Four items appear below:

1    Christianity Considered (K. Straughen)

2    Christianity Considered and Convincing (Anonymous)

3    Final Reply to Anonymous — Christianity Considered (K. Straughen)

4    Christianity Considered: Reply to Straughen's "Final Reply" (Anonymous)

Introduction

Christians claim that out of all the world's religions, past and present, only their's is true. In this article I will examine the following beliefs in an attempt to assess the tenability of this assumption: the virgin birth, Jesus' divinity, the resurrection, revelation, the formation of the Canon and its interpretation, Biblical inerrancy, salvation and whether Christianity promotes high ethical standards.


Pagan Influences

Scholars have found that many ideas in Christianity are derived from the mystery religions of the Roman Empire — those cults based on the theologies of Egypt, Persia and Greece which included ideas such as: sacred communion, life after death, virgin births and resurrections:


Was Jesus' resurrection any more factual than Mithra's?  The only thing we can be really certain of is that he was a man, and like all men he died.  That he was deified by his followers after his death is possible, for Siddhartha Gautama (c. 563-483 BC), or the Buddha, suffered a similar fate long before Jesus:


The account of Jesus' miraculous birth appears to be a later development that was also derived from pagan myths:


It is interesting to note that the Buddha was also said to have been born from a virgin, in his case Queen Maya.  That miracles could flourish in a prescientific age should not be surprising, for when people are ignorant of Nature's laws, and attribute all manner of events to supernatural agencies, then anything becomes possible to superstitious minds.


Divine Revelation

Christianity is based on the Bible, and apologists assert that the Bible (and therefore Christianity) is trustworthy because it is a divine revelation.  However, as Thomas Paine correctly pointed out in his The Age of Reason, a revelation is only a revelation:


It is pertinent to keep this in mind when we consider the fact that the Gospels were not written by Jesus, nor any of his disciples or, for that matter, by persons at the time of the events they relate — scholars estimate they were written between 60 and 100 AD, and may have been based on earlier writings (e.g. "Q" and proto-Mark) thought to have been written in 50-59 AD, and now lost. However, as the Jerome Biblical Commentary points out, even these writings were "hardly a verbatim report of what had been said and done in the 20's," (page 527) the period when the alleged events are thought to have taken place.

The authors of Matthew and Luke appear to have based their versions on the Gospel of Mark, and in Matt. 27:52-53 we find an account of many saints being resurrected along with Jesus, going into the Holy City, and being seen by large numbers of people. This event is not recorded in Mark, and shows the resurrection was a tale that grew with the telling.  So, the Gospels are not a revelation, they are merely the opinions of men based on oral traditions that are vulnerable to rapid distortion.


The Canon & Interpretation

The Canon, or list of sacred books that comprise the Bible as we know it, did not exist in the early stages of Christianity's formation.  Indeed, there was considerable disagreement on what literature should have been included; a situation that still exists to this day:


Considering that the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament were chosen from a body of competing religious literature, how can we be certain they are anything other than spurious products of the human mind?  Apologists claim that the Canon was drawn up under the guidance of God, however, if this was really the case then the process should not have been so protracted, nor the disputes so bitter, or for that matter disagreement persist to this day.

Christians often claim that God guides them in their interpretation of Scripture.  If this was true, then Christian theology would be consistent. However, history shows that different beliefs existed in different ages, a fact that many believers overlook:


So, who is correct?  The Syrian Orthodox Church for recognising only twenty-two of our New Testament books, or our Christians for recognising twenty-seven?  Whose interpretations are correct — the Church Fathers, those of the medieval period, or those of contemporary Churches?  If apologists argue that contemporary theology is more accurate than the dogma of previous ages, then it raises the question of why God allowed the Church to believe in false doctrines for so long, and thereby imperil the souls of the faithful.


Contradictions

The New Testament contains many contradictions that should not exist if it was in fact written and compiled under the guidance of God.  Indeed, there should be no contradictions, especially concerning a central belief such as the resurrection:


It should be obvious that this account is not trustworthy.  Firstly, the event was not recorded by Jesus' disciples because the Bible makes it clear they did not witness the resurrection. Secondly, the authors of Scripture who wrote the account did so long after the event is said to have taken place, and appear to have relied on oral tradition.  Thirdly, even if the various accounts are based on eyewitness testimony, the fact that there is disagreement is sufficient to call into question the reliability of the witnesses.  Fourthly, if God guided the authors of Scripture who wrote the accounts, and/or assisted the witnesses to recall the events, then God did not do a very good job, which raises even more questions.


