It's a Miracle!

And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. -Mark 5:25-29 (NIV)

We all have heard of claims of miraculous cures. Miracles and supernatural claims are the mainstay of religious myths.

The Roman Catholic church claims to have investigated and satisfied itself that miraculous cures have happened before declaring someone a saint, for every saint it canonizes.

On September 5, 1998, Monica Besra, a Bengali woman from the village of Dangram, near Calcutta, India and a mother of five was in pain. She had a malignant ovarian tumor and a visible lump on her belly. To help her, the nuns from Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity placed a medallion of the late Mother Teresa on her stomach and prayed. A beam of light from the medallion came towards Monica, reportedly. When Monica woke up next morning, the tumor was gone! ^[1] This was the first miracle that the Roman Catholic Church claimed for Mother Teresa's beatification, bringing her a step closer to sainthood.

The story does not end there. Monica Besra later admitted to having gone to the state-run Balurghat Hospital and taken the prescribed medication. Monica's husband Seiku Murmu went on record that his wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle. ^[2] Dr. Tarun Kumar Biswas and Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, who treated Monica over several months, say Monica responded to their treatment and the lump in her abdomen was not a full-grown tumor. The Vatican reportedly did not consult with these doctors before confirming the miracle. ^{[3] [4]}

Here's another story. Back in September 21, 1995, in a temple in New Delhi, a devotee offered milk to a statue of Ganesha. Devotees have been doing this for centuries now. But this time, to everyone's surprise, the statue actually drank the milk. It was a miracle! The miracle was repeated again and again not just in that temple but in nearby temples as well. The news spread rapidly by word of mouth and Ganeshas all over India and even outside India were drinking milk. Statues of other deities like Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvathi, Lord Ganesha's parents were also drinking milk. By end of day, it had taken the proportion of mass religious hysteria. ^[5]

Scientists from India's Ministry of Science and Technology investigated this and found nothing more than capillary action causing the porous idols to suck up the milk to be the cause. This didn't stop the miracles from recurring in 2006 and again 2010. ^{[6] [7]}

The Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, first appeared to Bernadette Soubirous, a 14-year-old girl from Lourdes, France back in 1858. The Virgin appeared to her 17 more times. Millions visit Lourdes every year many reporting miraculous healing.

In 1917, the Virgin appeared again, this time to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, three shepherd kids at Fatima, Portugal. On October 13, right before the eyes of a crowd numbering thousands, the Sun reportedly changed colors and rotated like a wheel. Jacinta “beheld St. Joseph with the Child Jesus and Our Lady robed in white with a blue mantle, beside the sun.” ^[8]

Every year, at Sabarimala in the Western Ghats of South India, a few million devotees of the Hindu God Ayyappan assemble for prayer and festivities. Lord Ayyappan the child of Lord Shiva and Goddess Mohini (Lord Vishnu in the female form) is supposed to have meditated at Sabarimala. Every year, on the day of Makara Samkramam, a miraculous light or the Makara Vilakku lights up on the hills near the temple while pilgrims watch. That some people have come forward clarifying that burning a big heap of camphor is the source of the light has not dampened the spirits of the pilgrims. ^{[9] [10]}

Not very far from Shabarimala is Potta, a tiny village, also in Kerala, India. Fr. Matthew Naickomparampil, a Catholic Vincentian priest upon receiving divine revelations and gifts of the Holy Spirit founded a 'Divine Retreat Center' at Potta. Since its beginning back in 1987, it has grown to become one of the most famous prayer groups in the state. It has since moved to Muringure, near the banks of river Chalakudy. A few thousand people attend the services every week. Many return home cured of their illnesses!

In 2004, in the home of Gregg and Diana Duyser, the face of the Virgin Mary appeared on the grilled cheese sandwich, no less. ^[11]

The Islamic world is not averse to miracles either. In 1996, a farmer in Senegal discovered a watermelon on which the name of Allah had appeared. In 1999, a Toman fish with markings resembling the words “Ya Allah Ya Malik” got a lot of publicity. Listings of miraculous appearance of the word Allah on the Moon, mountains, fruits, babies' bodies etc is just a google search away.

