifically it means genetic changes over time. This point can’t be denied by anyone unless to say it as Jerry Coyne did, they have an extremely perverse mind. Even the fundajelical microevolution idea admits evolution happens (guess they aren’t as perverse as we think).

Point 2 is gradualism. Evolution, meaning the change or specifically the genetic change happens and generally it happens gradually. That is not to say all species evolve at the same rate. Some bacteria evolve extremely fast (hence the rise of things like MRSA, VRSA and many other drug-resistant bacteria) while there are creatures like the “cuddly” coleacanth which is not called the living fossil because of it’s speed of evolutionary change. At times evolutionary changes can happen very quickly but that in no way claims that evolutionary change is not gradual. Major evolutionary change generally takes thousands if not millions of generations.

Point 3 is my favorite along with it’s inverse in point 4. Those are speciation and common ancestry. First I would like to mention that if speciation didn’t happen, we wouldn’t have the evolutionary tree nor any of the diagrams we are all familiar with, we would have a vine.  Speciation, which a fundajelical would consider impossible macroevolution, is nothing more than undeniable evolutionary changes (point 1) adding up over time (point 2) eventually leading to speciation (point 3 – evolution, as easy as counting to 3). Some deniers of speciation may question how the “split”  causing speciation is made but that answer will be discussed under point 5 natural selection so until then, please sit on your hands and continue reading. Some claim speciation has never been seen but that is a claim made only by those who have never read or studied evolutionary theory. One undeniable example is polyploid speciation which is seen comparatively often. One estimate is that between 30 and 80% of plant species are due to polyploid speciation. Although polyploid is very rare in humans, it occurs with some frequency in animals such as flatworms, brine shrimp and leeches. Generally polyploid animals are sterile so they reproduce by parthenogenesis. A quite common polyploid animal species are some lizards and they are parthenogenic wich leads me to the really odd mole salamander who are all female and reproduce by kleptogenesis. That is they “steal” spermatophores from a related species (from the males of course) just to trigger the egg’s development but not to utilize any of it’s DNA. More examples of speciation can be found on talkorigins website here and here. A few examples of speciation (Allopatric or geographic) would be seen at Madagascar and more recently at the Isthmus of Panama. Due to the mechanics of fossilization, speciation is not seen as clearly and as often in the fossil record as would be liked but there is one well known and undeniable example to be found with diatoms. A little about diatoms can be read about here.

Point 5 is natural selection and in it is the main objection most evolution deniers have. First and easiest way to describe natural selection is to compare it with something well known and the results of with are seen everyday (even with the atheist’s nightmare which Ray Comfort and his cohort Kirk “Mike Seaver” Cameron say is the banana which they didn’t know was made through artificial selection) and that is artificial selection. In artificial selection the gene pool is selected for desired traits such as color or fragrance (in flowers), height, weight, temperament (in dogs) and color, fragrance, edibility (in food crops). Natural selection is the same process but instead of a conscious individual doing the selecting it is done by natural circumstances. At times the selection is made by environmental constraints such as availability of food, climate and geography (as in allopatric speciation). When a species is separated for any reason (such as geography) the evolutionary changes both populations accrue will not necessarily be in the same direction. Eventually either for physical incompatibilities or just to many differences in their DNA, they will not be able to reproduce with one another and another species is born. Oh, those of you who deny speciation, please reread that sentence a few times and let it sink in.

Point 6 is nonselective mechanisms for evolutionary change. It isn’t really necessary to delve into this last point with any detail. Just as there are selective mechanisms (as in natural or even artificial selection) there are nonselective mechanisms such as genetic drift and the randomness in frequency of offspring (I have one child, you have two, my great grandmother was one of 26). Generally the nonselective mechanisms do not have a large influence on evolutionary changes but they do have an influence so they must be included in the theory of evolution.

In conclusion, the modern theory of evolution contains six components (1. Evolution 2. Gradualism 3. Speciation 4. Common ancestry 5. Natural selection 6. Nonselective mechanisms for evolutionary change) that really can’t be denied. To be honest, it is understandable how someone unfamiliar with the entire theory can question points 3 (4 comes along for the ride) and 5 but after familiarizing oneself with the modern theory, the questions fade away unless one really is blinded by a theological cloud (read that as fundajelical Christian). Of the 6 points of the theory, some are intimately connected such as my favorites points 3 and 4 (speciation and common ancestry) while some are independent of the others such as gradualism (which at times is extremely fast) and in some respects natural selection. Meaning even if gradualism or natural selection were false, evolutionary theory would still be true it would just need to be redefined. Since natural selection was considered independent from the theory of evolution, that is pretty much the reason biologists of Darwin’s time were so quick to accept evolutionary theory but not natural selection. Considering all the advancements made since Darwin’s time, natural selection is still pretty much independent of the other 5 points of evolutionary theory but it is not questioned by any serious academic that understands the theory (William Craig Lane, Michael Behe, Kent Hovind and the rest of the idiot crew are not academics).

Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah’s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, AND HAVING DIED, HE ROSE AGAIN, AND ASCENDED TO HEAVEN; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?

yet this blogger decided I took this quote out of context and it must be understood by the preceding two paragraphs in his First Apology and he proceeded to show that I was wrong and he was referring to the virgin birth and then he said “Justin Martyr never said anything about dying and rising gods.” To continue with what was said by some early church fathers, Justin Martyr also said

there exists not a people, civilized or semi-civilized, who have not offered up prayers in the name of a crucified Savior to the Father and Creator of all things

Eusebius says

that which is called the Christian religion is neither new nor strange, but-if it be lawful to testify the truth-was known to the ancients.

These three quotes should be more than enough to show that there indeed were similarities between Pagan beliefs and those of the early Christians. Why is it so “important” for modern Christians to show that these similarities didn’t exist? If they didn’t exist, the early church would not have “apologized” for them but they would have denied them instead. To see the crass dishonesty of this one Christian blogger claim that Justin Martyr never mentioned dying and rising gods is just another of the many reasons I find fundagelical Christians to be a scourge on society, they (in this case Prayson Daniel) think it is ok for them to rewrite history as long as it agrees with their outlook on  things.

I mentioned some more recent and credible work that has been done. Unlike the work of Kersey Graves and Achraya S, I do not believe it is a credible conclusion to say that Jesus is purely mythological. I do believe there are a vast number of similarities with Pagan beliefs and throughout quite a large amount of ancient literature  and because all of the myths prevalent in Christianity were so common throughout the society where Christianity originated, how can one conclude that Christianity copied the myths instead of them being a natural part of the culture they were in? The recent and credible work this blogger ignored (and almost all Christians I read or speak to) is that of Richard Carrier, Frank Zindler, Robert M Price, the entire Jesus Seminar, John Loftus and many others to numerous to name.

One genre I mentioned in my opening paragraph was Greek tragedies. Perhaps a more apt name for the genre would be Greek romance. I am speaking about what may well be the oldest extant European novel (possibly written prior to 62 CE) and that is Chariton’s Callirhoe (this entire genre is ignored by Christian apologists because studying it would lead to some extremely disturbing conclusions for all of Christianity). The entire story is not what I would like to focus on but the obvious parallel (or shall I say preforgery of John’s resurrection account) that even includes the grave clothes left behind. To be honest, the reason Callirhoe is entombed is a mundane one. She was in an argument with her husband Chaeraes, he kicks her and she appears to die. She revives in the cool tomb and some pirates break in to rob the grave, thy take Callirhoe and then the resurrection parallels start in earnest. Let me explain with the words of Robert M. Price

When he reached the tomb, he found that the stones had been moved and the entrance was open.
[Cf. John 20:1} He was astonished at the sight and overcome by fearful perplexity at what had
happened. [Cf. Mark 16:5] Rumor—a swift messenger—told the Syracusans this amazing news. They all
quickly crowded round the tomb, but no one dared go inside until Her- mocrates gave an order to do
so. [Cf. John 20:4-6] The man who went in reported the whole situation accurately. [Cf. John 19:35;
21:24] It seemed incredible that even the corpse was not lying there. Then Chaereas himself
determined to go in, in his desire to see Callirhoe again even dead; but though he hunted through the
tomb, he could find nothing. Many people could not believe it and went in after him. They were all
seized by helplessness. One of those standing there said, “The funeral offerings have been carried off
[Cartlidge's translation reads: "The shroud has been stripped off—cf. John 20:6-7]—it is tomb robbers
who have done that; but what about the corpse—where is it?” Many different suggestions circulated in
the crowd. Chaereas looked towards the heavens, stretched up his arms, and cried: “Which of the gods
is it, then, who has become my rival in love and carried off Callirhoe and is now keeping her with
him . . . ?”
The parallels to the empty-tomb accounts, especially to John 20:1—10, are abundant and close. Chaereas even suggests that Callirhoe has been (like Jesus) translated to heaven.

I bet most of the Christians that are still reading are wondering where is the crucifixion? Well, you are not going to be disappointed. Callirhoes husband Chaereas was condemned to the cross later in the novel. Was chained to the two he was condemned with, carried his own cross (anyone note any similarity?) but received a last minute gubernatorial reprieve.

Instead of going on and on with the parallels, I will just mention a few of the more popular works that anyone can read and see the similarities themselves.

• The Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus
• Satyricon by Petronius
• The Golden Ass by Apuleius
• Cupid And Psyche by Apuleius
• Babylonian Story by Iamblichus
• The Story Of Apollonius, King Of Tyre by ANON
• Ethiopian Story by Heliodorus
• Daphnis and Chloe by Longus
• Leucippe and Clitophon by Achilles Tatius
• Ephesian Tale by Xenophon

As can be seen there are many ancient manuscripts that predate the resurrection tales of the bible. For anyone to dismiss this evidence of similar tales as being non-existent is just plain bull-headed ignorance and fear.

Some further reading you might enjoy.