Salvation

According to Christianity, God created Adam and Eve, placed them in a garden in Eden, and warned them they must not eat from a certain tree or they would die (Gen. 2:16 & 3:2-3). Eve is tempted by the Serpent, eats the fruit and gives some to Adam who does likewise.  Because of this, God curses humanity with death, sorrow, and hell. The question is this: are these the actions of an all-wise God?  In my opinion the answer is a definite no.

Firstly, Adam and Eve can't be wholly blamed for eating the fruit — God deliberately put temptation in their path by creating the Tree, and the Serpent who tempts Eve.  Secondly, they were created morally naive, knowing neither good nor evil (as is indicated by Gen. 3:22), and therefore would not have comprehended God's injunction or its consequences. Moreover, some Christians claim that death did not exist at this point in time, and one wonders how Adam and Eve could have understood something that did not exist. Furthermore, the Serpent is described as exceptionally subtle (Gen. 3:1), so it is no surprise that two people, whose naivety was predetermined, fell for its schemes because, knowing neither good nor evil, they would not recognise it as Evil.

Now, this state of affairs does not strike me as what one would expect from the plans of an all-wise God.  If God was all-wise then It would have known that the Serpent would tempt Eve, yet It creates the Serpent  (often identified with God's arch enemy — Satan, which raises the question of why an all-wise being would create Lucifer, when It knew it would become an enemy); It would have known that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, yet it creates the Tree; It would have known that millions of beings would suffer and be condemned to eternal damnation, yet It sets the whole sorry state of affairs in motion, and condemns us for our imperfect natures when our natures, which It created, were never perfect to begin with, for a perfect being would not have succumbed to Satan.

Now, according to the Church, about two thousand years ago God became a man, and yet was still God (a contradiction that has not been satisfactorily resolved to this day), sacrificed Himself to Itself in order to save humanity from Itself, and whoever believes in this will be saved.  Is this the plan we would expect from an all-wise being (or should I say beings, as there now appears to be three distinct personalities - Jehovah, Jesus and the Holy Spirit)?

The answer is no, it is not.  Firstly, anatomically modern humans have been around for about 40,000 years, so as we can see, God's salvation plan is somewhat late to say the least.  Secondly, the promise of salvation is conditional — one must have faith in Jesus, and imposing this condition is not very wise because millions have died before Jesus' birth, and therefore will not be saved. Moreover, millions more have died after Jesus' alleged resurrection and, because of their geographical location and the slow spread of Christianity, did not hear the Gospel's message.  Some Christians claim that those who died without hearing the "Good News" can be saved.  However, if people can be saved without faith in Jesus, then why impose this condition in the first place.

Thirdly, the dissemination of God's message was left in the hands of fallible men who, as we have seen, disagreed on matters theological from the very beginning, continue to do so and, as we shall see, threw Christianity into disrepute by the commission of atrocities. 


Ethics

Apologists sometimes claim that Christianity contributes towards higher ethics; however, can a religion that embodies moral contradictions really make such a contribution? For example, the idea of vicious punishments for limited sins is both cruel and unjust, and is contrary to the idea of a benevolent God. Indeed, if God - the highest moral authority — behaves in a cruel manner, then Its bad example will have a detrimental effect on others:


If God considers it acceptable to slaughter people who displease It, then in the minds of those who read such accounts and believe themselves to be servants of this being, it becomes acceptable to slaughter heretics and suspected witches who are considered to be in league with God's enemy —  Satan.  Unfortunately, history shows this is exactly what Christians did.  Another problem with Christianity is that in more recent times it has continued to legitimise the unjust policies of the ruling elite, often at the expense of others:


Although Christianity may have benefited some people by alleviating the fear of death and providing meaning to their lives, the good that it has done, in my opinion, has been overshadowed by the suffering it has caused.


Conclusion

In my opinion, Christianity can't be considered more true than any other religion - many of its beliefs are predated by pagan concepts, and these appear to have had an influence on the formation of Christian ideas.  In the past some Christians argued that this similarity was due to a satanic conspiracy. However, this assumption raises more questions than it answers — why would a morally perfect being allow Its arch enemy to sabotage the plan of salvation by causing doubt to arise in the minds of others?  Moreover, if Christianity was the "One True Faith" then God would have taken a special interest in this religion, and carefully guided the Church throughout its history. However, history shows that the Church fell into evil ways and was riven by doctrinal disputes, facts which tend to negate such claims.



Fox, R.L. The Unauthorised Version, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1992.

Gillooly, R.J. All About Adam & Eve, Prometheus Books, New York, 1998.

McKinsey, C.D. The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995.

Muller, H.J. The Uses of the Past, The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., New York, 1959.

Paine, T. The Age of Reason, Watts & Co., London, 1938.

Robertson, I. Sociology (2nd edition), Worth Publishing, Inc., New York,1981.

Robertson, J.M. A Short History of Christianity (3rd edition), Watts & Co., London, 1931.

