god-proof.com

Check out my interview on the Pod Delusion. I talk a little bit about a few oddities in the New Testament and the historical Jesus, which gives you a fairly good idea of what the book is about. Enjoy!

Many Christians hold to the belief that Jesus, the so-called son of god, was born from a virgin. Catholics continue to believe that Mary was so pure and sinless that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. Have they actually read what the bible says about the matter?

In the Gospel of Matthew 1:18, it says “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.” Notice that Matthew says that Mary got pregnant before she ‘came together’ with Joseph, – taken at face value this simple statement means that eventually the holy couple did get it on.

The gospel of Luke is similar. Luke says that while the couple were in Bethlehem the time came for the baby to be born, “and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.” (Luke 2.7) Luke says that Jesus was her first son. This means that Mary had other children, but Jesus was the first. Had the author of Luke wanted to suggest that Mary had only one son, and was a virgin for life, he would have phrased this statement differently.

So, here we have two gospel statements suggesting that Mary had other children and so wasn’t a virgin all her life. And the gospels continue to provide insights into the siblings of Jesus: Matthew records an incident in Jesus’ hometown which reveals the names of Jesus’ three brothers. The people say, “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”

Of course Christians will claim that the term ‘brothers’ can actually mean ‘cousins.’ They will say that perhaps these brothers were actually spiritual brothers. But unfortunately, this premise simply does not stand up against historical scrutiny. We know that the apostle Paul actually encountered, and even squabbled with Jesus’ younger brother James; a man of great importance to the early church. Additionally we have the words of the ancient historian Eusebius, who in his work ‘Ecclesiastical History’ written c. 367 ce, mentions the “relatives of our Lord according to the flesh.” (HE 1.7.16)

Thus, we can say that Eusebius knows of Jesus’ relations, and he describes them not as spiritual brothers, but according to the flesh. Historically speaking it is likely that Joseph and Mary were an ordinary married couple who had at least three sons, and several other sisters (who are never mentioned by name). However, when Christianity came to spread beyond the confines of first century Palestine and into the Roman Empire the religion blended with pagan ritual and rites and emerged as something entirely alien.

There is a tradition of special births in the pagan sects. The legendary figures of Asclepius, Hercules and Dionysus all had human mothers and divine fathers. Even historical figures – mighty rulers and wise philosophers – were given miracle conceptions. An example is the famous philosopher Plato. There are several ancient accounts of his legendary birth which commonly have Apollo appearing in a vision to Plato’s mother who then becomes pregnant, despite the fact that she has yet to lay with her husband. Plato’s birth thus sounds similar to Jesus’.

Having a divine birth did help the ancients Greeks and Romans to explain why some men were greater than others, but the historical Jesus likely had a normal birth. His mother was a normal woman who conceived through the normal human route. But when Jesus evolved away from his human roots and became increasingly described as a divinity, the former pagans and non-Jewish Christians gave Jesus a miracle, virgin birth. Thus, in conclusion, the historical figure of Mary was not a virgin, and her human son was not born a god – but he did eventually evolve into one. 

Finally… some truth about Jesus.

Written with the express aim of disproving the notion that Jesus is God, ‘The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic’s Guide to Jesus’ re-examines the evidence to reconstruct the life and times of the historical Jesus – and guess what? Jesus was a mere mortal man. In fact, as the Christ Conundrum so aptly demonstrates, Jesus was a monotheistic Jew and as such he would have been abhorred and disgusted that Christians have got his story so wrong.

Author, Andrew Carruth says “I wrote the Christ Conundrum because I wanted to show evangelical Christians that their claims about Jesus are so absolutely wrong. All you have to do is look at the historical evidence for yourself and it’s clear to see Jesus was a Jew of his own time – he wasn’t god, and he most certainly was not a Christian!”

There are sure to be surprises and intrigue as the ‘Christ Conundrum’ takes you on a fascinating journey into a distant past where people believed that disease were caused by demons, where political activity meant crucifixion, and where people thought the end of the world was just around the corner. Into this explosive mix Jesus emerged.

