Virtually every Christian who addresses the question of no similarities between the pagan mystery's savior sun-gods and Jesus, carefully select examples from pagan mythology that have very little if anything in common with Christian customs or doctrines. Such a trick has proved very successful for the likes of Josh McDowell and those who have borrowed from him. (Eric's paper is littered with deceptive examples.)
Denouncing my book during a sermon to his congregation in Tyler, Texas, Christian minister Vance Stinson used the account of the pagan savior-god Heracles, which he borrowed from Josh McDowell's book He Walked Among Us.85 After reading an account of this god's attributes, which were completely dissimilar to those of Jesus, Stinson says in a somewhat all-knowing pleading voice, "now tell me, do you find any similarities between that story of Heracles and what I just read you from Luke's Gospel? Where are the similarities we are told about [from Conder]? . . . Boy, doesn't that just make you think of the story of the Gospel? [he laughs] No of course not, its totally ridiculous." Well, had Christian minister Stinson been completely honest and read the whole account of Heracles, or any of the other dozens of savior sun-gods, his listeners would not have been so easily amused.
Any mythologist will affirm the fact that each of mythology's gods and goddesses usually have more than one legend associated with them. Further, it often happens that a god or goddess may have assigned attributes that are to the opposite extremes. This happened because the concept of a deity usually traveled with ancient peoples to a new home where they evolved into new gods and goddesses. This fact of mythology is alluded to by Eric on page 48 of his paper where he notes three different versions of Dionysus' death, which he then compounds by admitting, "Of course, in one rendition he, after being buried, rose from the dead and went to heaven, and then, according to [Sir James G.] Frazer, when the resurrection was part of the myth in some area, it was reenacted at the rites of Dionysus's followers."86
The unique history of mythology means that one can find, for example, that when the Egyptian goddess Isis became romanized she had attributes far different from those found in ancient Egypt. When Mithra came to Rome from Persia he lost some of his Persian attributes and picked up some others from the romanized Greek myths of Adonis and Dionysus. This is the truth of mythology that Josh McDowell and his "mcdowellees" don't want their audience to focus on.
Let us now return to the account of Vance Stinson. The truth is that there are several accounts of Heracles' life, but Stinson conveniently forgot to tell his congregation this fact. To make my point, I would refer the reader to Barbara Walker's book, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, page 393. The one account of Heracles that Stinson didn't mention tells how he was begotten by the heavenly father of an earthly virgin, whose "consort didn't lie with her until after her Divine Child was born." This earthly "son of god" had Twelve Labors which symbolized the sun's passage through the twelve houses of the zodiac. He was called the Savior of the Universe; he was worshiped as the "savior who died and rose again like the sun, which is why a solar eclipse was supposed to have attended his death. . . . Heracles' was called Prince of peace, Sun of Righteousness, Light of the World. He was the same sun greeted daily by Persians and Essenes with the ritual phrase, 'He is risen.' . . . He was sacrificed at the spring equinox, [and] . . . He was born at the winter solstice (Christmas)."
Ignoring this account of the Heracles' legend, Stinson deceptively asks: "as I look at this I wonder where is the virgin birth?" Had Vance Stinson looked outside Josh McDowell's Christian joke books he'd know very well where the virgin birth account is to be found in paganism. However, what is obvious here is that Josh McDowell, Eric Snow, and Vance Stinson's arguments are ridiculous by virtue of the fact that if the pagans borrowed from the Christians, as they assert, then what they should be doing is offering accounts from mythology that demonstrate the many similarities of paganism to Christianity. Regarding that, there is one question I'd like to raise here: Since McDowell, Snow and Stinson maintain that the pagans borrowed from Christianity, and they base this on the assertion that the earliest surviving writings of paganism date only from the second century CE, then how do they explain this in light of the fact that the earliest surviving Gospel accounts date from the fourth century CE? Maybe I'm missing something here, but these numbers seem to prove the opposite argument.
Still following by-gosh Josh McDowell, Eric Snow continues to use examples from He Walked Among Us when outlining the attributes of pagan savior gods. He cites, for example, the Egyptian god Osiris (as does Stinson) and seeks to show that there is really no comparison between the him and Jesus. Once again we have blatant deception; Josh McDowell, Vance Stinson, and Eric Snow single out an account that has little similarity to Jesus. I say that if, as good Christians, these men are really concerned with truth, why not present the accounts of ancient savior gods whose stories are identical to the birth, life and death of Jesus? Of course I know the answer to this.
In the last three decades alone millions have left Christianity when presented with the truth about Jesus and his "New Testament." That is the reason behind the desperate attempts of men like Archer Gleason and Josh McDowell to answer the charges of textural corruption, pagan influence, and scriptural contradictions.
By the way, let me offer a taste of Josh McDowell's "evidence" against pagan mythology's influence on Christianity. On page 185 of He Walked Among Us he quotes one James D.G. Dunn: "The parallel with visions of Isis and Asclepius . . . [to Jesus] is hardly close. These were mythical figures from the dim past. In the sightings of Jesus we are talking about a man who had died only a few days or weeks earlier." This might sound acceptable to the casual reader, but let's dissect McDowell and Dunn's "evidence" to see if it can hold up.