• Resurrection question
• Some reasons to think there was no historical Jesus
• Review: The Case For The Real Jesus
• Busting The Dying And Rising Gods Myth (Prayson Daniel’s post that inspired this article)

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Paul never gave any reason for his conclusion, at least I have never found one anywhere in his epistles. Quite often when anyone questions the resurrection  all the Christians I have spoken to fall back on the idea Paul put forth that Christianity is “useless” unless Jesus has been raised. My problem (bet you wondered when I would get to the point) is that Christianity’s idea of the atoning sacrifice was because Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice (which wasn’t a true sacrifice since it was a short vacation). Nowhere is a resurrection a requirement for a Christian’s salvation. Can some Christians please shed some light on this. Don’t worry, I am not baiting you guys into an argument nor am I luring anyone into a trap. This is just an honest question that I would like answered.

1. Scholars Are Uncovering A Radically Different Jesus In Ancient Documents Just As Credible As The Four Gospels.

2. The Bible’s Portrait Of Jesus Can’t Be Trusted Because The Church Tampered With The Text.

3a. New Explanations Have Refuted Jesus Resurrection.

3b. The Cross-Examination.

4.Christianity’s Beliefs were Copied From Pagan Religions.

5. Jesus Was An Imposter Who Failed To Fulfill The Messianic Prophecies.

6. People Should Be Free To Pick And Choose What To Believe About Jesus.

Of course there is an introduction and conclusion along with two appendices that assume the reader is going to reach Strobel’s conclusion (speak of arrogance). Again (and I assume it is in all his “Case” series) he presents his arguments as if they were being examined in a court of law but once again he failed to present the “defense” and only presented the prosecution. He did bring up some of the defense but as he allowed witnesses for the prosecution to speak,  he spoke (in somewhat of a caricature) for the defense and other than that he silenced it. Is the “evidence” for Jesus so shaky in Strobel’s opinion that it must be presented only one sided?

Strobel’s first challenge (Scholars Are Uncovering A Radically Different Jesus In Ancient Documents Just As Credible As The Four Gospels) is one where he relies on the canonical gospels being written not long after the resurrection, being eyewitness testimony and not pseudo-epigraphical. As I wrote last week, the canonical gospels are in no way eyewitness testimony. At best they are hearsay and at worst they are fictional accounts. As far as being dated close to the resurrection and eyewitness (or secondhand testimony), the gospel of Luke is usually dated sometime around 75 CE. That is all well and fine but it  is in no way true. Luke’s gospel as well as it’s companion (Acts} were both addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus was the bishop of Antioch from 169-177, so much for the early dating of Luke (and Acts). Of course it could have been addressed to an other Theophilus that left no evidence in history but unless there is evidence pointing to that, why should it be believed? Besides, there are no citations in any extra-biblical sources quoting the gospels (or even mentioning them) until 180 CE. Addressing the pseudo-epigraphical claim (just restricted to the canonical gospels) we have one that was written by Luke but considering the dating I put forth above, he was not a traveling companion of Paul unless he toted around a corpse. Still for the sake of argument I will grant the author as being Luke. John was written by John (not the apostle). Matthew is a pseudo-epigraphical book as well as Mark. In other words, they are forged in the names of Matthew and Mark. I will not even try to claim the non-canonical gospels were written by those whose names appear on them but I will say if being pseudo-epigraphical did not exclude two out of four gospels and nine out of 23 Pauline epistles, why should it exclude the non-canonical writings? As far as dating, the writings found at Nag Hammadi in 1945 have been dated to the early second century (before Theophilus was bishop). Not only that but they (one gospel) was even mentioned by the early church. Now on to Strobel’s conclusion that the non-canonical writings can be ignored in the search for the real Jesus, he is dead wrong. The non-canonical writings can only be ignored if you have some kind of mental hangup that requires Jesus to be real and portrayed as in the canon. The non-canonical writings are just as valid as the canon.

Strobel’s second challenge (The Bible’s Portrait Of Jesus Can’t Be Trusted Because The Church Tampered With The Text) is going to be a very small paragraph since even Christian Bible Scholars agree that there have been many redactions and interpolations made in  the bible and in extra-biblical writings. How Strobel can deny them for the most part and ignore the rest as inconsequential should say tons about his bias and the mental gymnastics required to believe in an historical Jesus, at least the one depicted in the bible.

His third challenge (New Explanations Have Refuted Jesus Resurrection) and it’s pseudo-cross-examination really deserves no refutation since it refutes itself (meaning the biblical story) but nonetheless, I will write some on the subject. First let me say there are really no “new” explanations refuting anything. They may be new to Strobel but I really don’t think he has been leading a sheltered life. As far as the cruciFICTION and resurrection, the four canonical gospels can’t even agree on the order of events, what events happened and who was the first witness. To make matters worse, church teaching varies depending on the church as to who the first witness was. As an aside, read the four accounts and then ask yourself why the Catholic church claims the first witness to the resurrection was Peter while some Orthodox churches claim it was James while the text itself claims it was Mary Madalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome,  and Joanna (all in differing combinations). Another extremely strong indication of it’s mythical (and allegorical) nature is the tale of Pilate releasing a prisoner to the crowd. Firstly, there never was a custom of releasing a prisoner on the passover much less someone actually convicted of a crime. Secondly, the mythical nature becomes much clearer when the name of the released prisoner is looked at in Aramaic. The Aramaic word for son is Bar while the Aramaic word meaning father is Abba. The Aramaic phrase BarAbbas means son of the father which is what some claimed Jesus was. What did I mean by allegorical? This fable is an obvious allusion to Jesus being a Yom Kippur atonement.