Scott, G.R. A History of Torture, Studio Editions Ltd., London, 1995.

Yearsley, M. The Story of the Bible, Watts & Co., London, 1936.

The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Cassell & Collier Macmillan Publishers Ltd., London, 1976.

---

Kevin Rogers, writer for Investigator Magazine, once noted that Mr Straughen "waits for the dust to settle" and then repeats his previous comments and arguments.

In "Christianity Considered" (Investigator #204 & #205) Mr Straughen again raised many claims previously answered and which seemed settled.

What I've done for decades is establish the Bible's credibility, one point or a few points at a time, by citing scientific discoveries. Based on the findings I predicted the trend will continue with more of the Bible getting confirmed.

Because Straughen has repeated so many objections all at once, my answers will have to be brief, omitting much evidence.



Were many Christian ideas derived, as Straughen claims, from "mystery religions … based on the theologies of Egypt, Persia and Greece"?

The "copycat" thesis cites alleged similarities and parallels between the Bible and the idolatry of Egypt, Persia and Rome and even ancient America, China and Japan. I discussed this in:


The New Testament has no quotes from "mystery religions", instead hundreds of quotes from the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the source for the New Testament.

The main champion and reference cited by supporters of the pagan-origin thesis is Gerald Massey (1828–1907), self-taught Egyptologist and Spiritualist whose first wife was a spirit-medium. His spiritualism suggests Massey's motive — the Bible condemns consulting the dead, therefore discredit the Bible!

In condensed style Massey consults ancient religions and describes countless alleged links between them. It's often unclear where he's quoting from thus making his claims hard to check.

Many claims appear made up. He alleges that Egypt's falcon-headed god Horus, for example, was born of a virgin on December 25th, baptized by Anus the baptizer, crucified, and rose three days later. But references for these allegations in Egyptian hieroglyphics seem absent.

Various websites declare that Horus' mother was the goddess Isis, not a human virgin, his birth date is unspecified, and he wasn't baptized or crucified.

Sometimes Massey's parallels seem influenced by similar lettering in names. In his "Lectures" Massey derives King Herod (who had the Bethlehem babies murdered) from a mythical subterranean serpent named "Herrut". Note the H and r in common and d from t. The following excerpt illustrates Massey's style of cramming every paragraph with imaginative parallels masquerading as facts, extracted from every ancient writing available to him:


This parallel got demolished in the 1960s with Herod's historicity as a human king confirmed by archaeology.

Much of what Massey presents as history is imagination. For example: "the Egyptians had secretly cultivated the science of astronomy for 40,000 years before it was made known to the rest of the world."

Kevin Rogers (2014) noted:


There were also pagan resurrection myths aside from Horus. Nowadays recoveries occur in hospitals of patients who in previous centuries would have been declared dead. Does this tenuous similarity prove surgical successes are lies based on resuscitation legends of ancient "mystery religions"?  Of course not.

Virgin (or miraculous) birth legends are reported from lands with no ancient connections to Israel including Mongolia, China, Japan, the Aztec Empire, etc. (Wikipedia) Genesis 3:15 can be understood as predicting the virgin birth of Jesus. If the virgin-birth idea originated that long ago, before humans dispersed worldwide, its future adoption in pagan cults is explained.

Since 1978 in vitro fertilisation using sperm donors has become popular and also lets unmarried virgins produce virgin births. Does this tenuous parallel with ancient gods prove the modern technology a myth?

In Investigator #129 I argued that the concepts of"similarity" and"parallel lives" are subjective. The rules of logic don't define when"similarities" are relevant so as to constitute evidence for copying. The error in the copy-thesis is that proponents list whatever supports the thesis but exclude additional details that refute it. In #74 I listed parallels between Horus and Hitler but deliberately ignored thousands of differences. It's the thousands that would refute anyone who argued that Hitler is a legend based on Horus.

The ancient "mystery religions" were idolatrous pagan crap and died out. The Bible's credibility is supported in that it predicted the demise of the ancient gods. It also predicted that the biblical message would reach every nation and language, which we now observe.



Straughen says that "apologists assert that the Bible is trustworthy because it is a divine revelation". He refutes such apologists by citing Thomas Paine (1794) that a revelation is a revelation:


I share Straughen's exasperation. Many sect members validate their faith by claiming "We have the testimony of Jesus" or "Moses confirms that…" Such apologists are merely assuming the Bible is true. The same method — of quoting a foundation document where it claims to be the truth — would "prove" almost every belief including Mormonism, Islam, racism, etc.