To accept Mr. Dunn's observation as "evidence" one has to accept—on faith—the church's word that the twelve apostles mentioned in the church's own Gospels actually lived. They would then have to accept—on faith—that the accounts of Jesus' death and supposed resurrection were written down by these "original" apostles "a few days or weeks" after his death. If they are willing to accept these two claims, they then have to accept that there was no possibility that these men were telling a lie; they'd have to also overlook the fact that the apostles, who were supposedly reporting the most stupendous event in world history only "a few days or weeks" earlier had written down confusing and conflicting accounts. Further, because we don't have the "original" writings, they would need to have faith that the surviving manuscripts weren't tampered with; to do that they need to ignore the fact that these manuscripts surfaced inside a notoriously corrupt Roman Catholic Church that sported forgery as its trademark and whose primary aim was to conqueror the world with its religion. Having this behind them they'd then have to ignore the thousands of extant New Testament manuscripts which prove that indeed tampering was a way of life with New Testament preservation. The next thing they'd have to do would be to place their faith in men like Josh McDowell, Gleason Archer, and Eric Snow and believe that the contradictions and historical inaccuracies that they read in the Gospel accounts with their own eyes, aren't really there. If they can believe all of this, then they can have faith in Josh McDowell's evidence from Mr. Dunn!
I personally feel that if Josh McDowell's readers would take all of his so-called evidence and dissect it in the manner just outlined, then they'd find that perhaps 90 percent of it is pure rubbish!
McDowell's Great Trilemma
Having already offered two extreme opinions in an attempt to explain the great similarities between the pagan savior gods and Jesus, McDowell closes his so-called evidence on the matter by offering yet one more "could be" as an excuse.
On page 192 of He Walked Among Us, McDowell, who has already said that the pagans borrowed from Christianity only to turn around and contradict himself by claiming that there is really no similarities between the two faiths, says, "Though Christianity teaches that there is only one way to a relationship with God, it may be that God has actually used some of the pagan myths to carry out this teaching process within pagan cultures. . . . One of the thrilling new discoveries in Christian missions confirms that God may have revealed, hundreds of years before it took place, the essential elements of the gospel story to various cultures which later mythologized these details through the centuries."
If I'm not mistaken, McDowell is saying that there are astonishing similarities between the pagan savior gods and Jesus Christ after all. Well, if you are confused by these bouts of illogic, then your not alone. So am I!
Nimrod, Jesus ben Panthera, and Simon Magus
Still tearing at my evidence of mythology's connection to Christianity, the following emphasis is Eric's as he asks, "HOW CAN ANYONE PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT NIMROD OR SIMON THE SORCERER OUTSIDE THE PAGES OF THE BIBLE?" Well, I guess Eric needs to get cracking at the history books. If he'd read my first book he'd know the answer to that. I cite numerous and well-respected historians who have concluded that the Nimrod of Genesis is one and the same as the historical King Ninus, the deified god-king of Babylon/Assyria. And Eric, this isn't opinion, it's backed by 4,000 year-old Babylonian and Assyrian clay tablets. Further, if you'd quit reading quotes from the so-called church fathers as filtered through Josh McDowell's books, and would actually go to the so-called originals, you would find that these writings, on which you and Josh rely, back my thesis about Simon Magus.
Eric slams me on page 24 of his paper for pointing out the rabbinical tradition about Jesus ben Panthera and his connection to Jesus, yet on page 32 he has no problem in citing the Yalkut, "a medieval Jewish anthology," to make a case that God's curse against Jeconiah was lifted. Eric notes about this rabbinical tradition that it "at least deserves a hearing before rejection." I agree Eric, that's why I presented the evidence that some of Jesus ben Panthera's legends are tied up with the Gospel accounts of Jesus.
By the way Eric, how do you explain your hero's use of the legend of Jesus ben Panthera as "proof" of Jesus' virgin birth on pages 116 and 117 of his book Evidence That Demands a Verdict? On page 24 you say that my use of the Panthera story is "Further proof of Conder's uncritical methodology is his use [by this] ancient Jewish slander. . . " If I'm in default for using this information, then so are you by virtue of your extensive use of good old Josh.
Alexander Hislop
While on the subject of mythology, I would also like to comment here on Eric's juvenile criticism of my following Hislop's explanation of the word "cannibal." Eric quotes from a modern dictionary, which, of course, doesn't back up Hislop (i.e., cannibal is from the two Chaldean words "Cahna," meaning "priest" and "Baal," meaning "priest of Baal.") Eric writes, "Normally, I'd just call this a trivial slip-up. But it is symptomatic of Conder's scholarship to rely on Hislop (1877) rather than an up-to-date dictionary for a word's etymology."87
Maybe Eric doesn't know this but modern dictionaries are not exhaustive studies into philology, and by the rules of this science the meaning that Hislop notes is quite plausible. The connection that Hislop makes even more acceptable if one can make the connection between a modern word and the people who anciently spoke the language, in this case England and Chaldea.