Sri Sathya Sai Baba, a God-Man from India claimed to have been the reincarnation of another 19th century holy man called Sai Baba. Sathya Sai Baba counted as his devotees ministers and judges and industrialists in India. He was known for producing sacred ash or golden Shiva lingams out of thin air for his devotees. As a child, he was once punished by being asked to stand up on his bench. The teacher who punished him thus was magically glued to the teacher's chair until another teacher stepped in and asked Sai Baba to sit down! These and various other miracles are documented by books published by the Sri Sathya Sai Books & Publications Trust and the websites maintained by them. ^{[12] [13]}

Demonic possession is a phenomenon that the Catholic church accepts and has guidelines on how demons may be exorcised. ^[14] Priests with the sanction of a bishop can perform exorcism. ^[15]

Stigmata (marks resembling the wounds of the crucified body of Christ) has been claimed by many from St. Francis of Assisi to Padre Pio. ^[16] Padre Pio went on to be canonized as Saint Pio of Pietrelcina and in anticipation of the canonization, two statues of of the Padre reportedly wept.

Statues sweating or weeping blood or oil or tears have been reported many many many times. Bleeding Eucharists are quite common too. ^[17]

These are but a sampling of reported miracles. These are not isolated incidents. Reports of miracles and miraculous cures are actually dime a dozen! Yet, none of these miracles, not a single one has been reproduced under controlled conditions where scientists can investigate them. Many have been investigated and some found to be outright fraud. Some aren't. But not a single miracle has been reported in a science journal as a direct result of a deity in action. Not one. Now why would that be?

Confirmation bias

If you are a Protestant or Evangelical Christian, you are very likely to have had a quiet chuckle about the miracles claimed by the Catholic church. If you are a Catholic, the Ganesha miracle would have sounded funny to you. Idols drinking milk! Oh, those idol worshiping Hindus!

Why is it that we wear the skeptic's hat when it comes to other faiths? It is for no reason that it is said that we are all atheists when it comes to most religions that humanity has believed in! Yet, when it comes to our own, we are willing to believe.

Humans have a tendency to exhibit selective thinking and favor information that confirms our beliefs. We are biased in the way we gather information. We are biased in the way we process and retain information. We tend to reduce the importance of pieces of information that conflict with our beliefs and interests. This is a well known phenomenon called confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias explains why we tend to believe the miracles and supernatural claims from our own religious group but are very skeptical about those from other groups.

How do we distinguish faith in miracles from gullibility?

References

[1] Time.com, "Mother Teresa's First Miracle?", Amanda Bower.

[2] Telegraph.co.uk, "Mother Teresa 'miracle' patient accuses nuns", Peter Foster.

[3] Slate.com, "Is Mother Teresa's Miracle for Real?", Charles Duhigg.

[4] Time.com, "What's Mother Teresa Got to Do with It?".

[5] About.com, "15 Years of the Ganesha Milk Miracle: Paranormal Phenomenon of the Last Millennium", Subhamoy Das.

[6] IndianExpress.com, "Idols 'drinking' milk is pure science", Press Trust of India.

[7] About.com, "Did Statues of Hindu Gods Miraculously Consume Milk Offerings to Them?", Whitney Hopler.

[8] Fatima In Lucia's Own Words: Sister Lucia’s Memoirs. 16th edition, July 2007. Edited by Fr. Louis Kondor, SVD.

[9] TheHindu.com, "TDB was lighting the fire: ex-Commissioner", Radhakrishnan Kuttoor.

[10] NewIndianExpress.com, "For God’s sake, end this fraud", M Kesavan Nampoothiry.

[11] CSIcop.org, "Grilled-Cheese Madonna", Joe Nickell..

[12] Time.com, "Sathya Sai Baba: The Man Who Was God Is Dead", Jyoti Thottam.

[13] saibaba.ws, "The Divine Life and Message of Sri Sathya Sai Baba QUIZ", [via the internet archive].

[14] NewAdvent.org, "Catholic Encyclopedia: Exorcism".

[15] Vatican.va, "The Celebration of the Christian Mystery: The Celebration of the Christian Mystery".
“When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcizing. In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.”

[16] CSIcop.org, "Padre Pio: Wonderworker or Charlatan?", Joe Nickell.

[17] CSIcop.org, "Eucharistic ‘Miracles’", Joe Nickell.

