IS EASTER A BIBLICAL CELEBRATION?
“‘This do in remembrance of me . . . This cup,’ He said, ‘is the new Covenant ratified by my blood which is to be poured out on your behalf'”—Weymouth New Testament
Jesus commanded one celebration, called “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20 NIV).
No, Easter is not a Biblical celebration. It is nowhere mentioned in the Koine’ Greek text that the New Testament was originally written in. The 17th century King James Version mistranslates the Greek word for “Passover” as “Easter” at Acts 12:4, but even the New King James Version accurately translates this Greek word as “Passover” at Acts 12:4. Additionally, it is historically well documented in numerous reference works that many of the customs associated with Easter are drawn from paganism, with Christ’s name and resurrection tacked onto them. Ancient pagans often worshipped earth’s star, the sun, in various ways. Easter is built upon many such customs, as well as pagan early spring fertility rites, with modern-day sunrise services, being one result. Rabbits and eggs were often viewed as symbols of fertility by pagans. Other customs, such as Easter baskets and bonnets, and hot cross buns, had their origins in paganism. We can draw a principle to apply from something Jesus said on a different subject: “the pagan world runs after all such things” (Luke 12:30 NIV).
There is no documented evidence that early Christians celebrated Easter until the 4th century. What they did definitely observe was “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20 NIV), which was actually commanded by Jesus to be celebrated.
“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”—1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NIV
What Christians are commanded to observe is, not Easter, but “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20. That the “bread” is not literally Jesus’ physical “body”, as some claim, but symbolizes it, is proven by the fact that Jesus said, “this cup is the new covenant in my blood”. Thus, In a similar way, the red wine symbolizes Jesus’ “blood”, as he said, which symbolizes “God’s new covenant sealed with my blood” (Luke 22:20 GNB). This is the only celebration that Christians are Biblically commanded to celebrate.
“Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures”—1 Corinthians 15:3 NIV
This is the crux of Christianity: “Christ died for our sins”.
Let’s make no mistake, however, the resurrection of Jesus, is important, in fact, vital:
“If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”—1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV
“That water is picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ”—1 Peter 3:21 NLT
However, we’re not commanded to celebrate “the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. The only thing that Christians are commanded to celebrate is “the Lord’s death.” Celebrations of other events may fall under principle described by Paul as:
“You are scrupulously observing special days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you”—Galatians 4:10,11 NIV
However, just because people claim that a celebration is “in Yahweh’s honour” (Exodus 32:5,7 NJB), doesn’t guarantee that it is. Christians are advised to, “Carefully determine what pleases the Lord” (Ephesians 5:10 NLT).
On the other hand, we certainly should be very cautious in regard to adversely judging others about matters that are not specifically mentioned in the scriptures:
“Accept the one who is faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters”—Romans 14:1 NIV
“One person considers one day more sacred than another; another person considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord”—Romans 14:5,6 NIV
“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat . . . so then, we will each of us give an account of ourselves to God”—Romans 14:10-12 NIV
23 thoughts on “IS EASTER A BIBLICAL CELEBRATION?”
Ross, whenever you present what I believe to be false, deceptive, immoral, or harmful proclamations to the public, as you sometimes do on your blog, it is my duty to speak out against them.
RT1: No, Easter is not a Biblical celebration. It is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.
GW1: Paul mentions or implies celebrations of the resurrection of Jesus, regardless of how you label those events.
RT1: The King James Version mistranslates the Greek word for “Passover” as “Easter” at Acts 12:4, but even the KJV copycat New King James Version accurately translates the word as “Passover” at Acts 12:4.
GW1: The label does not matter. It is the meaning of the event which matters.
RT1: Additionally, it is historically well documented, in many reference works, that most of the customs associated with Easter are drawn from paganism, with Christ’s name and resurrection tacked onto them.
GW1: So what? Of course the Easter Bunny has been added as an embellishment of the celebration of the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
RT1: Ancient pagans often worshipped earth’s star, the sun, in various ways. Easter is built upon many such customs, as well as pagan early spring fertility rites, with modern-day sunrise services, being one result. Rabbits and eggs, were often viewed as symbols of fertility by pagans. Other customs, such as Easter baskets and bonnets and hot cross buns, had their origins in paganism.
GW1: That is correct. Nonsense added to nonsense.
RT1: There is no documented evidence that early Christians celebrated Easter until the 4th century. What they did definitely celebrate was “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:19 NIV), which was actually commanded by Jesus to be celebrated.
GW1: It depends what you mean by “celebrated.” It might be better to say “commemorated” or “honored” or “recognized.”