The fourth challenge (Christianity’s Beliefs were Copied From Pagan Religions) was my favorite chapter and one I found the most interesting. There are unquestionably similarities between Christianity and many Pagan religions. Question is who did the copying? The answer isn’t as easy as it seems from either side. There were crucified gods before Christianity but that doesn’t mean Christianity copied them. That is undoubtedly a possibility and it is even somewhat probable but on the other hand if you are coming from a culture where gods are crucified, how can one say it wasn’t culture that “created” a crucified Jesus but a copying from paganism? Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there was nothing copied from Paganism. There are plenty of things that can be traced back to their mythological roots. One I find particularly fascinating is the Dagon (the fish god) myth that eventually became historicized through John The Baptist (bet you never look at a Christian fish the same again) and the obvious copying of the demoniac at Gadara from book 10 of the Odyssey . In either event, personally I do not see how this chapter does anything to forward Strobel’s case. It is true there are many places on the internet that claim what he says but to be perfectly honest, I would have preferred he address the Dagon historicization through John among other more concrete myths. Instead he chose the easy (cowards) way out.

The fifth challenge (Jesus Was An Imposter Who Failed To Fulfill The Messianic Prophecies) would be answered by a resounding yes, Jesus is an identity thief. Strobel tries to twist messianic prophecy (Old Testament prophecy) into some that must happen pre-70CE and some to happen post 70CE. That just isn’t true. Now of course there are things Jesus couldn’t control for example like where he was born. But that presupposes an historical Jesus. Fact is there is nothing written in the New Testament as far as prophecy that couldn’t have been written by anyone living in the first or second centuries. As far as Old Testament prophecy, if there is no historical Jesus, his life could easily be molded to fit the so-called messianic prophecies. {There are over 300 claimed messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. A careful reading of them will reduce that number to a mere handful.) This is the reason why I claim Christianity would not need an historical Jesus to begin and would be much better off without one.

The last challenge (People Should Be Free To Pick And Choose What To Believe About Jesus) isn’t a challenge as much as it’s a request to believe the biblical Jesus versus the non-biblical concept of Jesus. Besides, if a Christian is free to cherry pick from the bible, why should anybody else not be able to cherry pick what they want about Jesus?

My conclusion is the same as it was with his other book, if this is what passes for scholarship among Christians, we are doomed.

Some further reading you might enjoy

Related articles

• A Review Of The Case For Christ

First thing I will say is I am extremely glad Lee Strobel is an ex-journalist since it made his writing much easier to read than those two volumes of kiddie scholarship from Josh McDowell. The idea behind the book was a fairly unique one of a supposed “courtroom” investigation into the evidence for an historical Jesus. Unfortunately for Strobel, the book failed miserably as his bias shined through every one of the 367 pages of text.

Originally I intended to write on a few chapters per week but the text was very easy to read and I did find myself agreeing with one reviewer who said the book reads like a novel so I will be reviewing the full 14 chapters (15 with the conclusion). Sadly that is pretty much the only point of agreement I had with the book. Lee Strobel used to give parts of the book as sermons in church and was urged by his wife to compile them in a book. It would have been better had they remained as sermons and never written in book form.

Lee Strobel traveled across the country interviewing various Christian scholars (and only Christian scholars) on the evidence for an historical Jesus. Evidence that Strobel considered to be eyewitness, biographical, documentary, corroborating, scientific, psychological, profile, fingerprint (guess he liked the title of a DM Murdock book), medical, missing body, appearances, circumstantial and rebuttal (which wasn’t a rebuttal but an examination of the Jesus of faith being the Jesus of history). First thing you notice about all this is that there is no interview of any non-Christian scholar nor is there any rebuttal to the “Jesus” side. To use the courtroom analogy that Strobel seems to like, the prosecution presents evidence but the defense isn’t allowed. That isn’t a fair impartial investigation like Strobel claims. That is a biased piece of pseudo-scholarship.

One thing I would really like to mention is that for certain reasons that to me seem apparent in the text, Strobel either didn’t interview everyone he claims her did or he “embellished” the interviews after the fact. To be fair, I must admit that Strobel did in fact mention a few caricatures of  non-theist arguments but in a book where he dedicates 14 chapters (with interviews of Christian scholars) to the alleged evidence for Jesus not one interview appears with a non-Christian source. That is a glaring omission.

Strobel calls the gospels eyewitness testimony. I don’t even know how to address that because even mainstream Christian scholarship disagrees. At best what Christian scholarship (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) claims is that the gospels were written from eyewitness accounts. At best, that is not considered eyewitness evidence but hearsay. I am surprised that an award winning journalist didn’t know that but I am sure he did. It just wasn’t a good idea to shoot his own book down since doing so would have ended his book in chapter one. Anyway, physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony as the example Strobel gives clearly shows. To be honest, this is a really rocky start to a supposed scholarly work.

Strobel’s next two chapters deal with the “biographies” of Jesus but those chapters are misplaced in my opinion since the gospels are neither eyewitness testimony nor have they been shown to have any relation to an historical Jesus (the one Strobel claims to be the Jesus of faith).