My method, as explained before, is different. I test bible statements, whichever statements seem testable, by going to the scientific literature. It is scientific discoveries that reveal the facts. Then I generalize what this method finds out. Generalizing from experience is called inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is what everyone does all the time. When friends, doctors, textbooks, teachers, etc, are found to be regularly reliable, we trust them. Alternatively, when our sources get things wrong, we become sceptical. This principle I apply to the Bible. The Bible's claim to be true is not what proves it true; rather the confirmation by science of its testable statements.

In Investigator #130 I expressed it this way:


Straughen says that the "many saints being resurrected" (Matthew 27:52-53) is not mentioned in other gospels, and shows that Jesus' resurrection was "a tale that grew with the telling."

Firstly, I pointed out, in #126 & #105, that Matthew 27:52-53 is probably mistranslated. What happened is that an earthquake threw corpses out of tombs, and people who observed this event, not the corpses, walked into Jerusalem and reported it! Secondly, the mention of additional details in different documents is not necessarily proof that "a tale grew with the telling." Every book about WWII in my home library has some information not mentioned in the other books. Nevertheless, WWII did occur and is not "a tale that grew with the telling."



Straughen doubts that the correct books made it into the Bible.

We considered this topic in #127, titled "New Testament Canon", which responded to Dr Potter's list  (#126) of "23 gospels" that never made it in.

A check that the Church identified the books correctly is the following thought experiment:

Suppose I rip the chapters out of 50 books, scrub out the chapter number above each chapter, also all the page numbers, and mix the chapters like shuffled cards into random sequence. Could we work out which chapters belong to which book and reassemble the 50 books or a subset of the fifty?

Yes. Patient reading, checking for consistency and themes will let us disentangle the chapters and restore every book. Time-consuming but theoretically doable.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
The same is true of the biblical Canon because books proposed for inclusion are not too many. In this case a further help is that Canonical books usually quote each other, but rarely other sources.

We can also check for scientific accuracy. The Bible as we have it demonstrates a trend covering thousands of years of its statements getting confirmed. Do other books, whose devotees want them in the Bible or equal to the Bible, contribute to this trend? In Investigator #107 I compared the Book of Mormon:


Straughen says if the Canon was drawn up under God's guidance "the process should not have been so protracted, nor the disputes so bitter…" How could Straughen know such a thing? There is bitter, protracted dispute everywhere because everyone wants to be considered right. (Proverbs 12:15; 14:12,15;  16:2; 18:17; 21:2)

The Bible assists research with reminders that:


These reminders help in Bible study; in confirming the Canon; and in other research.



I showed in #144 that the four resurrection narratives about Jesus are mutually consistent and the alleged contradictions a mirage.

Consider Straughen's first alleged "contradiction", the timing when witnesses visited Jesus' tomb. Was it "dawn"? "very early"? or "still dark"? (NRSV Bible)

I once attended the aftermath of a collision between truck and train — bottles and goods were strewn all around. I went back twice to watch the cleanup. Other locals also showed up, some left and returned with friends.

That's psychological reality. People confronted by a rare, disturbing, interesting, rewarding, or mysterious event may return several times and bring others. The visits of different combinations of people at Jesus' tomb at different times reflect reality! Recognize this and the additional so-called "contradictions" become solvable.

Consider also that it's extremely difficult for colluding liars to produce a consistent fabrication when complex grammar or careful logic is involved. We've all observed debates that broke down into confusion over word-meanings or over what follows from what. Careful analysis, however, shows the four resurrection narratives to be mutually corroborating despite the complicated comings and goings they describe.



Straughen criticizes Genesis 3 which describes the origin of evil because God in the narrative:


Also:

Philosophers of religion have debated some of these points for centuries. Therefore my comments are tentative:

Adam and Eve, in the narrative, were not naiive but knew that one tree is dangerous and obedience to God's counsel was necessary for safe living. Nevertheless they disobeyed the God who gave them everything and obeyed the source that gave nothing except misleading words. Perfection, whether physical or moral, does not ensure continued perfection — what a person is like has to be continually maintained.

Does God know the entire future in advance?

Consider the game Noughts and Crosses. We can work out and list every possible position of noughts and crosses permitted by the rules. Despite knowing every position at every stage of the game, the sequence of moves of the next two players remains unknown. Similarly God might know every possible future configuration or set of positions of all particles in the Universe, but not know, due to free choices and quantum uncertainty, which sequence will occur.

What about the suffering endured by billions of humans who lived after Adam and Eve?

Evil and suffering by humans, is temporary, the consequence of their independence from God. It is allowed to run its course to prove that humans cannot adequately distinguish good and evil, therefore cannot rule themselves safely without God. The eventual result will be a Universe where humans trust God and God in turn can trust humans. In the Eden story the two humans succumbed when left unsupervised. In the eternal future non-supervision may also sometimes occur, but humans will know (from what happened on Earth) that obedience is best, therefore will freely choose it. A Universe in which free intelligent creatures can be trusted is better than one in which they have to be continually watched and compelled.