RT1: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”—1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NIV That the “bread” is not literally Jesus’ physical “body”, as some claim, but symbolizes it, is proven by the fact that Jesus said, “this cup is the new covenant in my blood”. Thus, In a similar way, the red wine symbolizes Jesus’ “blood”, which symbolizes “the new covenant”.
GW1: I agree that it is just symbolic, but of course you do know that some Christians think it is literal, like magic.
RT1: This the only celebration that Christians are Biblically commanded to celebrate.
GW1: There are no commands from God because God does not exist. Also, people celebrate or commemorate events even when they are not commanded to by anybody.
RT1: “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures”—1 Corinthians 15:3 NIV This is the crux of Christianity: “Christ died for our sins”.
GW1: Yes, it is the crux of Christianity and one of the dumbest ideas ever invented! If God did exist, he would never arrange for his son (or messenger) to be tortured and killed and then to serve as a scapegoat for all of humanity. That would be two immoral acts, and God would never commit any immoral act. If God wanted to forgive people, he would just do it simply and directly. But he would not want to forgive people because instead, he would want to both punish and reward people according to what they deserve. I don’t know why you continue to believe in these ancient superstitions, Ross.
RT1: Let’s make no mistake, however, the resurrection of Jesus, is important, in fact, vital: “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”—1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV
GW1: Paul was right – your preaching is useless and so is your faith since Jesus did not come back to life. There are four pieces of evidence which point to this conclusion.
RT1: “This water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It SAVES YOU BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST”—1 Peter 3:21 NIV
GW1: As I explained above, if God did exist, he would not use a human scapegoat for forgiveness.
RT1: However, we’re not commanded to celebrate “the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. The only thing that Christians are commanded to celebrate is “the Lord’s death.”
GW1: It would make more sense to celebrate the death of Hitler than the death of Jesus.
RT1: Celebrations of other Christian events may fall under principle described by Paul as: “You are scrupulously observing special days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you”—Galatians 4:10,11 NIV
GW1: Paul did waste his efforts because most of the things he preached were false, immoral, or harmful.
RT1: On the other hand, we certainly should be very cautious in regard to adversely judging others about such matters: “Accept the one who is faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters”—Romans 14:1 NIV
GW1: I have no faith at all, so is my faith weak?
RT1: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another person considers every day alike. each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord”—Romans 14:5,6 NIV
GW1: Since God does not exist, nothing is sacred. However, we can respect or honor people and things even though they are not sacred. I respect the principle of free speech. Jesus was killed because the Jews and Romans did not allow proper free speech.
RT1: “You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Why do you them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat . . . so then, we will each of us give an account of ourselves to God”—Romans 14:10-12 NIV
GW1: If somebody does something wrong in this life, we should inform them that they have done wrong and in some case report them to the police. This is true even though God does not exist and there will be no general judgement. And even though God does not exist, everything is not permitted; we still have morality.
You claim that “Paul mentions or implies celebrations of the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. However, there is no evidence in support of your claim in any of Paul’s 14 Biblical books, or letters, which run from Romans through Hebrews. He mentions Jesus’ command to celebrate, or observe, or honor, his death (1 Corinthians 11:23-26), which he called “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:19). While Paul prominently mentions Jesus resurrection, he makes no reference to any observing, or celebrating, of this event. “The Lord’s Supper” celebration by Christians replaced the “Passover” celebrated during the 1500 years preceding Jesus’ death. Jesus led the celebration with his apostles of the last valid celebration of the “Passover” (Luke 22:7-20). Easter customs drawn from paganism are fiction, with Christ’s name and resurrection overlaid on top of them, whereas Christ’s resurrection is based on historical facts. “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3), and we’re commanded, for good reason, to celebrate that. Human governments “have been established by God”, and their workers are called “God’s servants”. “They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1-7 NIV). We should only disobey them if them insist we disobey God (Acts 5:29). “Not everyone has faith” in God, and you’re one of them (2 Thessalonians 3:2 NIV).
“…whereas Christ’s resurrection is based on historical facts.”
False. I will present three lines of evidence against your claim.
There have been 108 billion human persons live and die on this Earth, and there is not one verified case of any of them coming back to life.
Not one first-person author-identified eye-witness report of any event of Jesus’ life has ever been found, including the alleged resurrection. It is just a story, not historical fact.
Even if God did exist and he wanted to use resurrection as a teaching tool, he would have arranged events much differently than what has been described for Jesus by Paul and the Gospels. For example, if Jesus had come back to life, he would have presented himself to the Jews and Romans who had opposed him and persecuted him. The Jewish and Roman journalists and historians would have documented these events, and we would have an abundance of these documents today. But we don’t. Thus, either God does not exist, or Jesus did not come back to life, or both.