Saint Factory

The Catholic Church is a saint making factory. Starting with Pope John Paul II, the factory dramatically increased its production. Pope Francis in a matter of weeks has already surpassed all of his predecessors. In one fell swoop, he canonized 813 15th century martyrs, last Sunday. These “Martyrs of Otranto” were beheaded by Ottoman soldiers for refusing to convert to Islam.

Per the Catholic Church's rules, attaining sainthood is a two step process which requires one miracle per step. But martyrs can proceed to step two without a confirmed miracle. They just need one miracle to attain sainthood.

Enter Sister Francesca Levote. Sister Levote reportedly recovered miraculously from ovarian cancer after her fellow nuns prayed to the Martyrs of Otranto. This paved the way for Pope Benedict XVI to confirm the miracle and Pope Francis did the rest. It hardly matters that the sister's doctor insists that chemotherapy and radiotherapy helped! The silly doctor must think he knows better than the holy church!

If you think martyrs for Christ are unique, think again. A student of history would know of many many such instances and not just for Christ. For instance, in 782 AD, Charlemagne beheaded 4500 Saxons (pagans) for refusing to convert to Christianity. In 1492 AD, the Spanish King and Queen decided to drive all Jews (about 200,000 of them) out of Spain. Tens of thousands likely died in the exodus. These are but two examples. Want more? Pick up a history book!

So, one is forced ask Pope Francis, why are the Martyrs of Otranto all sainty and special? Is martyrdom for any other god worthless? Is it because of the “miraculous” cure of Sister Francesca Levote?

Keep an Open Mind!

If you are an atheist, it is very likely that you have been asked, at some time or the other, to keep an open mind about God. I have been asked to. Many times.

The position of atheism, the position that there is no good evidence for a God, let alone a personal God is usually arrived at by evaluating the evidence or the lack thereof. Many atheists, in fact, a vast majority of the ones I know of were religious or came from religious families or at least considered religion at one time or another.

[To be sure, if today's trend of more and more people opting for atheism is anything to go by, we will soon see atheists who have not thought through their lack of belief. But that is not the case today.]

Yet, atheists are often asked to keep an open mind by the religious folks. So, tell me now, what is the evidence that atheists are not open about? Where are the arguments that atheists are closed minded about?

The answer of course, is the possibility of existence of God, the possibility that scripture was inspired by God. Throw in the possibility of supernatural, after life and hell and you get the answer.

Being open to an idea is not the same as accepting that idea with no regard to its evidentiary support. The idea of a personal God or a loving deity has been considered and found to lack any grounding in the realities of this world. And that being the case, one can not and should not accept such an idea.

But that is hardly being not open to the idea. If new evidence were to be found, new arguments were to be made, if a compelling case were to be put forward, then many an atheists, myself included, would be quite happy to consider it.

In the absence of such arguments and evidence, my open mindedness does not include embracing a belief in a deity who rules from above, stands in judgment on me, keeps an account of every good and bad deed I do, cares about what I eat and who I sleep with and how and rejoices when I believe in this deity.

Let's try turning the tables on the believers now.

Are believers open to the possibility that there is no God? The small micro minority that is indeed open to this possibility would more often than not fall into the category of Agnostics. The vast majority of believers (as anecdotal evidence suggests), hold to to their faith as a matter of faith and often will not consider the possibility of a godless universe.

Many have persuaded themselves that their illusion of God is grounded in fact. I am sure, some have weighed the evidence and come to a conclusion that there is a God. I am sure that is possible, even though I have come to the opposite conclusion.

For believers who are not open to the possibility of a godless universe, to talk about open mindedness is pure hypocrisy.

I am open to being corrected. I am open to new ideas. I am open to new evidence and new arguments! But I am not open to believing in remote possibilities as facts, not without supporting evidence.

Litany of Excuses

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” -Mathew 7:7

When pushed to produce evidence for God or explain the lack of such evidence or evidence suggesting that there isn't any God, we often get many excuses for why that is indeed the case. These are often compelling excuses, until you take the time to think about it. The excuses often contradict each other as well, as you will see.

Here are some often cited ad-hoc explanations for the God theory.

1. You cannot test the Almighty!

This is usually in response to requests or demands that the Almighty make his presence felt. If there is an Almighty God, let that God show himself. This is often met with a retort that you simply cannot test God. This is fair enough except for the claim that the Almighty really wants you to believe in him.