“It’s interesting that many Jews of the period were expecting an imminent end to the world order,” the author says. “We see this same expectation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jesus’ mission is largely concerned with it. Indeed, in the gospels Jesus explicitly predicts that the end would occur within the lifetime of the disciples who were listening to him. Two thousand years later and the end that Jesus predicted still hasn’t come, clearly he was wrong – Jesus was a false prophet!”

CJ Werleman, also an author at Dangerous Little Books praised the Christ Conundrum “The book gives a very thorough argument, it’s an intriguing exploration of the life and times of Jesus, and the rapidly expanding market for atheist books will surely love it.”

SYNOPSIS

Using the latest scholarly research this book deciphers the mystery behind the mythical figure of Jesus and aims to demonstrate, once-and-for-all, that Jesus was a mere, mortal man. By looking at the ancient sources through the lens of the historian, Andrew Carruth reveals Jesus to be a man of his time; Jesus was a first century Jew, with a very Jewish mission and was hardly unique – in fact there were several other historical miracle workers and ‘Sons of God.’ Entertaining, historically accurate, thought-provoking and controversial the Christ Conundrum is a must read for skeptics and believers alike.

REVIEW COPY
If you’re a journalist or popular atheist blogger who’d like to review this book then please request a here: http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact

COMPETITION PRIZE
If you’d like to offer your audience free copies of this book as a competition prize along with a review then tell us your plans and we’ll do whatever we can to help:
http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact

WEBSITE LINKS

Andrew Carruth’s Website: www.god-proof.com

Andrew Carruth’s blog: www.god-proof.com/blog

Andrew Carruth on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndrewCarruth

Andrew Carruth on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Andrew.Carruth

INTERVIEWS/ARTICLES

Andrew Carruth is happy to provide free content in return for a ‘plug’ of his book. He is open for interviews, speaking engagements, freelance commissions, or other ideas. Please contact: http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact or andy@god-proof.com

THE AUTHOR

Andrew Carruth is a former journalist and narcotics control officer who has lived in the Maldives and Indonesia, but who has returned to his native UK to focus on his writing. It was during his travels that Andrew came to realize that people are all essentially the same and that it is foolish to divide them according to which superstitious fable they happen to believe in.

The scene of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem couldn’t be more dramatic. As he approaches the culmination of his ministry he knows that torture, humiliation and death awaits him. Along the road the Jews have assembled to cheer their saviour on. The Son of God passes them by, the lord, seated on two donkeys.

The reader at this stage would be forgiven, quite rightly, for asking what was Jesus Christ doing riding two donkeys at the same time? Why not just ride on one? Alas, this is the scene as described in the Gospel of Matthew.

Matthew writes that Jesus has just instructed his followers thus; “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me… The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.” (Matthew 21:1-8)

So what is happening here? Did Matthew really believe that Jesus sat on two donkeys? Why?

There are many oddities in the New Testament which the book, The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic’s Guide to Jesus, deciphers in detail. In this case, Matthew has been pinching prophecies from the Old Testament to construct a biography of Jesus. He wants to show that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, but in this instance he makes a mistake. He misreads a prophecy in the Book of Zechariah (9:9) and believes that it refers to two donkeys. Actually the relevant passage only refers to one such creature, but this was lost in translation when the original Hebrew was translated into Greek – the version favoured by Matthew.

This demonstrates that Matthew was not an eye witness to Jesus’ life as numerous Christians have claimed. Instead Matthew was constructing Jesus’ biography by cherry picking prophecies from the Old Testament.

I once heard a mainstream American preacher blame the Nazi genocide of the Jews in World War 2 on atheists and the theory of evolution. Since then, I’ve seen this view echoed in numerous Christian websites and apparently there are lectures on this topic at the Creationist Museum. This pisses me off.

It is simply illogical to blame science, evolution or atheists for this terrible chapter in history. Here’s why…

The Nazis blamed the Jews for corrupting Germany, they believed there was an international Zionist conspiracy, and the Jews were held responsible for Germany’s defeat in the First World War. Of course, there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE for any of this, and I challenge anyone to produce some.

Now, one of the dictionary definitions of faith is; ‘belief without any proof or evidence’. In this respect, the Nazi idea that Jews were evil conspirators is a belief that lacks evidence – the holocaust was an evil act of faith.