BTW, if Jesus did come back to life, then he is alive today. Please arrange a meeting of him with you, me, and groups of our friends. You won’t and can’t do this since Jesus is dead.
There are a number of articles on this website which give abundant documentary evidence of the historical facts relating to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Please put enter into the search bar on this site, “Jesus’ Resurrection”, in order to see these articles.
Ross, that’s just a cop out, an evasion. I believe I’ve already refuted your points in those prior articles.
Let’s review what we know. It is almost certainly true that Jesus did not come back to life. Why?
1) There is not a single first-person author-identified eye-witness report about any event in the life of Jesus. Not one! All you have is stories, rumors, and claims.
2) Of 108 billion human persons who have lived and died on the Earth, there is no confirmed case of any of them coming back to life. Not one!
3) Even if God did exist (he doesn’t), he would not have arranged events for the resurrection of Jesus as they are described in the NT. First, he would have arranged for Jesus to present himself after coming back to life to the Jewish Sanhedrin, Pilate, and the Roman authorities who persecuted him. The journalists and historians of these people would have properly documented what happened and we would have those documents today. Secondly, if God wanted to sponsor or cause a resurrection of Jesus, then he would have arranged for Jesus to die of natural causes rather than crucifixion, and then resurrected him. No loving father, who is all-powerful and perfectly moral, would ever arrange for his own son to be humiliated, tortured, and murdered. Never!
So you see, the hypothesis of Jesus resurrection is hereby refuted.
You’ve never been able to refute any evidence presented here of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. We have in the Bible four “first person author-identified first-person account[s] about” many “event[s] in the life of Jesus”, plus other verified testimony. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to many events of Jesus’ life, and they wrote eyewitness accounts, recorded in their gospels. Mark was Peter’s scribe, and Peter was an eyewitness of Jesus and his life (2 Peter 1:16). Luke interviewed many of “those who from the first were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:1,2 NIV), and used their testimony in composing his gospel account. The Apostle Paul recorded the fact that the resurrected Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom [were] still living,” more than 20 years after this event, and could be still be interviewed (1 Corinthians 15:6 NIV).
RT: You’ve never been able to refute any evidence presented here of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.
GW: Of course I have!
RT: We have in the Bible four “first person author-identified first-person account[s] about” many “event[s] in the life of Jesus”,
GW: No, not a single one. Paul sometimes writes in the first person but he wasn’t an eye witness of Jesus’ life. He even admits this.
RT: plus other verified testimony.
GW: Not about any eye witnessing of Jesus.
RT: Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to many events of Jesus’ life, and they wrote eyewitness accounts, recorded in their gospels.
GW: No, they weren’t. You are just making that up. Consult with Bart Ehrman and you will learn the truth.
RT: Mark was Peter’s scribe, and Peter was an eyewitness of Jesus and his life (2 Peter 1:16).
GW: Here you are agreeing with me – the author of Mark was not an eye witness of Jesus! Where does it say within Mark that the author or Mark was Peter’s scribe? It doesn’t. You are just making that up.
RT: Luke interviewed many of “those who from the first were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:1,2 NIV), and used their testimony in composing his gospel account.
GW: Here again you are agreeing with me – the author of Luke was not an eye witness of Jesus! Who were the alleged eyewitnesses whom Luke interviewed? When and where did he interview them? Exactly what did they say to him? What were the inconsistencies or contradictions in the information he allegedly received? The author of Luke gives none of this information, and so there is no warrant to believe his claims. He could have gotten his information from rumors or reports which went through a long chain, or he could have fabricated or borrowed the information.
RT: The Apostle Paul recorded the fact that the resurrected Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom [were] still living,” more than 20 years after this event, and could be still be interviewed (1 Corinthians 15:6 NIV).
GW: Again, you are agreeing with me – Paul was not an eye witness of the life of Jesus. You are proving my point for me. The alleged appearance to 500 is not mentioned elsewhere, and if a meeting with 500 had actually happened, it would have been mentioned elsewhere. Paul does not name any of these alleged 500 or where they live. Furthermore, we don’t have a report from a single one of them! It’s an embellishment by Paul.
GW: You are grasping at straws. The evidence is just not good enough to draw the conclusion you want – that Jesus came back to life. As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And you just don’t have it. You wish to believe that Jesus came back to life because it gives you a smidgen of hope that you too will come back to life someday. But wishing or hoping doesn’t make it true.