2. There is a plan for you; you just don't know what it is.

When life seems to be going from bad to worse, from the frying pan into the fire, we often wonder if a loving caretaker God is really around. To that, believers of say that God has a plan. It is just not obvious to you or known to you.

Isn't that convenient? Well, do tell that to earthquake victims or genocide victims. When plans can not be explained, just say that we are too stupid to know it or that the plan is so divine that we can't be expected to understand it. This is a classic excuse.

3. God works in mysterious ways.

This is a variation of the previous excuse. It in other words means we are clueless as to what is happening. This excuse is a favorite when a calamity that can't be explained away needs explaining.

4. You can't judge God by human standards!

If we can't use human standards, what exactly does the phrase 'loving God' mean to humans? Would it then be fair then to say that this God is a dreadful one, by human standards?

5. Prayers are answered only when what you ask is good for you.

This is an often heard excuse when prayers are not answered. You might think what you are asking for is good for you. But there might be bad consequences for what you ask for, that you are unaware of! So, the good all-knowing God doesn't answer your prayer and it is all in your very own interest!

We are like little children. We do not know what we want and what we ask for. So, not everything that we ask for can be granted to us! Would a father give a knife to an infant that asks for it? Of course not!

You might think a million dollars and a month long cruise would be good for you. But God might be privy to the future possibility that the cruise that you end up taking would hit an iceberg or you'd catch a disease while cruising, or hookup with someone who breaks your marriage. Or the money might make you greedy for more. And so on. The possibilities are infinite.

Well, perhaps the almighty could also fix the future so that the cruise would be a safe and fun filled one? Well, now that would be too good to ask for!

This excuse is a good one. If you get what you ask for, then God is so loving. If you don't, then God just thinks that what you asked is not good for you just yet. Isn't that a win-win situation no matter what the outcome is?

6. Prayers are answered when the time is right

This is a variant of the earlier excuse. Instead of claiming that what you asked for was not good, this one suggests that you'll indeed receive, but not just yet. Again, do tell that to the earthquake victim.

7. Prayers are answered, but only in the after life.

This is yet another variant of the previous excuse. The blessings you ask for will be showered on you only after you die and go to heaven!

Well, one would have thought that I would not have much use for my million dollars once I am in heaven. With an eternity long vacation in the company of angels playing the harp, who gives a dime for a silly month long cruise or a million dollars?

This is as good as saying that God does not interfere in this life. Well, if only we could know that for sure, we could stop praying for God's intercession in this life.

8. It does not matter if prayers are answered; you should keep asking as you would with your own parents.

This is another variant. Just ask but do not demand results! Just keep asking and take things the way they come. The problem with this is, one might as well not ask! Unless unanswered prayers make you feel good.

9. The more hardships you face in this life the easier your path to salvation

This one is supposed to make you feel good about the hardships you face. Don't worry, you'll get a proportional amount of blessings in the after life to make up for it.

10. You will see all the evidence if you would just believe in God.

If you already believe that there are pink unicorns on the moon, then you can actually come to the realization that there are these, you guessed it, wonderful pink unicorns! And would you like to guess where you'd find these unicorns? The Moon!

11. If you read the Bible with faith, you will believe.

This excuse uses the same inverted argument as the earlier one. The problem with reading the Bible is that it tends to relieve you of your faith. It happened to me. During a time of confusion, I decided that I wanted to read the bible cover to cover. I did not get past a couple of chapters. I ended up deciding that it was all nonsense.

If you have already made up your mind that it is indeed the word of God and it is your duty to somehow harmonize it and make sense of it, and tell yourself that it is your own failing when you can't, you will indeed be able to perceive the 'perfection' of the Bible.

12. If you have faith, you will believe.

This is simply circular reasoning and a variant of the above one.

13. The Old Testament is allegory.

How convenient?! Perhaps you'd consider that it is pious fiction written by the ancient people, to be read for the insights it provides about their world and not as a moral guide in this age and time.

14. Scripture is largely metaphorical. Except for the core dogmas like sin, salvation, the holy trinity etc.

Absolutely everything that you can disprove is allegory. Every evil and disgusting event described in the Bible is allegory. Everything you can't completely disprove is absolutely true. Every unfalsifiable dogma (throw in resurrection, assumption of Mary, belief in an afterlife) that cannot be completely disproved is absolutely true!