The scientific evidence he brings up is archaeological evidence for an historical Jesus. There is no archaeological evidence for Jesus. There is some evidence for geographic locations in the bible but that in no way confirms the theology of it. It would be the same as saying, in the movie Escape From New York the city of New York is real therefore Snake Plisken is an historical character. Additionally, there is no convincing evidence that there was a Nazareth at the alleged time of Jesus and if there was no Nazareth, there could be no Jesus of Nazareth.

He brings up the medical evidence based on the gospel account of the crucifixion. Once again, the gospels have not been shown to be accurate nor have they been shown to be anything more than hearsay. To claim any type of medical evidence from this is just plain crank scholarship and to be honest I would be embarrassed by it if I were a Christian. After all, what good is faith if there is evidence? One other thing he brings up is why the “appearances” of Jesus after the resurrection could not have been hallucinations. Strobel even had a psychologist (Dr. Gary Collins) say that an hallucination is an individual phenomena and it is a subjective experience for each individual. Technically that very well may be correct but for a licensed and degreed psychologist to totally “forget” mass hysteria is to me an unforgivable omission that tarnishes his entire interview (this is one reason I believe the interviews were either not done or embellished by Strobel, he can however prove me wrong by releasing the interview tapes he clasms to have).

All in all, I will say this book was very easy to read and the “arguments” it gave will serve to solidify the beliefs of already believing Christians. In no way would this book convince anyone that is able to think critically. My next article will be a short review of Strobel’s other book (sent to me by the same blogger) The Case For The Real Jesus.

One is informed by Acts that St Paul’s early day stance was as “Saul, the Christian persecutor“. Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen’s stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

Paul’s role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman’s death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem (“at the feet of Gamaliel” – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

Would not Saul, a young religious hothead (“exceedingly zealous of the traditions” – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC’s blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during “passion week“, surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

Paul, another “witness for Jesus”, saw and heard nothing!

Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul’s own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the “divine mystery” of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

Acts

The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to Damascus is so important that it is repeated three times (son et lumiere). From a previous state of error (as “Saul”, the persecuting Jewish zealot) he is brought into the loving embrace of the fledgling church.

Now part of the brethren (“with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem” – 9.28), he is “managed” by the elders. Disciples “took him” from Damascus (9.25) and Barnabas “brought him” to the apostles (9.27). They “brought him” to Caesarea and then they “sent him” to Tarsus. Barnabas “brought” Paul back to Antioch (11.26) and then with him was “sent” to Jerusalem with famine relief (11.30) – (as it happens, a visit to Jerusalem completely unknown to Paul himself).

Eventually the brethren “send” Paul on his first missionary journey (13.4). As a missionary, Paul is very much on the collective message:

“And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established.” – Acts 16.4,5.

From Thessalonica, Paul is “sent away” to Berea by the brethren (17.10). He is also “sent away” by sea and “brought” to Athens (17.14,15). In Cenchrea, Paul even takes a Jewish vow and shaves his head! (18.18).

Though his name is cited in Acts 177 times, “Paul” is never coupled with the familiar honorific “apostle”. The closest Acts comes to bestowing the title is 14.14 where his name follows Barnabas and the plural is used. In every other instance, Paul is an entity quite separate from, and implicitly subordinate to, the apostles. The slight is striking, given that Acts was supposedly written by Luke, Paul’s companion and admirer.

Epistles

In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick, representing no one but himself and under no one’s direction. It is Paul who is doing the directing. Full of his own importance, in all his letters Paul hammers home the point that he is an apostle and that his appointment comes directly from the divine. His “proof” of this is his own success as a missionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 2,3) – an argument of dubious merit still used by churches today. Look at our success! We must be right!

Paul makes no reference to a “Damascene road” conversion nor to an origin in Tarsus (Jerome reported that Paul was from Galilee!). He makes no reference to Cyprus and the battle with a rival magician, nor does he refer to the edict from James on food prohibitions and fornication. Paul, it seems, owes nothing to any man. A bad-tempered bully, he wastes little sympathy on those who do not accept his point of view. Thus when he loses the support of Peter and Barnabas over eating with Gentiles, Paul rebukes Peter publicly and writes that he has reneged out of “fear” and Barnabas has been naively “carried away” (Galatians 2.12,13).

The Implausible Paul

It is curious that no Jewish rabbinic writings of the 1st or 2nd century so much as mention a renegade student of Gamaliel who, having studied under the master and vigorously enforced orthodoxy on behalf of the high priests, experienced a life-changing vision on an away mission. Not a word emerges from the rabbis about the star pupil who “went bad”, a heretic who scrapped the prohibitions of the Sabbath, urged his followers to disregarded Judaism’s irksome dietary regulations, and pronounced the Law and circumcision obsolete. Surely such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the scribes?

How likely is it that Paul really studied under the Pharisaic grandee (Acts 22.3)? Paul clearly had difficulty with the Hebrew language: all his scriptural references are taken from the Greek translation of Jewish scripture, the Septuagint.