One reason why humans cannot adequately distinguish good and evil is the "butterfly effect". Paul Davies (1995) writes regarding physics, astronomy and weather:


The same phenomenon, of tiny events amplifying into unpredictable, world-changing consequences, is also true of human actions. The Bible says that sin and death spread from one man to everyone (Romans 5:12), a big consequence from a small event!

A recent discovery in genetics is that of all the deaths from Covid, one million deaths are due to a single letter difference in a DNA strand. That single letter difference arose and spread through the human race after a human female and Neanderthal male had sex 60,000 years ago! (Whipple 2022) If true, it's a huge consequence that no one for 60,000 years suspected!

In 1921 scientist/inventor Thomas Midgely (1889-1944) cured "engine knocking" in cars (caused by the premature ignition of the air-fuel mixture in cylinders) by adding lead to the fuel. Cars subsequently spread lead throughout the environment, causing millions of heart attacks and strokes! (Howe 2022) It's another huge consequence from small beginnings!

Midgely did it again in 1928. He developed the non toxic gas "Freon" to improve the working of refrigerators. The consequence was the near-destruction by "chlorofluorocarbons" of Earth's ozone layer. It was an end-of-civilization threat! The danger was fortunately identified in time and the chemicals banned in 1987 by international agreement!

Only God can know all possibilities and variations that can follow any decision or action. Therefore, for safe long-term survival, humans need God.

What about Straughen's point that salvation, being dependent on "faith in Jesus", unfairly condemns people who never heard of Jesus?

The Bible indicates that uninformed people will be judged by how they lived. If they adopted godly standards, they'll be counted as if they had faith in Jesus — Romans 2:12-16; Matthew 25:31-46; I John 2:2. They don't earn salvation because no one achieves moral perfection, therefore Jesus' "sacrifice for sin" is still essential.

Some critics call it unjust to punish an innocent person (i.e. Jesus) to save others. However, there's nothing wrong with this if it's voluntary. Similar behaviour occurs whenever one person pays another person's fine out of kindness, or loses his life in the process of rescuing someone.



Suppose someone argues: "Australia's government orchestrated vicious, unlimited slaughter of Japanese [in the 1940s] although any provocation was limited. That is why Australia has so much crime — because criminals feel inspired to copy Australia's Government."

Change "Australia's government" to "God", "Japanese" to "Canaanites", "Australia" to "Christianity" and it is how Straughen caricatures biblical ethics.

Ethical rules and laws need to allow for the "butterfly effect" (as discussed above). Otherwise they cannot indefinitely promote life of high quality. Besides the general principle of judging others as they judged, biblical rules distinguish guilt from innocence, war from peace, individuals from the nation, and unprovoked attack from response. Biblical ethics, if obeyed, can also prevent the end of the world from a global fire that incinerates all nations — see II Peter 2:6; 3:10-12. If God in the Old Testament sometimes seems harsh it is because all this is taken into account while also permitting humans as much independence as possible short of letting them wipe themselves out.

Regarding the Law of Moses: The intention for it was to establish the world's fairest system of justice:


The Law opposed poverty, provided for orphans and widows, and disallowed horrific tortures that other nations perpetrated (and sometimes still do). The Law restricted "slavery" to seven years, disallowed sexual slavery, and made slavery so benign that some slaves preferred it to freedom. The Law's foundation — two commandments about love plus the Ten Commandments — has inspired the founding of numerous charities, hospitals and schools and much of the scientific research that raised living standards worldwide.

Regarding Christianity: Christ instructed his followers to be non-judgemental and merciful. This meant that many people became church members without giving up their evil ways. (Matthew 7:1-5; 21-23; 13:24-30; Luke 14:15-24; II Peter 2:12-22) To judge all Christianity by such hypocrites, as does Straughen, and ignore the improved living standards that Christianity brought, is like judging entire countries solely by the crimes committed by criminals.



During the writing of this article archaeologists announced the probable discovery of St Peter's birthplace. The Bible is getting confirmed point after point, statement after statement, not just by archaeology but by many scientific disciplines, and this has gone on for centuries. Other religious traditions, like Massey's Spiritualism and Egypt's Horus, remain scientifically unsupported. Science, however, does not connect people to God. Science merely establishes a set of facts that make reaching out to God a rational, inductive, decision.