Probability, you may stand down!

It does not matter if you can show that the resurrection was very very very very unlikely. If you can not completely disprove something, it is, you guessed it, true. And in case you manage to disprove it, then it is all allegory.

15. Free will

This is the classic excuse for the problem of evil. Why is there evil in a world designed by a do-gooder God? Because God does not force us to do no evil. God has given us all Free Will, people! It is our choice to do evil and hence it is all our own responsibility!

Perhaps tectonic plates and volcanoes have free will too.

It is also interesting that God does not force us to do right or wrong but still manages to perform miracles and resurrect himself to give just a few lucky ones some vague guidelines. There is also the carrots and sticks strategy of heaven and hell. But hey, no pressure. Really, no pressure. Really.

16. God is testing you!

This is a retort when you whine that your prayers are not being answered. It is also an explanation when things go wrong in life.

You should have the same faith that Job had when he lost all his wealth and his family! Well, do tell that to Job's first wife and ten kids. Am I reading the parable too literally now??

How about our own lives? Are the troubles that we face just metaphorical troubles? Maybe not.

That God is just testing them would certainly console the victims of the Tsunami in Japan and the earthquake at Haiti.

17. God is testing you and it is for your own good

Hardships make you better equipped to deal with even more hardships. It's all good.

18. Satan is testing you!

This is a variation of the earlier excuse. This one frees God from the burden of being a tyrant. God is goodness personified, see? It is Satan that is evil!

19. It is a test of your faith!

Do you find inconsistencies in scripture, find religious claims difficult to believe? Well, it is all a test of your faith!

20. Your misfortune is punishment for your sins

This is an explanation for why a misfortune befell you. It is divine punishment. Almost every one of us is ashamed of something or the other that we did. Well, guess what, God did not like it either. And it is now time to face the music.

For instance, some preachers in the United States actually attributed the 9/11 attacks to God's punishment for the sins of the nation.

21. God will only give you what you can handle.

Well, I certainly see the uplifting message in this. But do people seriously think misfortune is dished out based on one's ability to handle it? A child who has lost both its parents in an earthquake would, I am sure, be happy to know that God believes in its capacity to handle misfortune! Or a rape victim. Or victims of torture. Or Savita Halappanavar. Or Nirbhaya...

22. God is good but God cannot let sin go unpunished.

Actually, God can. It is the almighty you are talking about here! In fact, it apparently is God who defined sin as sin. It is God who apparently created us with the tendency to sin. Should God punish himself, then?

23. Human mind cannot understand God

Our difficulty in making sense of all the discrepancies of the God theory is just a facet of the very limited human mind! It is all our fault. Of course, if God had been a better communicator, we might have understood. If God had made us smarter, we might have understood better. Or just dumber and we would have unquestioningly accepted.

More importantly, as I have said before, believers do seem to know a lot about God, including the fact that God can not be understood by us.

Yet, as lacking in understanding as we are, we are still expected to believe! Why are we, so lacking in our ability to understand, mandated to believe?

24. Science can not be used to explain God

The claim is that science and religion are two methods for understanding the natural and supernatural respectively. This assertion is very useful when we find that science indeed strongly suggests that there is no God at all. It is convenient indeed to declare rigorous observation and inference to be invalid methods when it comes to God. Instead we'll just use rigorous fantasy.

25. I just know in my heart that my God is the one.

Well Morpheus, a warm fuzzy feeling in the heart is very far from what is commonly called 'hard evidence'.

26. What if you are somehow wrong?

Yeah, yeah, all your arguments seem to make sense. But what if you are wrong? You puny human, what if you are wrong, in spite of all the evidence?

This is the trump card after using up everything else. Any reasonable person has to agree that we could all be wrong.

What if the weight of evidence tilts the probability against the loving heavenly father? You could still be wrong! We could be living in The Matrix too.

Fallacy fallacy

Let me emphasize here that just because some or all of these excuses are fallacies does not disprove the existence of God. (That would be a fallacy fallacy.) It just means that these excuses are to be recognized for what they are – mere excuses.

That believers often have to resort to these excuses on the is evidence that their belief system is flawed, though not necessarily disproved.