How likely is it that, as a young man, Paul – supposedly a Roman citizen and from the Hellenised diaspora – even got the job as chief policeman of the ultra-orthodox of Jerusalem? And if Paul really had secured such a position, he surely would have had far bigger fish to fry than a miniscule “Jesus group” in Damascus. We are told in Acts that the apostles continued to preach in Jerusalem even after the death of Stephen (“They all scattered abroad … except the apostles.” – Acts 8.1,2). So why didn’t Paul go for the ringleaders, closer to hand?

“Nothing in his letters suggests that Paul had any official standing in his treatment of Christians … Hence, in opposition to what Luke says, he could not have used arrest, torture or imprisonment as a means of forcing Christians to recognize that they had been misled.” – Murphy O’Connor, Paul, His History, p19.

Given that the Jewish High Council (the Sanhedrin) had no authority to empower a heresy hunter to operate in the independent city of Damascus, Paul’s road trip is even more implausible.

Convert?

How likely is it that Saul/Paul converted within a year or two of the crucifixion (Irenaeus says eighteen months)? If he truly was a precocious zealot of Judaism and was completely untouched by the perambulations and miraculous deeds of the godman himself – short of the supposed blinding “miracle” – why would he, of all people, so readily embrace the heresy? The four Gospels neither mention nor even hint at a pioneering apostle called Paul.

There is also a curious parallel between the alleged “persecution” speech spoken by the celestial Christ to the blinded Paul (“Saul, Saul … “) and the persecution of Dionysius found in Euripides work “the Bacchae” – and both use the word “goads”.

If Paul (Saul) really had apostatised to the extent of joining (or establishing) a radical new sect, how is it the rabbis did not anathematize his name? To be sure, Jewish Christians (Ebionites) did condemn Paul and did so in the harshest terms – even suggesting that in reality he had been a malcontented Greek convert, whose ardour had been rejected by the High Priest’s daughter! (Epiphanius, Panarion, 16). But that was in the 2nd century, long after any life and death of the apostle.

The “persecution” of the early church seems an extraordinarily unlikely construct because once Saul, the “destroyer of the saints”, transforms into Paul the apostle, and is whisked away by the brethren to safety in Caesarea and home to Tarsus, the persecution abruptly stops. The “persecution” is entirely a one man circus.

” Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.” – 9:31

The entire pre-Christian “Saul, the scourge of the church” makes no sense at all as history – but does make a great deal of sense as theology. “Zealous Jew sees the light of Jesus, becomes Christian.” The theological purpose is as obvious as the historical vignette is bogus.

“Murderous Jews” of Damascus

How likely is Paul’s “escape by basket” from the city of Damascus (Acts 9.25) ? Typically, baskets lowered by rope are used by tenement dwellers to buy bread from street vendors, first lowering the basket with payment then raising the basket with their loaf. But man-sized baskets? And why could not Paul just climb down the rope like a normal person?

And just who was Paul escaping from? According to Paul’s “own” testimony (2 Corinthians 11.32,33) it was “the governor under Aretas the king”. Aretas IV was the Nabataean monarch who ruled a vast area from his capital of Petra, though Paul gives no explanation as to why Aretas was out to get him.

But Acts, consistent with its hostility to “the Jews”, tells us it was Jews of murderous intent (Acts 9.23,24). Why were the Jews so murderous? Any reputation Paul had among the Jews of Damascus would have been as an enforcer of Judaism, not as a Christian heretic. The weak explanation offered by Acts is that the converted Saul had “confounded” the Jews in the synagogue with his Christ. Apparently, that was sufficient cause for them to organise the intended assassination and watch the city gates (and there were at least seven of them) “day and night” – a considerable investment of manpower. O’Connor asks the reasonable question:

“Why should the Jews watch the gates, when it would have been perfectly easy to find out where Paul was living and arrange an ‘accident’ there?” – O’Connor, A Critical Life, p6.

Faced with such hostility from his erstwhile co-religionists, how plausible is it that Paul, having just experienced a life-changing conversion, instead of joining the earthly companions of his newly acquired Lord, instead goes off to “Arabia” for three years – an “Arabia” that has just chased him out of Damascus?!

Surely he would seek safety with fellow Christians? Surely he would wish to speak with his Saviour’s still living mother, visit the places where Jesus wrought his miracles, tread the path to Calvary and ponder on the spot where his Lord suffered his passion? (Could it be that Paul does NOT do any of these things because virgin birth, miraculous deeds and earthly crucifixion have not yet been added to the story??!!)

Where DID they get their ideas from? Circumcision NOT necessary – says Josephus! ” At this time it was that two great men, who were under the jurisdiction of king Agrippa, came to me out of the region of Trachonius, bringing their horses and their arms, and carrying with them their money also.And when the Jews would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them, I would not permitthem to have any force put upon them, but said to them,”Every one ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force; and that these men, who had fled to us for protection, ought not to be so treated as to repent of their coming hither.“ – Josephus, Life 23 “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.And after they had held their peace, James answered …Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.“ – Acts 15.1,19

Council of Jerusalem?