Davies, P. 1995 The Cosmic Blueprint, Penguin, 51-56

Howe, A. The small-town scientist who poisoned the world, The Weekend Australian, July 30-31, 2022, p. 16

Investigator Magazine:
#74 The Bible: Original Truth, Not Recycled Myth
#76 & #82 Slavery
#92 Isaiah's Virgin
#105 Testing The Bible — Part 2
#107 Transmission Of Scripture
#126 Response To Rogers On Dawkins
#127 New Testament Canon
#129 Jesus Versus Mythology
#129 No Smoke, No Fire, Just Another Con
#130 Historians and Jesus
#139 The Bible Consistent 5 — Eye Witnesses
#141 The Bible Consistent 5 — Response
#144 The Bible Consistent 5 — The Resurrection of Jesus
#162 The Bible Versus Idols And Idolatry
#171 Is Christmas Pagan?

Massey, G. 1907 Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World Volume II, T. Fisher Unwin

Massey, G. 2020 Gerald Massey's Lectures, Global Grey

Rogers, K. #155 Parallels between Jesus and Horus, Investigator 155, March 2014

Spencer, R. Archaeologists claim to have found St Peter's birthplace, The Weekend Australian, August 13-14, 2022, p. 10

Whipple, T. Quickie led to a million deaths, The Weekend Australian, June 11-12, 2022, p. 3

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-jesus-simply-a-retelling-of-the- horus-myth/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/miraculous_births

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Osiris-Egyptian-god

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/cleaning-up-the-horus-manure

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/can-you-get-pregnant-without-having-sex#is-it-possible

YouTube video: Horus Ruins Christmas.

---

I thank Anonymous for his helpful reply to my article published in No. 204 and No. 205. I've done additional research on the pagan influences in Christianity, as well as other subjects in Anonymous' response and am not convinced that his arguments have solved the problems under discussion.

I have tried to keep my reply as brief as possible, and to do this I've provided links to additional articles which people can read. Some may see these articles as supporting my view while others may see them as supporting Anonymous' position. I encourage all to read them and then decide for themselves whether my view or that of Anonymous is more likely to be correct.


Pagan influences

Christianity developed in classical culture, and I don't think we need quotes in the Bible from the mystery religions of the ancient world to see the influences they had on the new faith.

Ideas, attitudes and values are often absorbed at a subconscious level through popular culture, and it is these subconscious ideas that can often influence beliefs. No matter where people come from or what age they are born in everyone starts somewhere culturally.

Naturally, there are always going to be scholarly disagreements as to whether Christianity was influenced by pagan ideas and if so to what extent. It is a contentions issue, especially for some believers. For further reading on pagan influences see:

Mystery Religions and their Influence on the New Testament and Early Christianity:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359616378_Mystery_Religions_and_their_Influence_on_the_New_Testament_and_Early_Christianity

As well as influences from pagan religions there are also influences from Greek philosophy as is shown in the following article:

Greek Philosophy and Christian Theology:
https://classroom.synonym.com/greek-philosophy-christian-theology-12086330.html


Scientific Explanations and Biblical Contradictions

Anonymous says he uses inductive reasoning to show the Bible is correct. His broad claim is that he has proven many parts of the Bible are true and this indicates a trend that is likely to continue. His opinion that he has demonstrated the truth of the Bible is a self-assessment and is therefore subjective. The problem with inductive reasoning is that because it is incomplete a person can be wrong even if their observations are accurate. For a full explanation see the link below:

What are the Limitations of Inductive Reasoning:
https://faq-ans.com/en/Q%26A/page=e73311425b726d36fbdbd31b
b3c267d3

In my opinion a further weakness of many of Anonymous' arguments is that they are merely explanations by scenario that are designed to extract Scripture from a mire of contradictions and other difficulties. For example on page 13 of No. 206 with regard to Matthew 27:52-53. Here, Anonymous speculates an earthquake disinterred the dead. No sound evidence is given to support the claim, or that there is a mistranslation of Scripture. An assumption has simply been constructed in an attempt to solve the problem.



That the canon is of entirely human origin rather than divine is supported by the nature of its formation. If the Bible really is the Word of God then direct divine intervention from the beginning to set the record right would have occurred. For additional information on the formation of the canon see below:

How Was the Canon Formed?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00145246221088365

The messy nature of the canon's formation could easily have been avoided. A few moments before Jesus ascended to heaven after is earthly mission he could have handed his disciples his autobiography in the form of a book that was both indestructible and incapable of being misplaced. This book could have also outlined all aspects of Christian theology and thus prevent divisive disputes. For a god who allegedly possesses the power to create an entire universe this shouldn't be a problem.

Anonymous makes the analogy of ripping out the chapters of 50 books, mixing them up, reassembling them by cross reference and that this somehow lends credence to the accuracy of the canon. With all due respect we could do the same with 50 books of children's fairy tales, but this doesn't mean that their contents is true.