Referring to himself, John writes in third person, “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you may believe” (John 19:35 NIV), admitting that he was an eyewitness. Peter writes, “we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16 NIV), including himself as being an eyewitness of Jesus. Peter’s words and actions in the gospels reveal that he was very abrupt and impulsive, and the text and syntax of Mark’s gospel is quite reflective of this. The scriptures reveal that Mark and Peter were very close associates in the years following Jesus’ death (Acts 12:12; 1 Peter 5:13). Tradition has it that Mark composed his gospel largely from Peter’s memoirs. While Luke and Paul were not eyewitnesses of Jesus while he was on earth, they did travel extensively together (Acts 16:6-17; 20:6-15; 21:1-15; 27:1-28:16; Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24), no doubt encountering some who had been eyewitnesses of Jesus, whom they could interview. Luke did not feel obligated to reveal all the details related to his interviews with “eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2 NIV). Using hyperbole’, John admits, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25 NIV). Without any hyperbole’, John also admits, “Jesus performed many other signs which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30,31 NIV). The extensive nature of Jesus’ activities, and the depth of his teachings, were such that the gospel writers needed to be selective in what they recorded, as John admits. Writing materials in those days were quite expensive, and the codex, or book form, had not yet been invented. They wrote on primitive paper and parchment, which was rolled into scrolls (2 Timothy 4:13 NIV), and did not have the convience of modern books.
RT: Referring to himself, John writes in third person, “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you may believe” (John 19:35 NIV), admitting that he was an eyewitness.
GW: You are proving my point for me! The author is not writing in the first person; he is writing in the third person, as you admit. Also, you don’t know that the author is referring to himself in this verse. You are just speculating about that. The author never says “On this date at this time at this place I, John of Zebede who is one of the original twelve disciples of Jesus, saw and heard Jesus after he had been crucified. We carried on a conversation for 15 minutes.” If you had a report like that, then you’d have some evidence worth considering, but you have nothing close to that.
RT: Peter writes, “we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16 NIV), including himself as being an eyewitness of Jesus.
GW: It is too vague. Peter never names the persons comprising “we.” Peter does not write in the first person. “Majesty” is just a way of addressing someone believed to be a king. So what?
RT: Peter’s words and actions in the gospels reveal that he was very abrupt and impulsive, and the text and syntax of Mark’s gospel is quite reflective of this.
GW: He doesn’t describe himself in the first person. He doesn’t say “I must admit that I am a very impulsive person. I sometimes act too quickly without thinking of the consequences.” Somebody is writing in the third person about a character he names “Peter.” This might just be a novel.
RT: The scriptures reveal that Mark and Peter were very close associates in the years following Jesus’ death (Acts 12:12; 1 Peter 5:13).
GW: According to the third person descriptions of some authors.
RT: Tradition has it that Mark composed his gospel largely from Peter’s memoirs.
GW: By referring to “tradition” you are proving my point for me. “Tradition” is not a first-person author-identified eye-witness report of any event in the life of Jesus. There is not one! Suppose someone wrote “John stood on the walkway at the top of the Empire State Building. He threw a bag of eggs over the railing. The bag did not drop towards the ground, but went straight up into the sky at high speed and never did come down. No broken eggs were found below.” Would you believe this claim? No, of course not. Why not? For mainly the same reasons that we should not believe that Jesus came back to life.
RT: While Luke and Paul were not eyewitnesses of Jesus while he was on earth, they did travel extensively together (Acts 16:6-17; 20:6-15; 21:1-15; 27:1-28:16; Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24), no doubt encountering some who had been eyewitnesses of Jesus, whom they could interview.
GW: That’s partly correct! Luke and Paul did not provide first-person author-identified eye-witness reports of any event in the life of Jesus. When you say “no doubt encountering…” you are just speculating. If they interviewed any eyewitnesses of Jesus, they do not provide us with a proper account of such interviews. They provide poor evidence of what they want us to believe.
RT: Luke did not feel obligated to reveal all the details related to his interviews with “eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2 NIV).
GW: If God did exist and he caused somebody to come back to life, he would have made eyewitnesses report EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAW IN DETAIL! God would not be an incompetent bungler.
RT: Using hyperbole’, John admits, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25 NIV).
GW: That claim is useless.
RT: Without any hyperbole’, John also admits, “Jesus performed many other signs which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30,31 NIV).
GW: Once again, Ross, this is not a first-person author-identified eye-witness report of any event in the life of Jesus. It is a third-person story. It could be totally fabricated. At any rate, it is insufficient to prove that Jesus came back to life.
RT: The extensive nature of Jesus’ activities, and the depth of his teachings, were such that the gospel writers needed to be selective in what they recorded, as John admits.