Acts 15 reports that Paul’s “long abode” at Antioch which followed his first missionary journey is interrupted by “legalizers” from Judaea who insist that salvation required circumcision. The brethren are alarmed and Paul and Barnabas are chosen to lead a delegation to Jerusalem to meet the apostles and elders. The meeting is the famed “Council of Jerusalem“. Conventionally dated anywhere between the years 48 and 52, Acts reports a pretty harmonious get together, with the main issue readily resolved. Paul regales the brothers with tales of “miracles and wonders” among the gentiles (15.12) and James rules that as far as circumcising the Gentiles is concerned, “we trouble them not” (15.19). Back in Antioch, the brethren “rejoiced” (15.32).

Yet Paul’s own report on the meeting with “those who seemed to be the pillars” is very different. He goes to Jerusalem as a result of his own “revelation” (Galatians 2.2) and records what is actually a confrontation.

If there really was a “Council of Jerusalem” at which Paul won the argument that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised why did Paul so soon afterward personally circumcise Timothy, a disciple he found in Lystra? (16.3) To be sure, Timothy we are told is a half Jew so an apologetic argument is that it was to “gain acceptance” by the Jews of the region but such an argument presupposes a huge public awareness of poor Timothy’s genitals. (There’s no hint that Timothy was even asked how he felt about it!) But even more curious is what Paul himself says. Paul specifically declares that, not Timothy, but his other Greek sidekick Titus, was not circumcised!

“Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.” – Galatians 2.3,4.

“False brothers”, “spies”, are trying to make Paul and his entourage “slaves”?!

Such love, such Christian fellowship.

Founder of Churches?

More oddities exist. Paul supposedly established the church at Ephesus (Acts 18.18ff; 19.5,7), spending more time with his acolytes in that city than anywhere else (three months during the second mission, three years during the third). We are encouraged to believe that Paul’s first and second “Letters to the Corinthians” were written from Ephesus, and that it was here that Paul received troubled delegates from Corinth and presided over Christianity’s first book burning (Acts 19.19).

Yet it was the apostle John, settling in Ephesus after the crucifixion, who was ever after credited as founder of the Ephesian church. At the behest of Jesus himself, the Blessed Virgin had been placed in John’s care and it seems off they had traipsed to Ephesus. Here Mary’s house had been lovingly built by John with his own hands – a house which is is to be seen to this very day!

John was also said to have been the teacher of the venerable Bishop Polycarp, at nearby Smyrna. Whereas Mary’s ultimate fate was not dreamed up for centuries, according to 2nd century Irenaeus (quoted by Eusebius, 23) John remained in Ephesus until the time of Emperor Trajan (98-117) and, according to 3rd century Dionysius of Alexandria, had not one but two Ephesian tombs.

Thus the story has it that the apostle John was a long-term resident in the very city evangelised by Paul on his second journey, “popularly” supposed to have begun in the year 49.

Yet for all the overlap in time and place, Paul neither met Mary nor consulted with fellow apostle John. Curious, to say the least.

Just what is going on here: mutual ignorance, churlishness, hostility – at the heart of the church of love?

Reality Check

What we are dealing with are two distinct (and rival) traditions, one centred on the collective of the apostles and underscoring the leadership of Peter (and hence Roman Catholicism); the other starring the apostle Paul, the pioneering theological genius and founder of churches. And for whom does “Paul” speak? Why, the faction that lost the political struggle – the church of Marcion, the very person who first “discovered” the epistles of Paul in the mid-to-late 2nd century.

In their original form (from the pen of the Marcionites) the Pauline epistles were far too dualistic and gnostic for a “mass market”, with a theology which embraced escape from the material world. But they provided useful tales of the Holy Spirit at work among the Gentiles. The core Pauline (Marcionite) theology of individual salvation – “justification by faith” – severed the attachment to an exclusive Jewish bloodline and dispensed with the irksome dictates of Mosaic law. Initially alarming to the Jewish element of Catholicism, geopolitical developments would soon make such a theology very appealing.

The protracted struggle between the pro- and anti- “Jewish” Christian factions of the first half of the 2nd century ended after the Bar Kosiba war of 130-135 and the opprobrium in Rome of all things Jewish. In a half-baked fashion, the two “traditions” came together. The book of Acts was a Catholic triumph, which cut Paul down to size and brought the hero of the Marcionites into the securing arms of would-be orthodoxy.

To be sure, Paul himself was “glorified” and credited with extensive missionary activity, replete with miracles quite unrecorded in the eponymous letters. But in the new story, Paul writes no epistles. Instead, he delivers one from the top dogs in Jerusalem! In a weakly thought out story the “leader” of the Jerusalem apostles is moved to Rome ahead of Paul, and is placed upon the “pope’s” chair. Paul, the superstar of a fabricated 1st century evangelical crusade, would ever after stand awkwardly at the shoulder of a far flimsier creature fashioned by the church in Rome – St Peter.

Thus was Paul, erstwhile hero of the heretics, refashioned into the “13th apostle” and assimilated into the Catholic collective, even as the Marcionite churches were being integrated into the greater and universal Roman church. The epistles ascribed to Paul – too useful and too popular to be erased from the record – were expropriated and doctored for the Catholic cause and augmented by others composed by the Catholic ecclesia.