In addition there are a number of books referenced in the Bible that are not actually a part of the Bible, which seems to indicate that Scripture is incomplete. For further information see here:

The Lost Books of the Old Testament:
https://claudemariottini.com/2009/12/29/the-lost-books-of-the-old-testament/



Anonymous explanations are not only tentative but also unproven. I don't think I need say too much more and refer the reader to the following for a different perspective:

The Immortal Myth of Adam and Eve:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-immortal-myth-of-adam-and-eve

The idea that Jesus was a sacrifice for the sins of humans is a primitive belief that even thoughtful Christians have problems with. For an alternative Christian perspective see here:

Confronting Atonement Theology:
https://um-insight.net/perspectives/confronting-atonement/


I reiterate — the idea of Hell is is incomparable with that of a loving God. Below is a link to an article on the subject. It is rather long, but in my opinion worth reading:

The Obscenity of Belief in an Eternal Hell:
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/david-bentley-hart-obscenity-of-belief-in-eternal-hell/13356388

Furthermore, Hell serves no purpose but base revenge. There is no possibility of reform and its deterrent value is nil as far as I can see.



There is good in the Bible, but Scripture unfortunately also portrays God acting in ways that are quite reprehensible. Again, to save space I refer the reader to the following article:

God Commanded Atrocities in the Old testament:
https://religions.wiki/index.php/God_commanded_atrocities_in_the_Old_Testament

As can be seen, God sets a very bad example by behaving more like an ancient Middle Eastern despot than a being whose wisdom is allegedly so great It can create a universe as complex as ours. For an exposition on how the Bible contributed to violence see:

The Bible and the Legitimization of Violence:
https://reflections.yale.edu/article/violence-and-theology/bible-and-legitimation-violence

My comments aren't about hypocrisy. I think there is a fundamental flaw in the Bible's portrayal of God as a vindictive being obsessed with punishment, and that this portrayal has had an negative influence at times on the behaviour of its followers.



I respect Anonymous and if I have written anything that offends him or anyone else then I sincerely apologize. My articles have never been produced as some kind of bear baiting exercise to provoke the faithful. Rather, they are my honest opinions arrived at by many years of research on religion - opinions which I wish to share with others, just as Anonymous wishes to share his opinions with others.

My overall assessment of Anonymous' response is that he hasn't proven his case. His arguments are strong on speculation but weak on sound evidence, for in my opinion the majority require the prior assumption that God exists, and the existence of God is incapable of demonstration.

Having said that I want to make it clear that I'm not claiming to be wholly right. I admit I could be wrong in places. But I don't think I'm wrong substantially. Having conducted additional research my conclusion is that the probability that I am broadly correct in my assessment of Christianity is more likely to be true than false.

Naturally, Anonymous will most likely disagree with this assessment. I respect his right to hold a contrary opinion and wish him well.


 

---

Straughen says he does not need "quotes in the Bible from the mystery religions of the ancient world to see the influences they had on the new faith."

Realistically, we do need quotes because as I explained: "the concepts of similarity and parallel lives are subjective. The rules of logic don't define when similarities are relevant so as to constitute evidence for copying." We need quotes from identified sources, otherwise we elevate imagination and prejudice over testable evidence.

The New Testament has hundred of quotes and allusions to the Old Testament which is therefore the source which the New Testament writers relied on.



To recapitulate — Induction is when we generalize our observations. For example, we observe that air is necessary to sustain life therefore expect air to continue to be necessary. To ignore this inductive inference or deliberately act contrary to it and expect long life by blocking one's airways  is "anti-inductive" i.e. irrational.

Straughen criticizes inductive reasoning because "a person can still be wrong even if their observations are accurate." This is where knowledge and wisdom enter. Observable trends are everywhere; therefore we face decisions regarding which trends will continue. Someone who has lived 80 years, therefore expects to live forever, should note another trend which is that no one seems to live past122.

Science requires inductive reasoning: "Scientific discovery is useless without induction. The observation that gravity attracts and makes objects fall is useful only if generalized to objects we don't presently see." (#125 p. 42) In our 4-dimensional world we see neither the future before it happens nor our surroundings in great detail and distance. Therefore we have to continually make estimates of what to anticipate, therefore induction is indispensible.

As regards the Bible: I compare its statements with sources that contradict it and study the disagreements by consulting scientific literature. I've observed a trend that started thousands of years ago of the Bible often turning out correct and opponents wrong. It's the same logic everyone uses to decide whom or what to trust. Induction makes no starting assumption of whether the Bible is "inspired of God", therefore avoids circular reasoning.



Wikipedia says of Jewish burials:


Ossuaries were used near the time Jesus lived:


The wealthy or elite deceased were wrapped in cloth (the New Testament mentions linen used for Jesus) and after the flesh had dried the bones were put into an ossuary. The poor were buried in the ground.