The explanations do not add to the explanatory power to the God hypothesis. They are often untestable arguments. How does one prove that prayers are answered only when what you ask for is really good? It is untestable as the definition of 'good' in reality depends on whether the prayer is answered or not and hence will always be true. That God works in mysterious ways is calling on theology to hold God's actions above investigation. How does one predict the outcome of the actions of a God who is by definition mysterious?

Cognitive Dissonance

These excuses are a mix of different logical fallacies. And the believers seem to always know exactly what God would do and why! The believers seem to be quite capable of reading God's mind!

The reason for coming up with these excuses can be explained with the theory of Cognitive Dissonance. When we have conflicting thoughts, we tend to reduce the conflict by a) changing the cognitions b) adding cognitions or c) altering the importance of cognitions. When believers see a conflict between the idea of a God that has infinite love and a natural calamity, they rationalize it perhaps as God's “mysterious plan”. When prayers are not answered, they rationalize that perhaps the wish was after all not good for them, a classic case of sour grapes.

Aesop knew!

Christian Origins: 14. Looking Back

14. Looking Back

[ Previous Chapter | Index of Chapters ]

Christianity as we have been seeing, has a murky past. Many Christians are completely unfamiliar with the religion's history. Christianity's origins are obscure and are not as Christian orthodoxy would have us believe. In the first few centuries we see a mass of variant traditions, beliefs and dogmas. Under the watchful eyes of the Roman Empire, the "orthodox" traditions evolved and beat out the "heretical" sects. The religion has a very violent history, especially during the medieval times.

To make the claim that it is all the work of a loving God requires one to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Let's quickly enumerate some of the problems with the New Testament that we have discussed so that we get a feel for the cumulative weight of all the evidence.

• The gospels are anonymous works. We do not know who wrote them. But they now are attributed to figures of apostolic authority.
• Many of the epistles are written fraudulently in someone else's name (Pseudepigrapha) to give it authority.
• The gospels seem to have been written decades after the events they describe.
• The gospels are not four independent accounts. The synoptic problem suggests that the authors were copying and modifying and redacting each other.
• The gospels and epistles are reinterpreting the Old Testament and drawing new interpretations. We see extensive use of midrash or retelling of old stories in new settings.
• Claims of prophesy fulfilled are often words taken completely out of context.
• We do not have the original autographs of the texts.
• We do not know what the originals said. We have multiple variant readings. We can't reconstruct the originals as we don't have manuscripts that are early enough, let alone the originals.
• They books seem to have gone through multiple rounds of redaction before reaching a form close to what we have today.
• The Gospels, Acts and the epistles are not mutually consistent in what they report. The Jesus in the gospels is a composite figure.
• The earth shattering events in gospel story are not attested to by any contemporary historian.
• No contemporary historian writes about Jesus of Nazareth.
• There are clearly legendary details in the Bible – virgin birth, miraculous star, massacre of infants, miracles, sun going dark, zombies walking around, resurrection etc.
• A symbolic and theological agenda is clearly visible in the texts.
• We have many apocryphal texts. There is no good or scientific reasons for holding the canonical texts, authoritative and the 'apocryphal' ones, heresies.
• The New Testament canon has never been universally accepted, till date.

The problems with the Biblical texts are manifold and non-trivial. To suggests that this is all the work of a omniscient deity trying to get us all to believe in him, is clearly ridiculous.

The mind boggles at the suggestion that God incarnated on earth and died for us, but left us with this muddled mess as evidence! Apparently, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to die an agonizing death but forgot to have this recorded in the contemporary books of history. The Son's life and death apparently inspired a mass of variant beliefs some of which survive to this day. But we know very little, if anything, about this Son of God or what he taught.

The Holy Bible was written and redacted or modified by many different people with varying agendas over a very long period of time. It was compiled to promote theological and possibly political agendas. It is painfully obvious that they do not all fit together as if all of it were inspired by one Omniscient God.

The jealous and violent Yahweh or El Elyon of the Old Testament and the violent crucifixion, antisemitism and apocalyptic message and imagery of the New Testament clashes with the message of loving one's neighbor that many modern Christians like to project.

One is forced to relegate much of the Bible as allegory, symbolism and myth to hold on to the Christian faith. The only other options are to ignore the facts or live in ignorance of facts.