These so-called “pastoral” epistles, addressed to the pastors or “shepherds” of the flock, reined in maverick and independent clergy and underscored episcopal authority. Nascent Catholicism, organizing itself in Rome, was very much of this world, and saw its future glory in accommodation with the imperial order. The approved “canon” followed, closing the door on further creative theology.

The fabricated Paul

“As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed … For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” – Galatians 1.9,12.

A Catholicised sainthood was the ultimate fate of our hero Paul but from where did the super-apostle arise? If, as seems likely, Marcion created what would become the New Testament Paul as a messenger for his own ideas, he almost certainly used biographical material from his own life, particularly the power struggle he waged with the collective in Rome. Marcion, like “Paul”, alone knew the truth, a mystery made manifest to him by revelation.

As a shipping magnate from Sinope (a Black Sea port, a hundred miles north of Galatia) Marcion enjoyed financial independence and was able to travel extensively. At one point he even financed the church in Rome before being excommunicated and returning to the east. He would have been familiar with the sea lanes and attendant dangers that figure so prominently in the Pauline story. To give his theology added “authority” it had to be back projected into an earlier “apostolic age”. He may have chosen the name Paul (meaning “small” or “humble”) as reflective of his own position.

When Catholicism commandeered Marcion’s creation, the novelists in Rome would undoubtedly have used the works of Josephus, the all-purpose source books of the Christians, for additional material. And here they found not a Paul but a Saul, an Herodian aristocrat of unsavoury character. This material became the core for the preamble to Paul’s story, his “life in Judaism”. And the life of Josephus himself certainly was plundered: episodes in the Jewish historian’s biography resonate just too closely with the Pauline story, particularly the shipwreck on the way to Rome.

Josephus was not just an historian. Before the war, he had been appointed by the high priest Ananias as governor in Galilee, with a brief that meant suppressing (“persecuting”) radical movements. One of the bandit groups he had to deal with in and around Tiberias was led by a bandit chief called … Jesus.

“So Jesus the son of Sapphias [chief magistrate of Tiberias], one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire … Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began.”
– Josephus, Life 12.

Copyright © 2006 by Kenneth Humphreys.
Copying is freely permitted, provided credit is given to the author and no material herein is sold for profit.

I often hear Christians [at least a few] claim that Jesus can be found in the Talmud. If that were true [but it isn't], it would be another clear case of pious fraud by Christians. There are however a few mentions to a Yehsu or Yeshua in the Talmud but neither are in the correct timeframe to be the Christian Jesus. There is one in particular that I would like to address and that is the story in Sanhedrin 43a about Yeshu ben Pandera. There are two things I would like to mention before I get into the text and they are that this story took place in the 2nd century BCE and the name of Yeshu’s parents. Based on the name his father was Pandera, a Roman soldier. The really interesting part is his mother’s name was Miriam and her occupation was a hairdresser. Often that was used as a euphemism for “women of ill repute” and it is very interesting that her name in Aramaic is Miriam megdela neshaya which anyone can see is almost an exact translation of Mary Magdalene who oddly enough is the patron saint of hairdressers.

Before I get into the story, let me give you the text of Sanhedrin 43a

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! – Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a _Mesith_ [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, _Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?_ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

Interesting story in it’s own right but immediately some really odd similarities pop out. First thing we see is that Yeshu ben Pandera was hung on a tree on the eve of Passover much like the gospels claim happened 200 years later with Jesus. I am not claiming the stories are exact duplicates but just extremely similar. So similar that all Christians really should be uncomfortable knowing about this. Next similarity is that where Yeshu had someone crying forth for 40 days looking for favorable witnesses, in the Jesus myth that was both condensed into hours and the Romans were witnesses to his innocence while the Jews cried for blood. The 40 days was retained in the story of Jesus temptation in the desert and the crying forth was done by John the baptist before Jesus even started his mythological ministry.

The last thing I want to look at are the names of Yeshu’s disciples. In specific I really want to examine three names. Those are Matthai, Nezer and Buni. It is clear to anyone not blind that Matthai and Matthew are similar names. Nezer isn’t too clear a similarity [I suspect some Christians are squirming uncomfortably right about know]. The similarity isn’t in name but what the Christian’s claim about Jesus. That is that he was a branch or Nazarene. Both are variations of the Hebrew Netzer. Last to examine is the name Buni [I bet lots of Christians are making loud sighs of relief]. In a name ben means son of. As a word, Beni means my son and the Christian myth corrupted that to Jesus being gods son.

I can certainly understand how others can see a similarity with many pagan gods. In the early Church people said the same thing so how can anyone find fault with people for seeing the same now? It’s apparent, at least to me, that the Jesus myth borrowed heavily from other myths that were circulating at the time but a few salient points of the Jesus myth were taken directly from the Talmud. In particular the name Yeshu was corrupted to Yeshua [which was a necessary change since yeshua as a word in Hebrew means salvation], Mary Magdalene is a fiction directly stolen from the Talmud and the names of three disciples are very damning evidence that this was used as a source for the myth.

Some further reading you might enjoy

• Pious Fraud
• Who Moved The Stone?
• Christian Fraud
• Genealogy And Stuff