The "saints" in Matthew 27:52-53 were in "tombs", therefore of the wealthy class. They were also "bodies", not bones in ossuaries, therefore were newly deceased and cloth-wrapped.

Their rising when Jesus died was accompanied by an earthquake which tore the curtain that separated the central compartments of the Temple and also broke open some tombs. The "bodies" of the saints, not "the saints", were "raised". This is a clue that "raised" here is not resurrection.

The Greek egiro translated "raised" may refer to resurrection but can also refer to:


Notice that although the saints "arose" there is no mention of them walking, waking or talking — they "slept".

I previously suggested that people who saw the corpses, and not the corpses themselves, "walked" into Jerusalem to report it. However,  the Greek word exerkomai is translated variously "went forth", "went out", "went", "depart", "go out", "come out", "proceed", etc. When people "go",  "come out" or "proceed" walking may be implied but not necessarily. Exerkomai is also used of speech,  rumors, voices, blood, fame, decrees and lightning, all of which can come or go without walking.

Therefore, I now conclude the "bodies" indeed "went forth" to Jerusalem but they didn't walk, rather they were carried (on stretchers or carts) perhaps to the morgue.

Although "raised" on Friday their entry into Jerusalem delayed until Sunday probably because on the Sabbath (Saturday) people stayed home and the corpses could not be moved.

Nearly all discussions of Matthew 27:52-53 found with Google assume the Bible is true and accurately translated from which it follows that the saints, if resurrected, are proof of miracles and God's existence. Straughen in contrast regards the story as correctly translated but factually false or nonsense.

I regard Matthew's description as ambiguous due to multiple meanings of "raised" and multiple ways of "going", and translation therefore difficult. Quoting the King James Bible, and showing alternatives in brackets, gives:


Archaeology and history confirm that tombs existed outside Jerusalem, Israel sometimes has earthquakes, and disturbance of corpses by earthquakes (and floods) has also occurred in modern times.



Straughen complains of "contradictions" in the Bible.

My series titled "The Bible Consistent" explained some alleged contradictions. Much more is considered in:

•    Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982) G.L. Archer
•    Alleged Discrepancies Of The Bible (1992) J.W. Haley



I claimed we can confirm/identify the Canon (the books that belong in the New Testament) by cross-referencing and studying themes and content. It's comparable to reassembling multiple books whose chapters got ripped out and mixed  up.

Straughen says "this doesn't mean that their contents is true."  Of course it doesn't, and I have never said it does. The analogy merely illustrates that the books that belong in the Canon can be identified. In #127 I provided additional methods and criteria to identify them. To examine whether the contents are factual or true is different — see "Inductive Reasoning".

Straughen also imagines that God could have miraculously simplified the identification process by creating an indestructible original copy. Value judgements of what God could have done obfuscate matters by introducing irrelevant fantasy and prove nothing. Suppose Straughen suffers an injury and the ambulance personnel remark, "God should have made Mr Straughen indestructible." How do we answer such imagining in a serious discussion? 



Straughen calls Adam and Eve "myth". Let us remember some genuine myths:


With the first humans unidentified by science and undiscovered we cannot reasonably dismiss Adam, Eve, and Eden.



Straughen mentions "The Obscenity of Belief in an Eternal Hell".

However, consider:


Do not label a fair and merciful process that lets people in effect judge themselves, and also provides an exit if they get it wrong, "obscenity". "Obscenity" better describes all the horrid behaviour that adds to human suffering and will lead to Earth's ruin.



The war between Israelites and Canaanites has been discussed before. The Bible portrays it as God's judgment on Canaan.

Judgement was postponed for four centuries because: "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" (Genesis 15:13-16). Then, after four centuries: "It is … because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is dispossessing them before you…" (Deuteronomy 9:5)

My articles Canaanite Apocalypse: A Mercy to All Humankind (#132) and Don't Call Mercy "Wickedness" (#134) list moral principles behind Canaan's judgement and beneficial consequences to the whole world.

Just two of the principles — to only make war to suppress evils that endanger the world, and only after waiting an adequate period for national repentance to have occurred — would if widely adopted have prevented hundreds of wars!

The debate, including Straughen's objections, is at:



Barras, C. The search for Ancestor X, New Scientist, 3 September, 2022, 45-49

Investigator #25 p. 22; #105 pp 34-35; #127 pp  20-27; #132 pp 40-49; #134 pp 38-44

Simons, E.L. Ramapithecus, Scientific American,  May 1977, 28-35

Turnage, M.
https://cbnisrael.org/2022/02/08/biblical-israel-first-century-tombs-and-burial-2/

Wigram, G.V. 1903 Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, Ninth Edition, Bagster & Sons, egiro p. 176;  iserkomi p. 211; exerkomai p. 267

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossuary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-cut_tombs_in_ancient_Israel