GW: Nonsense! Those who could write could have kept extensive notes of what they saw. We have no such thing in evidence. As I have said, if God did exist and caused Jesus to come back to life, God would have caused Jesus to present himself to his enemies after he came back to life. The Jewish and Roman journalists and historians would have written extensively about this, and we would have good records today. We don’t. Unfortunately, you paint God to be a bumbling idiot.
RT: Writing materials in those days were quite expensive, and the codex, or book form, had not yet been invented. They wrote on primitive paper and parchment, which was rolled into scrolls (2 Timothy 4:13 NIV), and did not have the convience of modern books.
GW: Oh yes, God could not possibly have ensured that they have proper writing materials to give eye witness accounts of Jesus’ life. [Sarcasm there]
GW: Anybody can believe that Jesus came back to life. That event is not logically impossible. But nobody can REASONABLY believe that Jesus came back to life. The evidence is insufficient in quality and quantity to warrant such a belief. As Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims (like somebody coming back to life) requires extraordinary evidence (like physical evidence, recordings, and first-person author-identified eye-witness reports which corroborate each other).” My emphasis in parentheses.
GW: You want, wish, and hope that Jesus came back to life BECAUSE you want, wish, and hope that YOU will come back to life. Human persons have a strong drive to survive. They have trouble dealing with the fact that they are going to die. This includes you.
2 Peter is written in first person. Examples of first person singular, “I think it is right to refresh your memory . . . (1:13). “I know that I will soon put it aside . . . ” (1:14). “I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things” (1:15). “This is now my second letter to you. I have both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles” (3:1,2). Examples of first person plural, “We did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty ” (1:16). “We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain” (1:18). “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable . . . ” (1:19). Regarding John, each writer has his/her own style and purposes for writing. In his gospel, John apparently adopted third person singular in referring to himself, so as not to draw undue attention to his close relationship to Jesus (John 13:24-26; 19:26; 21:7). John is not the only writer to have ever adopted this style of writing. An awareness of John’s style of writing reveals that he is “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23;19:26), who was an eyewitness to much of the content of his gospel. John’s first letter, 1 John, is written in first person (1:1-2:1,3,4,7,8,12-14,26,29; 5:13), and he admits his intimate association with Jesus (1 John 1:1-3). (All quotes from NIV).
RT: 2 Peter is written in first person. Examples of first person singular, “I think it is right to refresh your memory . . . (1:13). “I know that I will soon put it aside . . . ” (1:14). “I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things” (1:15). “This is now my second letter to you. I have both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles” (3:1,2).
GW: Can you present any examples in which the author describes in the first person an actual event in the life of Jesus which he observed? Can you show where the author actually identifies himself in the text?
RT: Examples of first person plural, “We did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty ” (1:16).
GW: Who are the “we”? What does “majesty” mean here? Where does he actually describe what he saw Jesus do in the first person?
RT: “We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain” (1:18).
GW: Who are the “we”? Whose voice? With him, who is that? What makes any mountain sacred? Why doesn’t the author speak for himself and let others speak for themselves? Does he say “I saw Jesus take water and turn it into wine, and this is exactly how it happened…”?
RT: “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable . . . ” (1:19).
GW: Who is the we? That is not the report of a specific observation; it is just a claim. What was the message, and what it is the evidence that it was “completely reliable”? How are we to judge that it was completely reliable without knowing the evidence? Are we just supposed to take the guy’s word for it?
RT: Regarding John, each writer has his/her own style and purposes for writing.
GW: So, the book of John has many writers? The style we are looking for is the first-person eye-witness description of events in the life of Jesus, especially events allegedly depicting miracles.
RT: In his gospel, John apparently adopted third person singular in referring to himself, so as not to draw undue attention to his close relationship to Jesus (John 13:24-26; 19:26; 21:7).
GW: That’s just a possible motive. So what? Writing in the third person is not acceptable as “extraordinary evidence” of a miracle.
RT: John is not the only writer to have ever adopted this style of writing.
GW: Which means that other writers also do not provide the necessary “extraordinary evidence” of a miracle. Suppose a writer says “The crowd watched as the bag of eggs flew straight up into the air and did not fall to the ground.” Is that good evidence? No way. Are you going to believe the author? No way. A first-person eye-witness report is not a story or a novel.
RT: An awareness of John’s style of writing reveals that he is “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23;19:26), who was an eyewitness to much of the content of his gospel.
GW: Absolutely not! I already refuted that idea long ago in one of our previous discussions. The concept of the “beloved disciple” does not appear in any other Gospel or in Paul. It is uncorroborated. The identity of the “beloved disciple” is not even revealed in the book of John. It was probably a literary device deceptively used by the author of John in an attempt to gain credibility. Also, if Jesus had a favorite, it was not John of Zebedee; it was Peter!