Let us examine the meaning that Eric quotes from his dictionary: The word comes from a Spanish corruption of a Caribbean Indian word (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language). So the word is traced back, in part, to Spanish. If Eric knew anything about the Spanish people and their history he'd know the very heavy Phoenician influence in both their ancient culture and language. Phoenician, of course, is almost identical with paleo-Hebrew (i.e., Old Hebrew), which is one and the same with "Chaldean."
I will cover the subject of the Hebrew/Chaldean/Phoenician language and its connection to the languages of the British Isles and Europe in some detail in my upcoming book on the lost Ten Tribes, but I will comment here that if I merely turned to my Webster's Dictionary for information about the great similarities between Hebrew/Chaldean and the languages of Western Europe, I wouldn't be able to offer any evidence for a connection. This is because a dictionary is not an exhaustive reference source on word origins. Take a look, for one instance, at the old Irish language. In Gaelic Irish there are hundreds of words that are either similar or identical to Hebrew, and they have exactly the same meaning in both languages.88 Now, some of these words have found their way into the English language, yet one cannot find an English dictionary that will make the connection to Hebrew.89
Ralph Woodrow
Speaking of Alexander Hislop, I want to also note that Eric Snow recommends to his readers that they seek out Ralph Woodrow's new publications denouncing a Babylonian religious connection to Christianity. Eric admits that he hasn't read Woodrow's publications, but nevertheless uses them to back his point against Hislop.
Well, I have the new books by Woodrow and they go much further than attacking Hislop. Woodrow, who made a small fortune among Protestant churches with his booklet, The Babylonian Mystery Religion, once was a champion against the pagan influence in present-day Christianity. In his original book he laid his charges of pagan corruption at the feet of Roman Catholicism by basically relying on Hislop's The Two Babylons, which means, as we now see, that he had a built-in excuse to later blame Hislop when he changed his mind.
In his recent writings Woodrow recanted his stand and basically advised his readers that the tenants of Roman Catholicism are quite acceptable Christian customs in the sight of Jesus. He also reversed himself and dismissed the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter by declaring that the information to connect these celebrations to paganism was unhistorical and unreliable. He advised that it was perfectly Christian to embrace and celebrate these festivals. (Woodrow strongly emphasis these points in his two follow-up books, Easter Reconsidered, which left him free to embraced a Good Friday crucifixion—Easter Sunday morning resurrection, and Christmas Reconsidered, wherein he concluded that the Christmas tree and jolly old Santa were really just harmless European customs with no connection at all to the ancient pagan worship of the Sun-god's birth.)
What is all-telling here is that Woodrow's excuses for his radical turn around are basically those being put forward by Eric Snow and Josh McDowell. In a footnote on page 56 of his paper, Eric advises "Those who liked Conder's first book on this subject may wish to look for Woodrow's critique of Hislop, and see if it can stand up to serious scrutiny as well." To this I can only again respond that if what I've written can't stand up, then Eric, you and your "mcdowellees" in the Sabbatarian churches had better be prepared to join your nearest Catholic church, because that will be all that you are left with.
By the way, the turn around by Woodrow has also earned him the respect of Eric's parent organization, the Worldwide Church of God, which in the last several years has recanted its stand on paganism's influence in Christianity. They have recommended his books to their membership to shore up their new doctrinal changes, which includes Sunday worship and the celebration of Easter and Christmas.90 This means that by recommending Woodrow's books to his readers, Eric Snow and his Sabbatarian United Church of God now stand with their parent organization and must be recommending that the observance of Sunday, instead of Saturday, is perfectly acceptable in God's sight, as is the keeping of Christmas and Easter. (Of course knowing that an old "Armstrongite" like Eric isn't really recommending these changes, so I can only advise him to be careful about using sources that he hasn't personally checked out!)
The Other Side of the Issue
On pages 38-39 Eric writes: "Does anyone honesty believe, given the above documentation, that we should place our faith in Conder's higher critic scholarship, when conservative Christian criticisms undermine it badly?" Of course by "conservative Christian scholarship" Eric means Josh McDowell and his unnamed coed bolstered by Gleason Archer's fundamentalist arguments. He continues: "Furthermore, the same means of argumentation [Conder] uses against the NT which he picked up from these scholars can be used against the OT . . . He also fails to reckon with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and the majesty of Christian ethics [does he mean, for example, the Holy Inquisitions?], so different from the run of pagan mystery religions. It's time for Conder to explain how he thinks the resurrections accounts came to be, for calling them 'myths' will not succeed with anyone who has read any significant amount of mythological writings, and so knows the difference from historical writing. It's time for Conder to also make a choice out of the great trilemma. He has to explain who and what Jesus was—if He wasn't the Lord, He had to be a deceiver or a madman—and give the evidence from the pages of the NT for his choice."
Well excuse me, Eric. I thought my book made it clear who and what I think Jesus was. I've also made clear that I'm not talking about the real Yeshua, the first century Jewish victim of a cruel religious hoax, but the pagan myth he has evolved into. If you want my answer, go back to my book and read it.