Another system of thought that promotes faith without evidence is of course religion. Yes, that’s right I’m comparing religion to the Nazis, controversial for sure, but it’s the same thing as blaming evolutionists for the holocaust!

The second point I want to raise is this: Long before Darwin was born, people had selectively bred certain animals to produce desirable results. Dogs are a prime example of this. Today we have breeds for guarding, herding and breeds that sit comfortably on the lap. Dogs that performed the best were selected for breeding and their desirable qualities passed on. Dogs that were unfit were not allowed to breed. This is unnatural selection and it has been practiced since the dawn of the agricultural revolution several thousand years ago.

So, although ancient humans lacked a theory of genetic transference, they were still acutely aware of the power of selective breeding. The Nazi Eugenics program, which sought to produce a superior master race and destroy the so-called ‘inferior’ races, could have proceeded without Darwin’s work.

It is my humble opinion that if we would all aspired to find evidence for our beliefs, then the world would be a much happier place to live in.

Artwork Copyright Derek Chatwood

It has been 202 years since the birth of Darwin, and 152 years after the publication of his epoch making ‘Origin of the Species.’ Despite being recognized as the most influential theory of modern times and being accepted almost universally by scientists the world over, much opposition remains from Christians and Creationists to the very idea of evolution. “I am not descended from a monkey,” is a commonly heard refrain from the Darwin Doubters. In this article I shall briefly examine some of the overwhelming supporting evidence that allows us to say unequivocally that evolution is fact!

1. Anatomy. Comparing the physical qualities of living creatures, for example their skeletal systems, shows that humans have remarkable similarities with other mammals (we have five digits on the end of our extremities, a spinal column, sockets in the skull for two eyes etc). From this evidence alone anatomists could construct a family tree of living species, and as it happens, humans are most similar anatomically to the apes. This suggests that these species are related to each other somehow as Darwin predicted.

2. DNA. Darwin knew that humans and apes were related, but he lived before the discovery of DNA which would later provide dramatic evidence in support of his theory. Chimp and human DNA are a 98% match. How do we know? Heat up some human DNA to around 85 degrees Celsius and the double helix breaks apart. Let things cool down and each single helix will re-bond, because, like a hand and a glove the two sides match each other.

What happens if we add some chimp and human DNA together? Well, the chimp DNA continues to seek a bond with the human DNA (all DNA has the same A,C,G, T lettering which makes bonding possible). However, because of differences in the genetic sequence the bond is not so strong. Because the bond is not as good the hybrid DNA will break apart at a slightly lesser temperature than before. Now, if you tried mixing human DNA with rabbit DNA, the bond would be significantly weaker (we are not close relations with the rabbits), and the hybrid breaks apart at a much lower temperature. Experiments like this allow us to see that we humans are indeed most closely related genetically to chimps – a result which matches the expectation from anatomy!

3. Paleontology. Preserved fossils give us a great insight into the previous history of a given species and allow us to see evolution at work. These specimens can be anatomically compared with each other and placed on a family tree. Thanks to Radiometric dating techniques we can calculate the approximate age of rocks and therefore the fossils within them. Although specimens of ancient humans and chimps are rare, they do exist, and from them we can build up a picture of how humans and apes are related. The fossil record fits snugly with Darwin’s theory, and combined with DNA evidence we can say with certainty that the common ancestors of humans and chimps lived 5.5 million years ago.

Of course, in this article I have only painted the briefest of sketches of the scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I hope that the Darwin doubters will be made aware of the overwhelming supporting evidence of evolution that comes from many diverse scientific disciples:  Anatomy, animal breeding, bacteriology, biology, biochemistry, embryology, geology, genetics, taxonomy, zoology to name a few.

Actually, I feel it is a great shame that I have to write this piece on the advent of Darwin’s birthday. Despite the evidence, the creationists continue to insist on their own perverted vision of the ‘truth’ and I wouldn’t have to write this article if their views were not so prevalent. I hope that more and more people can come to understand the world, the inherent beauty of evolution, and will be able to wean themselves off their superstitious fables so that we can achieve a brighter future.

Happy birthday Darwin!