RT: John’s first letter, 1 John, is written in first person (1:1-2:1,3,4,7,8,12-14,26,29; 5:13), and he admits his intimate association with Jesus (1 John 1:1-3). (All quotes from NIV).
GW: Who was this John? Where does he clearly identify himself? Where in the first person does he clearly describe what he SAW Jesus do? Does he quote Jesus in the Aramaic language in which Jesus spoke?
GW: Ross, here is what you have not dealt with: If God did exist, he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral. And so, he would ensure that the documents of any resurrection which he arranged were perfect IN EVERY WAY! In the case of Jesus some of these documents would have been written by the Jewish and Roman authorities who opposed Jesus and to whom Jesus presented himself AFTER he allegedly came back to life. We don’t find this to be the case. So, it is obvious to any rational thinking person that either God does not exist, Jesus did not come back to life, or both! You are grasping at straws. I recommend that you read all the books of Bart Ehrman and listen to the debates he has had with Christians like yourself.
GW: Also, if Jesus came back to life, he is alive right now. Present him at a meeting of you, me, and some of our friends. You can’t! He is dead.
GW: You aren’t thinking rationally as a 21st century person can think. You are thinking as a first century person would think.
I’ve already given you examples (above) of Bible writers including themselves (in the first person) in the scenes they are describing. Jesus’ and Christian enemies admitted that miracles actually took place, although they sought to discredit them. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him” (John 11:47,48 NIV). “The chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him” (John 12:10 NIV). “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16 NIV). The soldiers were bribed by the priests to say Jesus’ disciples came and stole Jesus’ body from his burial cave-tomb (Matthew 28:11-15 NIV).
RT: I’ve already given you examples (above) of Bible writers including themselves (in the first person) in the scenes they are describing.
GW: Maybe a few in the first person, but unfortunately they are not describing contemporaneous events happening with Jesus. And so they are poor evidence for what you wish to believe.
RT: Jesus’ and Christian enemies admitted that miracles actually took place, although they sought to discredit them.
GW: Where’s your evidence? Present a first-person author-identified eye-witness report of Jesus performing an alleged miracle, presented by an enemy of Jesus or of Christians. How did they know the performance was a miracle? What is your definition of “miracle”? Some Christian preachers today claim that they are performing miracles. Do you believe them? If so, why? If not, why not?
RT: “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him” (John 11:47,48 NIV).
GW: Third-person, not first-person. Author is not identified in the text. Not written at the time of the alleged event. Story written at least 60 years after Jesus.
RT: “The chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him” (John 12:10 NIV).
GW: Third-person, not first-person. Author is not identified in the text. Not written at the time of the alleged event. Story written at least 60 years after Jesus. Mostly about Lazarus, not Jesus.
RT: “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16 NIV).
GW: Third-person, not first-person. Author is not identified in the text. Not written at the time of the alleged event. No names for “everyone.” No names for “they.”
RT: The soldiers were bribed by the priests to say Jesus’ disciples came and stole Jesus’ body from his burial cave-tomb (Matthew 28:11-15 NIV).
GW: Third-person, not first-person. Author is not identified in the text. Not written at the time of the alleged event. Story written at least 20-30 years after Jesus. Not corroborated by any other source. What soldier reported he was bribed? What priest reported that he made a bribe? What person saw a priest bribing a soldier? Again, poor evidence.
GW: Here is the kind of report you would need: “My name is Mary Magdalene. I have been a follower of Jesus for nearly three years. At approximately 6 AM on the Sunday after Jesus was placed in the tomb on Friday, I went to the tomb to adorn his body with spices. To my surprise, the stone was rolled back and inside there was no Jesus. I didn’t know what had happened. Perplexed, I wandered and pondered outside the tomb for about 15 minutes. Suddenly, I was approached by a man. Immediately, I heard him say ‘Mary,” and I immediately recognized his voice. I knew it was Jesus. As he approached I saw his face and indeed it was my Lord. How could he be crucified and now be walking outside the tomb?” Do you see the nature of this report? It is written in the first-person. The author is identified within the text. And it is of an eye witness reporting events as they are unfolding. I should add a fourth criterion – the report is contemporaneous. This means that it was written near the time of the events which are described, perhaps within hours or days.
GW: If you want to see reports like this written in modern times, go read some of the reports about the 9-11 terrorist attacks in NYC.
GW: There are at least four strong reasons to NOT believe that Jesus came back to life:
1) In 109 billion cases of people dying, there is not a single confirmed case of a person coming back to life. Not one!