To what "historical writings" are you referring Eric? I suppose you mean the unhistorical Gospels, because there isn't anything else. Also, don't give me that by-gosh Josh "trilemma" garbage. Thank God I don't answer to you or Josh McDowell. And what do mean that I have to give evidence from the New Testament? If you had taken your nose out of Josh McDowell's books long enough for a serious study of what I'd written, you know that I quoted extensively from the New Testament to back my beliefs. If you recall Eric it is my embarrassing evidence from the New Testament that prompted you to write a book against me in the first place!
Furthermore, what "evidence for the resurrection" are you talking about? Outside of what old by-gosh Josh, his unnamed coed from Pittsburgh, and his born-again Christian cronies believe, you have yet to present any! And speaking of the resurrection and your criticism of my not addressing it sufficiently to satisfy you, let me partly make amends here. I'll do this by noting something and ask you to explain it Eric.
Notice in the Gospels that Jesus told the women at his resurrection to go tell his disciples to meet him in Galilee, where he would appear to them. (Matt. 28:7-10) In John 20:19 we read that on Sunday evening he appeared to his disciples, which must have been in Galilee. Christian Professor Ludemann writes: "That [the first appearance of Jesus to the disciples] was on the third day, i.e., on the Sunday after the Sabbath, can be ruled out above all because the breakthrough took place in Galilee and the disciples cannot have got back there in one or two days (and moreover during the sabbath)."91 How would you explain this Eric?
On page 39 of his paper Eric Snow says, "He [Conder] should also reply to standard conservative/fundamentalist Christian scholarship—his footnotes hardly refer to any of it, even in reply. Conder writes that he has 'just counted 47 books on Christian defense here in my private library.' Their contents sure don't seem to have much effect on Mystery Babylon since he rarely states their arguments (except perhaps when dealing with alleged contradictions in the NT). Those tempted by Conder to believe the NT is historically inaccurate, contradictory, etc. need to be open minded and to research the other side of the question, and avoid assuming he has the final word."
I have to say Eric that once again you are misleading your readers. Having referred in your paper to something I wrote in Masada Magazine, you know well that I have replied to "standard conservative-fundamentalist Christian scholarship," specifically to your hero and mentor, Josh McDowell, as well as to your church's ministry.
Even though I've explained this in my book and I have explained it in Masada Magazine, I'll explain it one more time: I grew up in a church where the kind of fundamentalist scholarship to which you are referring Eric, was crammed down my throat. It was not until I read the "forbidden" scholarship of the higher theological critics, whom you disparage, that I began to see the other side of the issue. The reason that I didn't take pains to detail the fundamentalist arguments for the validity of the New Testament in my book was because I knew that virtually everyone reading it would be a Christian and, like me, alread would have had these works crammed down their throats. Like me, they would have never seen the other side of the issue. So I wasn't interested in rehashing information that was available by the truckload in any library or bookstore; I wanted to put before my audience the unseen and unknown "other side of the question" about New Testament validity.
As to you and your paper Eric, except for your quotes from my book, which you often take out of context, I don't see you presenting the whole issue to your readers. You don't, for example, cite the Christian sources that denounce Luke's account of that infamous census in the nativity account. You found and presented only the sources that back your argument so that you could convince your readers that you, Josh, and "Luke" are right. This can be said for every other example in your paper. For instance you recommend Robin Lane Fox's book Pagans and Christians to your audience and even use it for a reference. But in your discussion of the New Testament's reliability I noticed that you didn't quote Robin Lane Fox's book The Unauthorized Version, which I use. You don't offer his comment about Marcion's tampering with the New Testament in circa 140 CE. Concerning this your cited authority, Mr. Fox, writes: "If Christian texts were being changed and edited to this degree, even a gap of a century between the original and its first survival on a papyrus is a long and potentially dangerous time. We simply do not know what may have happened to the author's words at important places."92
I will say this Eric, with by-gosh Josh McDowell's books in hand you sure have some nerve asking your readers to be open minded! What is the old saying, "I'm glad I don't have your nerve in my tooth!"
Josephus
On page 81 of Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell offers a quote from John Warwick Montgomery's History and Christianity: "What, then, does the historian know about Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of Him. And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presupposition, or literary maneuvering."
It probably will not escaped the reader's notice that there isn't one honest statement in the above quote. The true historian, as distinguished from the Christian who wrote the above, knows absolutely nothing about Jesus outside the New Testament. True historians are the ones responsible for classifying the Gospels as "unreliable" at best, or, at worst, a "pious fiction." At any rate, this prejudicial dishonest quote is a preface to the "historical evidence" which Josh claims he's going to present to prove Jesus outside the Gospels.
Josh's first and most important "evidence" is the infamous Josephus text, known in Christianity as the "Testimonium," which essentially has Josephus admitting in his Antiquities that Jesus was the son of God and the expected Jewish Messiah. It is interesting that on page 82 of Evidence That Demands a Verdict, McDowell says that the quote from Josephus is "hotly contested," although he fails to tell the reader what that means. Simply put, it means that since the early 1800's most scholars (Christian and otherwise) have rejected the so-called Testimonium as a later insertion by Christian monks.
I will not engage here in a detailed discussion of the negative evidence against the "Testimonium" as I have done that already in my book. However, given Eric's snide remark that I fail to present both sides of an issue in my book, I would like to note that he doesn't present the overwhelming negative evidence against the "Testimonium." He simply dismisses it on the basis of Josh McDowell's two books, He Walked Among Us and Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Let's notice how Eric phrases his conclusion.