Christians everywhere have, for the past two millennia, been staring up at the skies patiently waiting for the return of their savior. But maybe it’s about time they all faced facts – Jesus isn’t coming back!

Jesus says quite conspicuously in the Gospel of Mark “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God.” (Mk 9:1, see also Mk 13.30) Taken literally, as the writer no doubt intended, Jesus is predicting that some of his followers would still be alive and kicking when he returned to usher in the kingdom of god. Jesus said he would return in a matter of months or years.

The fact is however, that we have no ancient old apostles walking around, so either Jesus lied or he made a mistake – either way he was a false prophet.

It is interesting that Paul, one of the first Christian missionaries who lived circa 5 – 67 AD, was also expecting Jesus to return within his own lifetime. In his letters in the New Testament Paul continually refers to the approaching kingdom. He says that the ‘time is short’ or the ‘world in its present form is passing away.’ Clearly he believes the end is nigh.

In fact he so evidently believes that the return of the savior is so imminent that his followers need not get married. He says “because of the current crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.” (1 Corinthians 7: 26-27) For the Apostle Paul there was simply no point in getting married because, as he saw it, Jesus was just around the corner. He evidently believes Jesus will return within the lifetimes of his converts.

Jesus not returning caused no end of embarrassment to the early Christians. Despite the very literal understanding that Jesus would return imminently, Christians were forced to re-write their understanding of this event. Today it is common to hear Christians say things such as ‘the kingdom has come already, it’s in our hearts.’ Be that as it may, this is not what Jesus and Paul taught and believed. It’s an attempt to answer the embarrassing fact that Jesus is running late and will never return because Jesus is not a god.

This is an extract from the book ‘The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic’s Guide to Jesus’

“When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining.” The gospel of John (John 19:23) contains this interesting incident of the Roman soldiers sharing up Jesus’ clothing. After divvying up the clothes the underwear remains, John gives us a description of this item “this garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.” The soldiers do not want to tear up Jesus’ underpants and agree among themselves to draw lots to see who would gain possession. If we imagine Jesus as a humble man from the backwaters of the Galilee then his clothes couldn’t be worth much and after his previous beating the clothes would have been covered in blood and sweat – why then do the Roman troops want the clothes?

Like so many tales within the gospels, even the slightest details are inspired by the Jewish scriptures. Indeed every detail of Jesus’ last moments are given deeper meaning, even in the case of his underwear. John makes it clear that the soldiers want Jesus’ clothes to fulfil prophecy from psalm twenty two, “They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.” (Psalm 22:18)

The psalms are a collection of one hundred and fifty sacred poems that express various tenets of Judaism which according to Jewish tradition were composed by King David himself. Psalm twenty two elsewhere bears a striking resemblance to the death of Jesus, beginning with the line “My god, my god why have you forsaken me?” Are these similarities evidence that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies as many Christians assume, or are they evidence that the gospel writers pinched aspects of Jesus life from earlier texts?

In a previous chapter we have already noted how reliant the gospel writers were on the Old Testament, they used it to find information about the life of Jesus because they believed his life was predicted in it. In this case John has found inspiration from a psalm and applied it to the final moments of Jesus’ life - he weaves the story of the soldiers wanting Jesus’ clothing in order to ‘fulfil’ this psalm.

We must therefore be wary of the historicity of this incident, would Roman soldiers really want blood-soaked underwear, and for what purpose? This story is so absurd it is best explained as an invention. If we accept the truth of the matter then we have to be even more careful about what the rest of the gospels are telling us of the death of Jesus. The events leading to his death are literally packed with theological interpretations which make finding the historical truth behind why he died even more difficult.

According to some among the Christian faith, the bible is inerrant – or in other words, from Genesis to Revelation there is not a single error in the bible. This they believe is because the scriptures are inspired directly by god and are therefore perfect. Nonsense.

Before the days of printing, texts had to be copied by hand – a laborious process that was prone to error, and indeed we can see plenty of spelling mistakes in the plethora of old texts that survive today. Things weren’t helped at all by the fact that ancient texts lacked punctuation and spaces between words. This can lead to problems; try for example to decipher this: godisnowhere.