2) There is no physical evidence or recordings of Jesus coming back to life, and the documentary evidence is very poor. There is not a single first-person, author-identified, eye-witness, contemporary report of any event involving Jesus in his life.
3) If God did exist, he would never arrange such a slipshod resurrection of Jesus as that reported in Paul and the Gospels. God would not have arranged for his own son to be humiliated, tortured, and murdered. No way. But if he did, then he would have arranged for the risen Jesus to present himself to his Jewish and Roman enemies who had persecuted him such that they would have believed he had come back to life and would have throughly documented it. We would have their strong documentation today. We don’t.
4) If Jesus came back to life, then he would have presented himself to us TODAY many times so that we too would believe that he had come back to life. This has never happened!
So, as you can see it is IRRATIONAL for ANYONE, including you, to believe that Jesus came back to life. As Paul himself said “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV) And so, Ross, your faith is useless, just as Paul said.
Matthew, John and Peter were contemporaries with Jesus (Luke 6:12-16). Writing about events 20-30, or even 60 years prior does not invalidate the historical facts the writers mention. For example, you could write about events that you’re familiar with, say 50 years ago. That fact doesn’t change the validity of your works.
RT: Matthew, John and Peter were contemporaries with Jesus (Luke 6:12-16).
GW: In the stories they are characters who were contemporaries of Jesus. But there is no good evidence that these characters were real people who actually wrote first-person, author-identified, eye-witness, contemporary reports about the events of Jesus life. Robin is also a contemporary of Batman in the same way.
RT: Writing about events 20-30, or even 60 years prior does not invalidate the historical facts the writers mention.
GW: You are begging the question. You don’t know that the claims in the NT stories are “historical facts”. And the actual fact that these stories were written 20-60 years after the alleged events weakens their credibility. Another interesting thing is that none of the original NT manuscripts was written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. All or almost all were written in Greek. This would be another source of error.
RT: For example, you could write about events that you’re familiar with, say 50 years ago. That fact doesn’t change the validity of your works.
GW: But I would write about those events in the first person, I would identify myself as author, and I would be an actual eye witness, unlike the Gospel writers. Even then, writing 50 years after the events would weaken my credibility. Why? Because memory is imperfect and corroborating witnesses might be difficult to find or dead. The documentary evidence in support of the hypothesis of Jesus coming back to life is TERRIBLY INADEQUATE and does not warrant belief in the hypothesis by anyone thinking rationally. Sure, if you want to believe by faith rather than reason you might be inclined to think Jesus came back to life. But faith is a vice, not a virtue.
There is no proof that Aramaic was the language regularly spoken by Jesus, although he likely did use it some. Koine Greek was the lingua franca during the Hellenistic Period, the Roman Empire, and the early Byzantine Period. Both the Septuagint (LXX), and the New Testament, were written in Koine’ Greek, the perfect language during that long period for God’s Word to be spread. It was widely understood and easily translatable, which facilitated the lightning speed by which Christianity spread!
RT: There is no proof that Aramaic was the language regularly spoken by Jesus, although he likely did use it some.
GW: Proof is not needed; good evidence is sufficient for proper belief. Aramaic was popular among Jews where Jesus lived. He probably spoke it as his primary language. I think the consensus of NT scholars agrees with me on this point. In his movie “The Passion of Christ,” the writer and director Mel Gibson even had his actors use Aramaic.
RT: Koine Greek was the lingua franca during the Hellenistic Period, the Roman Empire, and the early Byzantine Period.
GW: Not among the Jews in ancient Palestine.
RT: Both the Septuagint (LXX), and the New Testament, were written in Koine’ Greek, the perfect language during that long period for God’s Word to be spread.
GW: We know that the NT is not God’s Word since it has been shown by many proofs that God does not exist. Those books were written by ancient men.
RT: It was widely understood and easily translatable, which facilitated the lightning speed by which Christianity spread!
GW: I agree with that claim.
GW: Those authors who wrote the NT books in GREEK neither met nor observed Jesus during his lifetime.
Roman governor Pontius Pilate wrote a notice in Hebrew (“Evraika” in the Greek at John 19:19,20,) and Greek and Latin, and posted it on the cross that Jesus was executed on, which was at a crossroads, for all to see, giving evidence that it was Hebrew, not Aramaic that was primarily spoken by Palestinian Jews. The Roman army officer asked Paul, “Do you speak Greek” at Acts 22:37, indicating Koine’ Greek was the Lingua Franca of the occupying Roman legions. It was not written in Aramaic, modern “scholars'” opinions notwithstanding. Mel Gibson’s Biblical expertise was meager, at best. I’ve seen his movie, “The Passion of Christ” a couple times. It has numerous Biblical inaccuracies
RT: Roman governor Pontius Pilate wrote a notice in Hebrew (“Evraika” in the Greek at John 19:19,20,) and Greek and Latin, and posted it on the cross that Jesus was executed on, which was at a crossroads, for all to see, giving evidence that it was Hebrew, not Aramaic that was primarily spoken by Palestinian Jews.