On page 21 Eric offers his conclusion of the "Testimonium": "Hence this passage is a curious mixture of Josephus' literary style and some unknown Christian scribe's doctoring up of it. Instead of tossing it out completely, reconstructing an original text conjecturally is more justifiable."
What nonsense! If the "Testimonium" is a forgery then it is an exercise of Christian desperation to try and "reconstruct" some so-called evidence for Jesus by using it. Again, I say that if Eric was on trial for his life, how would he like someone to present this type of evidence against his innocence?
Can you imagine a prosecutor presenting a letter that outlined Eric's guilt as evidence while at the same time telling the trial judge: "Well your honor, we don't have the original letter, but we do have this copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.? Also your honor we have to admit that in all probability the words in our copy aren't those of the original letter. And we have to reluctantly concede that a person prejudicial to the defendant was the one who "doctored" it up. We also have to admit that the consensus of the majority of experts who have examined this letter declare it to be a forgery. But, your honor, we'd like you and the jury to ignore all of this and let us present the letter in evidence against the defendant." Such a scene would be absurd! Yet this is exactly the kind of "evidence" that Eric is putting up with his so-called "Testimonium."
After quoting Josh McDowell's quote from Christian fundamentalist F.F. Bruce to "reconstruct" the "Testimonium" as he thinks it should read, Eric says, "Even with the self-evident Christian changes to this passage removed, it's clear from this passage we can know Jesus did miracles . . . "93 Okay Eric, if you say so! All I can say is that people should buy McDowell's books, read my two books and those of the scholars who denounce the Josephus text as spurious. Make up your own minds after reading all of the evidence.
The Others
Eric, who again follows Josh McDowell's "evidence," goes on to offer that there were other secular "eyewitnesses" to the historicity of Jesus. Keeping in mind that I don't doubt that there was a historical person by the name of Yeshua living sometime in the first century, the so-called evidence that Eric touts isn't as convincing as he and Josh would have one to believe.
Because of limited space I don't have the luxury to present a detailed dissertation on the sources presented by Josh and Eric as supposed evidence for Jesus. All I can do is to briefly mention the problems and suggest that the concerned reader seek out the information from the critics.94(Please read their evidence before you take the word of Eric Snow and Josh McDowell that there is "solid" outside evidence for Jesus as a god-messiah.)
One of the major external sources for Jesus is supposedly from Tacitus' Annals, dated to ca. C.E. 116-117. Let me briefly say that many scholars think, based on the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (ca. 403 CE), that the mention of one Christus by Tacitus was an insertion by Christian monks.
On page 83 of Evidence That Demands a Verdict McDowell mentions the very brief remark of Suetonius to one "Chrestus" as evidence. He says that the "Chrestus" is another spelling of "Christus." This isn't right; Chrestus means "The Good" in Greek, while "Christus" means "The Messiah." Suetonius says that "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." (Life of Claudius 25.4)
As critical scholars have noted Chrestus was a somewhat common name in Rome, and the blunt statement that the Jews were making a disturbance at the "instigation of Chrestus" means that either this Chrestus was there in Rome, or was communicating with them in some manner. Further, the "he" mentioned by Suetonius was the emperor Claudius. This means that for the Suetonius' notice to be in reference to Jesus we'd have to believe that Jesus was in Rome in ca. 55 CE raising a disturbance among the Jews—about 15 years after the time he supposedly died.
McDowell's "evidence" from Tertullian who says that the emperor Tiberius was supposed to have received a report about Jesus from Pontius Pilate, doesn't mention that Tertullian was taking his information from the Christian Church father Justin, and Justin was merely assuming that there must have been such a report.95 This notice was responsible for the fourth-fifth century Christian forgery of Pilate's "official" report to Rome about Jesus, in which "Pilate" basically admitted that Jesus was the son of God.
The mention by Justin Martyr of a spurious Christian book called the "Acts of Pontius Pilate" either caused a later fourth century pious liar to forge a book by that name, or once it was forged, for him to insert the mention in "Justin's" writings to back up the book's authenticity. The problem here is that the "originals" of Justin's writings are missing. The earliest copy was made long, long after the forgery just mentioned. The Catholic Encyclopedia records: "They [the works of Justin] are to be found in two manuscripts: Paris gr. 450, finished on 11 September, 1364; and Claromont. 82, written in 1571."96 Such facts combined with the notorious reputation of the Christian Church for producing rank forgeries and tampering with surviving manuscripts, give historians concern about the authenticity of the "Jesus evidence" of Justin Martyr, and indeed, in some cases, of Justin himself.97
The reader should also be aware that the extensive close scrutiny of the other secular writings, which Josh and fundamental Christianity cite as "evidence," also turn up serious questions. In other words, the much-praised external evidence about Jesus is not as cut-and-dry as Josh and Eric would have their readers believe. Again, my advice to you, the reader, is to research the opinions, both pro and con, before coming down in favor of Josh McDowell and his so-called evidence.