Assuming that god really did inspire the bible, then which of the nearly 6000 surviving Greek manuscripts is closest to his original intent? The differences between these manuscripts are immense, there are an estimated 200,000 – 400,000 variances between them; everything from spelling mistakes to purposeful additions to the words.

The original Number of the Beast was 616, not 666. The bible is prone to errors.

Here is an example of a theologically motivated ‘correction’. In the modern NIV bible, the Epistle to the Hebrews (2:8-9) describes Jesus dying ‘by the grace of god.’ But upon closer inspection of the earliest manuscripts Jesus died ‘apart from god.’ In other words, in older texts, even god had deserted Jesus when he died on the cross. Meanwhile, there is a wealth of evidence the supports the older reading of this book. Origen (185 – 254 ce), an early Christian scholar, mentions that within his lifetime, the script did indeed mention Jesus dying without god.

Alas, it seems that at some stage a scribe, who had the arduous task of copying this book by hand, was confronted with this oddity (‘how could Jesus die without god? He was god. Surely this was a mistake!’) so he took the opportunity to rewrite the text according to his own theological beliefs. Thus in the original Greek ‘Chorus Theou’ (apart from god) became ‘Chariti Theou’ (by the grace of god), a small scribal change with a profoundly different meaning.

Origen complains about these scribes: “The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”

Thus, even in the earliest stages of Christianity there were already many manuscripts, with many errors, so how are we supposed to know which one is correct? We don’t have the original texts of the New Testament. We don’t even have the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. So, assuming for a minute that god did indeed inspire the originals then these are now lost to us. The bible is not inerrant. It is a product of the human mind, and as such, is open to errors.

Anyone interested in this subject is recommended to read ‘Whose Word is it?’ by Bart Ehrman, from where the above examples are taken from.

An Islamic magical text

In the past I was known as something of an intrepid traveler, and during my ten years living in Asia I was quite surprised to learn how widespread was the practice of magic in strongly Islamic nations. I had supposed that witchcraft and magic were prohibited by Islam so I had to investigate this further.

The Maldives often boasts that they are a 100% Islamic country but when I was living there I found quite a large number of people who talked about ‘Fanditha’, the local brand of magic which included everything from charms, medicine and even some rather gruesome black magic spells. Islam came to the Maldives sometime in the 13^th century and the former Buddhists seemed to have accepted this new religion with gusto. But as with the uptake of any new religion the old ways did not immediately die out. Rather than being forced out by the new religion Fanditha seems to have adapted to fit the new religion.

To illustrate this point I shall give the example of a friend, who just for fun, decided to see a Fanditha man. He was told by the gnarly old man that someone had put a curse on him and to break it he had to collect water from 7 different mosques and after there was to be a ritual involving reading verses from the Quran and the curse would be lifted. It seems from this example that Fanditha nowadays operates under the guise of Islam. In other words Fanditha is only accepted because it attempts to work alongside Islam – even though Islam itself frowns upon witchcraft and magic.

To a certain extent all new religions absorb something of the native cultures – in many old churches in the UK it is possible to see stone carvings of the Green Man which was most likely a pagan deity that survived when Christianity took over. Of course Christianity does not allow worship of other gods but in order not to alienate the former pagans these old gods were incorporated into the new religion; sometimes they became saints, sometimes demons. So I suppose that Fanditha is a product of the same process, of the old merging with the new.

But Islamic magic is not confined to the Maldives. During my time in Indonesia I observed that some people used to go to the Dukun, something like a shaman. In one case some friends were wondering what such an ugly girl (their words not mine) was doing with a handsome, rich, young man and it was rumoured that she had visited a Dukun and performed a love spell on the man. Although, as a skeptic, I very much doubt the effectiveness of magical spells there was no doubt that this was considered by my Indonesian friends as a valid explanation for this odd couple being together.

Both the Maldives and Indonesia are Islamic countries, but both had examples of traditional magic that was not merely surviving but actually flourishing. Although most educated people prefer to keep their distance from magic, there is nevertheless a strong prevalent view among the lower sections of society in both countries that magic actually works. Additionally they believe magic can be used in everyday matters.

When new religions take over, the old ones do not die. And this observation leads me to conclude that religion is contrived and man made.