[This concludes my series of posts on the origins of Christianity.]

[ Previous Chapter | Index of Chapters ]

Christian Origins: 13. Schisms

13. Schisms

[ Previous Chapter | Index of Chapters | Next Chapter ]

In the fourth century AD, Christianity became a legal religion in the Roman Empire. It was no longer persecuted by the state. Soon, by the end of the fourth century it was the state religion and heretic sects and pagans were converted at the pain of death. It was around these times that the winter solstice holiday or the birthday of Solar deities (Sol Invictus and others) was co-opted by Christians. Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25. Christianity never looked back and during the medieval times was a major power player in Europe.

The Ecumenical Councils

However, Christianity was hardly a monolithic faith. In the pursuit of universally accepted dogmas, many ecumenical councils were held. How Jesus the son and God the father were related was the issue at hand at the Council of Nicaea. It was convened by Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. The Nicene Creed declared that the Son was begotten, not made and was of one substance with the Father. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD declared that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, at the same time.

The Great Schism

Despite the councils and the efforts of the church, the variant and heretic sects remained and differences persisted. Though having the weight of the Roman Empire behind it helped root out some of the heresies, some did not quite die away. The Churches of the East (Greek) and the West (Latin) had a fall out and eventually split in AD 1054. The split was, at least on paper, primarily over the question of whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the both the Father and the Son or just the Father (the Filioque controversy). It was accompanied by much politics in the background and a good dose of drama.

The Reformation

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century saw many Protestant Churches break away from the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England also broke away from the Catholic Church leaving it a much smaller and weaker power broker.

In the last two centuries many many more denominations emerged; Pentecostal denominations, Jehovah's Witness, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) and many many more. According to the "World Census of Religious Activities" by the U.N, there were over 23,000 sects of Christianity by 1989. ^[1]

[To be continued... Next Chapter: Looking Back ]

[ Previous Chapter | Index of Chapters | Next Chapter ]

References:

^[1] World Census of Religious Activities, U.N. Information Center, NY, 1989.
[Note: I have only seen citations of this report; haven't actually seen the report.]

Christian Origins: 12. Evolutionary Strands

12. Evolutionary Strands

[ Previous Chapter | Index of Chapters | Next Chapter ]

What the early Christian writings tell us is that there were vastly variant beliefs before they all coalesced into what became orthodox Christianity. Once Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire, it ruthlessly beat out all variant branches and burnt their writings or just stopped making copies of the heretic writings which meant they did not survive. The fact that all those writing are now lost makes it difficult for us to piece together the origins very precisely.

But here is a quick sampling of some of the interesting branches of early Christianity.

Docetism

Docetism was a strand of Christian theology (variant from what became the orthodox theology) that seem to have been popular during the second century. The proponents thought that Jesus only seemed to be human but did not actually suffer during his crucifixion. If you think about it, it actually seems to make better sense. Why would the Son of God have to suffer? Why not just the appearance of suffering, the docetists seem to have thought!

Christian Gnosticism

Gnostic sects believed that a creator God or demiurge put us here on earth and there is a bit of divinity in us. Realizing this truth or getting the secret knowledge or gnosis was the way to attain salvation from this material world. Many gnostic sects are believed to have existed, some of them with a Revealer figure who aids in the attainment of the knowledge.

The Christian Gnostic sects equated Jesus to this revealer figure. The Johannine Gospel has Jesus revealing to everyone who would listen that he was the way, the bread of life, the light of the world etc. This Gospel is considered by some to have had Gnostic roots.

Marcionites

We know of the second century Marcion of Sinope who reputedly bankrolled the Church of Rome for a while. But he had a falling out and found himself excommunicated. Marcion's theology apparently was quite popular and he did not identify the Jewish Yahweh as the Father of Jesus. Yahweh was relegated to the position of a demigod while Jesus' father was a God of love. This was in contrast with the Christian orthodoxy that came to believe that Yahweh was indeed Jesus' father.

Marcion appears to have used a collection of ten Pauline epistles and a version of the Gospel of Luke. The versions he used were either stripped and modified to suite his purposes or it is the versions that came down to us that got redacted. We don't know for sure and this is a source of much controversy and speculation.