Biblical Text Reviewed
Near the close of his paper Eric finally gets to the real problems for the NT as outlined in my book. He entitles this section: "A Quick Look at the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament." A "quick" look? You'd better believe that Eric gives them a "quickie" because he doesn't have the answers.
The first two-thirds of his paper have been really nothing more than a smoke screen to warn people away from the real questions raised by my book, which concern the New Testament prophecies about Jesus as the prophesied Messiah of Israel and whether they can be substantiated by Old Testament prophecies.
Although he admits that, "Much of Conder's work is taken up with an assault on the messianic prophecies as referring to Jesus of Nazareth," Eric doesn't get to these important issues until page 57. Let's see: page 57 out of 73 pages means that Eric reserves 16 pages in his attempt to answer the most important points raised by my book.98 This also give him the break he needs to ignore a tremendous amount of scriptural evidence calling the NT into question.
At any rate, Eric starts his arguments by using the old Worldwide Church of God doctrine of duality: "So it's also necessary to remember the principle of duality in Biblical interpretations, in which some scripture has a primary meaning or fulfillment, and an earlier and' or lesser meaning or fulfillment. Hence, the animal sacrifices had a certain meaning for ancient Israelites in rendering service to God, but they also pointed forward to the day when God Himself would be the sacrifice to the world's humans."
Is Eric talking about the same God of the OT who declares that he does not change? The one who is the same yesterday, today, and forever? Is he the same God who declares that he does not give his glory to another? The same one who is eternal and thereby cannot die. Did this same God change himself into a man to die for the sins of humanity—the same God, who, in the Holy Scriptures, taught that no one can pay for the sins of another. Is this the same God that says he, and he alone can and will forgive the repenting sinner and wash them clean without one mention of a "son" or himself to die in the process? Is this the same God that we are asked to believe changes his mind in the first century CE and borrowed traditions from paganism to found Christianity?
And where is this "duality" principle noted in the bible? I've asked this question for months and have yet to receive a reply. If it is a truth of biblical understanding then it should be spelled out somewhere in the bible. In addition, even if it were a biblical principle, then, as I've also asked without reply, who determines which scripture is dual? Of course I know the answer to this. Those who use duality of prophecy as an excuse to explain contradictory scripture are the ones who make this determination. Furthermore, for every contradiction that the duality excuse explains, it can be used in reverse to cause unexplainable problems in another area. Needless to say that Eric picked up the duality excuse from the doctrines of his church and thereby fails to explain the "principle" from the bible.
At this point I can say that much of what Eric Snow argues can be summed up along the lines of a childhood taunt, "my Christian scholar is better than yours." He counters my research, which relies on the majority consensus of both liberal and conservative Christian scholarship, by citing works that disagree, noticeably those cited by his hero, Josh McDowell. However, I'd like to comment, as and aside, that such disagreement between Christian scholars should be a solid indicator of the true confused state of Christianity and the New Testament. Again, all I can advise is that in the end the concerned reader will simply have to seek out the difference sources, read and research the references, and finally choose which side to come down on. The problem for Christian fundamentalism is that the overwhelming evidence among Christian scholarship comes down on the side of the arguments presented in my book, which is why fundamentalist Christians like Eric denounce it.
Psalms 22
On page 60 Eric proclaims, without any evidence from the OT, that David was a "type" or "forerunner of Christ" and cites Psalms 22 for an example. By whose word is David established as a "forerunner" of Jesus? Eric answers this by citing the Gospel of John and the book of Acts. Did you catch that? Eric let me again ask how you can logically cite the New Testament to prove the validity of the New Testament, which is exactly what you are doing?
Rather smugly, Eric quotes from my book where I say that there is one fundamental of prophetic study: if one verse of the chapter is a prophecy, then so are the rest. However, Eric says, "Almost casually, I found Ezekiel 31 to violate this 'fundamental of prophetic study,' since verses 2-9 describes Assyria's greatness. It then shifts over to a prophecy of downfall in verses 10-18, serving an example of warning to Pharaoh and Egypt as well."
I really don't know what point Eric thinks he is making here. In the thirty-first chapter we have God using the example of the Assyrians to warn the Egyptians about their impending downfall. In verse one God addresses the prophecy to Egypt; in verse three he reminds them how great Assyria once was, and then in verse ten essentially says to them, you, Egypt, are in the same boat as the once mighty and proud Assyrians, and proceeds to spell out their doom. Eric must surely know, as several people have already pointed out to me, that he has a non-existent argument here, and I suspect that this example will be missing when he writes another "preliminary" paper about my book.
Building on this so-called evidence, Eric follows Josh McDowell and others by telling his readers that Psalms 22 was a crucifixion account of Jesus written in advance. To give this claim backing he triumphantly asserts that such a method of execution was unknown in Judea in David's time, therefore his point about Jesus's crucifixion being found in Psalms 22 is, he thinks, proven. Eric writes: "Stoning was the traditional method of execution among the Jews . . . Only by supernatural inspiration could David have described the agonies of dying in a way totally unknown in his culture." Well, I don't know about a supernatural inspiration, but I do know that Eric's inspiration comes from Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict (pages 161-162) as footnote 115 in his paper makes clear.