GW: That is a story. Do you have a document written by Pontius Pilate or any Roman official of the time to corroborate the claim in the story? No, you don’t. Nevertheless, as you know, Greek is not Hebrew anyway.
RT: The Roman army officer asked Paul, “Do you speak Greek” at Acts 22:37, indicating Koine’ Greek was the Lingua Franca of the occupying Roman legions.
GW: That is a story. Do you have a report written by this alleged Roman army officer to corroborate the story. No, you don’t. It is almost certain that Jesus’ primary language would not have been Greek. Where are the first-person, author-identified, eye-witness, contemporary reports of events in the life of Jesus written in HEBREW or ARAMAIC. Oh, that’s right – none have been found.
RT: It was not written in Aramaic, modern “scholars’” opinions notwithstanding.
GW: Straw man. I’ve never said that the NT was written in Aramaic. I have said that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, and most NT scholars would agree with me.
RT: Mel Gibson’s Biblical expertise was meager, at best. I’ve seen his movie, “The Passion of Christ” a couple times. It has numerous Biblical inaccuracies
GW: He undoubtedly would disagree with you, and I disagree with you both. BTW, he is coming out with a “resurrection sequel.”
Four times in Mark he quotes Jesus speaking Aramaic words, and each time the writer, Mark, provides a translation, indicating that he did not expect his readers to understand the Aramaic. ” . . . and said to her, ‘Talitha koum!’ (which means ‘Little girl, I say to you, get up!’)'” (Mark 5:41 NIV). ” . . . and with a deep sigh said to him, ‘Ephphatha!’ (which means ‘Be opened!’)” (Mark 7:34 NIV). “‘Abba, Father,’ he said” (Mark 14:36 NIV). “At three in the afternoon Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?’ (which means ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’)” (Mark 15:34 NIV). While it is obvious that Jesus used some Aramaic words, there is no indication that Aramaic was his primary language. The gospel of Mark, like the rest of the NT, is written in Koine’ Greek, the Lingua Franca of the Roman Empire, far and away the best language for the NT to be written in.
Thank you for providing evidence in support of my claim that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic most of the time, that it was his primary language.
The evidence indicates that Hebrew was the Lingua Franca of Palestinian Jews, including Jesus, in the 1st century, and that Aramaic was also in common usage in that area. When Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of Christ”, is compared to the life events of Jesus as described in the four Gospels, there are numerous discrepancies. For example, he takes liberties by adding in many things that aren’t in the Gospels, which is typical of Hollywood.
RT: The evidence indicates that Hebrew was the Lingua Franca of Palestinian Jews, including Jesus, in the 1st century, and that Aramaic was also in common usage in that area.
GW: Maybe, but the evidence indicates that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic.
RT: When Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of Christ”, is compared to the life events of Jesus as described in the four Gospels, there are numerous discrepancies.
GW: Well, this would not be surprising at all since there are numerous discrepancies in the Gospels themselves, as I pointed out in chapter 14 of my book – God Wants You to be an Atheist.
RT: For example, he liberties by adding in many things that aren’t in the Gospels, which is typical of Hollywood.
GW: The film was never meant to be a documentary. It is a dramatized story based on the Gospels which are themselves mostly fiction.
GW: You have said nothing which refutes any of the four strong reasons to NOT believe that Jesus came back to life:
1) In 109 billion cases of people dying, there is not a single confirmed case of a person coming back to life. Not one!
2) There is no physical evidence or recordings of Jesus coming back to life, and the documentary evidence is very poor. There is not a single first-person, author-identified, eye-witness, contemporary report of any event involving Jesus in his life.
3) If God did exist, he would never arrange such a slipshod resurrection of Jesus as that reported in Paul and the Gospels. God would not have arranged for his own son to be humiliated, tortured, and murdered. No way. But if he did, then he would have arranged for the risen Jesus to present himself to his Jewish and Roman enemies who had persecuted him such that they would have believed he had come back to life and would have throughly documented it. We would have their strong documentation today. We don’t.
4) If Jesus came back to life, then he would have presented himself to us TODAY many times so that we too would believe that he had come back to life. This has never happened!
So, as you can see it is IRRATIONAL for ANYONE, including you, to believe that Jesus came back to life. As Paul himself said “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV) And so my dear Christian, your faith is useless, just as Paul said.