Copies of Marcion's canon unfortunately have not survived. In fact, most of what we know about Marcion comes from church fathers like Tertullian and Epiphanius who make no secret of the fact that they did not like him or his theology so much! It is even a mainstream view that the Orthodox New Testament canon that evolved was a response to Marcion's canon.

Ebionites

The little that we know about the Ebionites is from polemical writings of Church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons. The Ebionites seem to have been Judaizers, following the Mosaic laws unlike what became orthodox Christianity. They seem to have rejected the doctrine of virgin birth of Jesus and believed that Christ descended into a human Jesus after his baptism. They also rejected apostle Paul and Pauline Christianity. ^[1]

Valentinians

The Valentinians were a gnostic sect. They seem to have believed in an invisible, incomprehensible, eternal, unbegotten, perfect and preexistent God called Bythus (or Proarche, Propator). Bythus along with Sige who coexisted with him gave rise to lesser Aeons.

Of these was Sophia, a degenerate Aeon who suffered from a desire to search and comprehend the greatness of the father Bythus who, as you might remember was invisible, incomprehensible! To purify Sophia, more Aeons were produced including Christ and the savior Jesus, the second Christ.

The Demiurge, a lesser divine is the creator god in this theology. Some men fashioned by the Demiurge have a spiritual element which when perfected by Gnosis or knowledge of God becomes ready for salvation. To bring this about, to secure this salvation, the savior descended to earth and took on an animal form. Upon salvation, these men will enter the higher heaven.

Lesser men who are of animal nature (and lacking the spiritual element) can enter the lower heavens provided they are righteous.

The Valentinians believed that the savior descended in the form of dove at the time of Baptism and departed when Jesus was brought before Pilate. All this we know from church father Irenaeus of Lyons' polemical text Against Heresies where he rips into their beliefs. ^[2]

Arianism

Arius of Alexandria (AD 250–336) taught that the son Jesus was secondary to God the Father. This was a major competitor to Christian Orthodoxy which was defined by the Council of Nicea which gave Christianity the Nicene creed.

Nestorianism and Monophysitism

Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople (386-450 AD) taught that Jesus had two natures, a divine one and a human one. Monophysitism on the other hand insisted that Jesus had a single nature which was divine (or a mix of divine and human). Christian Orthodoxy that emerged victorious at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) decided that Jesus was fully divine and fully human, simultaneously.

And there were many many more strands in the evolution of what became Christianity. Montanism, Sabellianism, the Borborites, the Carpocratians, the Basilideans and many more that has been lost to us.

Some of the writings which were considered heretic were destroyed by the Church. Many others were just not copied and were consequently lost to time. We know very little of many of the sects that were active during the first and second centuries. We attempt to reconstruct what they thought from the Church Father's polemic writings. Some of the recent findings like the early Christian gnostic writings at Nag Hammadi and the Jewish writing from Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) give us snapshots of these ancient times. But we'll probably always know that we don't know enough!

But what we do know is that early Christianity was a mass of varying views. What came to be known as orthodox Christianity had a long painful evolution from these strands.

The view that Jesus taught the disciples, died and with the Holy Ghost guidance Peter and Paul and the rest founded a Church and spread the word far and wide with a teaching that is identical to what Christians believe today is a naive view. What the evidence tells us happened is quite different!

The New Testament Canon

The twenty seven books of the New Testament that we today see in most Bibles were declared by the Church to be canonical or authoritative. This canonization process happened gradually and over a long period of time. The four gospels were considered as authoritative as early as the late second century by the proto-orthodox Christians. But there were disputes on which other books to retain and which not to. For instance, the book of Revelation, Philemon, Hebrews etc. were not accepted by many. The Acts of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, 3rd Corinthians, the book of Hermas, the epistles of Clement etc. were accepted by many to be authoritative.

The Council of Trent in 1546 A.D made the canon of twenty seven books an absolute article of faith for the Catholics. The Protestant churches followed suit shortly thereafter. ^[3]

[To be continued... Next Chapter: Schisms ]

[ Previous Chapter | Index of Chapters | Next Chapter ]

References:

^[1] Irenaeus, "Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter XXVI".

^[2] Irenaeus, "Against Heresies: Book I, Chapter I"

^[3] Richard Carrier, "The Formation of the New Testament Canon" (2000).