To follow Josh McDowell and Eric's explanation one will have to first accept the mistranslation of Christian translators who sought to uphold the NT tradition of Jesus' crucifixion being found in Psalms. This means that instead of using the OT to prove the New Testament's validity, one will have to use the New Testament to prove that Psalms 22 is speaking of Jesus. Such illogic is the only way that anyone can believe that David was describing a crucifixion.
On page 62 of Eric's paper he launches into a discussion of the Hebrew word "ari" which is translated "pierced" in many Christian versions of Psalms 22:16: "They pierced [Hebrew 'ari'] my hands and my feet." Even though the Mesoretic text uses the Hebrew word "ari," which means a "lion" (Strong's # 738), and even though modern translations, like
, whose translators say in a footnote that the "Mesoretic Text reads 'Like a lion'," and even though all Jewish translations say "like lions ['ari'] they maul my hands and feet," Eric agrees with the KJV translators and thinks that Strong's #1856 (Hebrew "daqar") should have been used, based upon the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate. He proceeds to offer Gesenius and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicons as proof that #1856 is translated "pierced." Of course he's right about the meaning of #1856, but the problem is that #1856 isn't the word found in the Mesoretic Text of Psalms 22:16! Eric avoids the entire matter by this smoke screen.
Let's make this clear. Fact one: the Hebrew word "daqar," i.e., "pierced," isn't used in Psalms 22:16. Fact two: the Mesoretic text, which the KJV translators supposedly used, uses the Hebrew word "ari" (i.e., "lion") in Psalms 22:16, which James Strong designates as #738. That the word means a "lion" can be substantiated in both Gesenius and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicons. The confusion in Christianity comes from the basic dishonesty of James Strong adding another meaning in his famous Christian work, Strong's Concordance of the Bible (Hebrew Lexicon). Although he does note that the word means "lion," Strong also offers that it means "pierced."
As I explained in a recent article, James Strong, who was a strict fundamentalist Christian, believed completely in the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible, which he carried over to include the King James Version. In his reasoning, if the KJV translators said a Hebrew or Greek word meant something, then that word had to carry that meaning somewhere, somehow. I can give an example of this by citing Acts 12:4 in the New Testament KJV translation. There you find the word Easter, which is the only time it appears in the KJV Bible. Any reliable lexicon of New Testament Greek will give the meaning of Strong's # 3957 (pascha) as Passover. But, because the KJV translators said "pascha" meant Easter, James Strong gave it both the meaning of Passover and Easter—a serious flaw that has been corrected in all subsequent translations of the New Testament.
This is a classic case of James Strong upholding the KJV, whose translators inserted their own Protestant doctrines in the Old and New Testaments through their translating work. James Strong did this because the religion of the KJV translators was his religion. It is not surprising, therefore, that James Strong gives his Hebrew Lexicon #738 the meaning of both "lion" and "pierced" even though it doesn't carry the latter meaning in Hebrew.
The bottom line is that Christian ministers have put "Jesus" into Psalms 22 by changing the meaning of a word. Oh, and Eric didn't explain why the same Hebrew word, "ari," was translated as "lion" later in Psalms 22; according to his reasoning Psalms 22:21 should read "save me from the pierced mouth!"
Eric shores up his dismissal of the correct translation of Psalms 22 by going on to cast doubt upon the Mesoretic text. Of course, by saving his Christian assets in one case, he is shooting holes in some cherished Christian doctrines in others. He can't have it both ways! Is the Mesoretic Text reliable or not? Is it infallible, as fundamentalist Christians claim, or not? Eric says of the Mesoretic translation, "like lions they maul my hands and feet," that the Septuagint, which he notes was produced in circa 250-100 "B.C.," renders this passage as "they pierced" my hands and feet. Here's a question for Eric; history tells us that the Jews, who produced the Septuagint, only translated the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch)!99 If this is the case, and you must accept this if you are going to promote the Septuagint translation as valid scripture, then who, Eric, translated the other books of the Septuagint? Who translated the Psalms, for one example, or the Nevi'im—Prophets?
The editors of The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia note that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the story about seventy (or seventy-two) Hebrew scholars translating the scriptures into Greek by invitation of Ptolemy II of Egypt is nothing more than myth.100 (The UJE's statement is, by the way, backed by numerous Christian sources. See The Oxford Companion to the Bible for one example.) The encyclopedia further notes that, due to the uneven time span in which the entire Tanakh was finally translated into Greek, the readings are not uniform; these variants often show a difference in knowledge of either Hebrew or Greek or both on the part of the translator, meaning that whoever did the initial translating was certainly not an expert in both languages. Furthermore, says the editors of The UJE, "The translators, it is very clear, did not feel bound to render the Hebrew literally; it was their task to give a version of the Bible that agreed with their own religious views . . . in hundreds of cases they added words . . . They altered passages which were regarded as improper or not suitable to be rendered literally."101 This assessment is quite revealing considering that the Septuagint translators were Hellenistic Jews from the school that would produce men like Philo and Paul.
Notice what Harper's Bible Dictionary tells us on the subject of the Septuagint: "The translations of the books of the OT differ in style, accuracy, and substance, indicating that there was no single original translation into Greek. Manuscripts found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early manuscripts and quotations from the Septuagint in ancient writings all indicated that revisions were constantly being made to the Septuagint."102 Who made these revisions Eric, and did these revisions include Psalms 22? Before answering that, also consider that the oldest copy of the Septuagint is the fourth century Codex Vaticanus, an authority that you, Eric, and your anti-Catholic church would surely denounce.
Now, Eric, let me ask this: could the same church who inserted Christian passages in Josephus, penned an ending to the Gospel of Mark (not to mention the insertion of the spurious words in I John 5:7) and mishandled the New Testament manuscripts to the tune of 200,000 conflicting variations, also have made Christian revision to the Septuagint, a book that they had sole custody of? A valid question considering that the early church had a notorious reputation for producing rank forgeries to back their doctrines.
In other words we are faced with the really big question: Because the oldest copies of the Septuagint were preserved by the fourth-fifth century Christian Church, did the early church fathers have anything to do with rendering certain key Christian passages to fit their Christian New Testament?
In the discussion of the Septuagint, the truthful admission by The Catholic Encyclopedia gets to the core of the problem: "many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept [into the Septuagint]." The encyclopedia goes on to note that the notorious Christian Church father, Origen, of all people, was responsible for one of the major efforts to "correct" the many and often spurious variations of the Septuagint!103 Concerning Origen I ask here the question that I presented in MBLTT. Can one trust that this student of platonic philosophy, former pagan Catholic Church father did not place his own theology in his corrections and re-translations of the Septuagint?
Well, these are a few things for Eric to contemplate as he frantically looks through by-gosh Josh McDowell's books for answers.
Throughout the remainder of his paper Eric continues with his Josh McDowell rhetoric to convince his readers that what he believes is truth, and that Darrell Conder is in the service of Judaism. I won't go into the all-to-brief Messianic examples outlined by Eric, because I've already explained them both in both my book and in Masada Magazine. What I'll do here is to again refer the reader to the Servant's News and recommend that they send for a copy of Eric's paper. Read my book, the special edition of Masada Magazine, and read Eric's paper; compare them and make a decision based not on a statement of faith in Jesus from an unnamed coed in Pittsburgh, as Josh McDowell proposes, but based on reliable references.
Jews For Jesus
I would also like to comment on the use of Messianic Jewish works, which Eric and others are beginning to rely on, to shore up their belief in Jesus as the Messiah. It is true that a number of Jews have converted to Christianity, including some Reformed Rabbis. Some of these people have formed an organization called Jews for Jesus, and have produced a lot of literature for their cause.
I recommend that people read this material, but to also read the material of the organization called Jews for Judaism, which answers it in great detail. On the face of it, it sound impressive that Jews, including rabbis, have converted to Christianity. But, when you find that the majority of those converts were essentially unfamiliar with their own faith prior to conversion, then you can understand why Jews for Judaism has had tremendous success in bringing large numbers back into Judaism. I will be glad to send the addresses of both organizations to any interested reader.104
Conclusion
On page 73 Eric closes his paper with a final insult to me by saying that "the Conder thesis against Christianity was examined and it has been found wanting. While Conder claims 'probably seventy-five percent of what I've written is beyond question,' this essay, and the sources it is based upon, show Conder probably isn't even 10% right."
With old by-gosh Josh McDowell in hand, not his bible, Eric Snow has examined my book and he has found it wanting. Moreover, he doesn't tell his reader that the reason he is writing the paper in the first place is because my book has caused thousands of people to leave Christianity—particularly from his own church. He doesn't bother to mention that even some in his church's ministry have read my book and left. I can assure you that all these people didn't read a book with about 10% truth and decide to leave Christianity. What they did was read for themselves the pages of their own Bibles and make an educated decision. This situation is why a minister in Eric's church advised a man to "throw [Conder's] book out" and added that he should "not give that book to anyone else to read!" This was, if you remember, Eric's personal advice to one of our supporters. Maybe Eric and this minister take Jesus' supposed warning in John 8:32 very seriously: "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free!"
By the way, Eric calls my book a "thesis," which is largely incorrect; the truth is that the "proof" of Christianity offered by Eric and Josh McDowell is itself nothing more than a thesis because it can't be backed by any historical evidence.
From a Christian fundamentalist perspective perhaps the best evidence in defense of Christianity in the Snow paper is found in two separate remarks. First let me repeat what Eric says on page 53: "We have to remember our religion is one of emotion, not just reason, and that God wants our whole heart, mind, and soul, and He will fill both." On page 73 in a final closing remark he says, "After all, did we not have an emotional conviction that Jesus was our Savior, and that He lives in us now?"
Well Eric, there you have me! I can't argue with emotions—either yours or the coed that by-Gosh Josh quotes! If all one needs to prove Jesus' Messiahship is to abandon reason and embrace an emotional feeling, then all I can say is that I will leave them to it. As for me, I agree with your apostle Paul: I want I want proof from the Israel's scriptures that Jesus was the promised Messiah. I don't want the foggy excuses of an emotional Christian to get in my way. Following a story from Eric's own New Testament, I also want something more.
Notice in the resurrection story that when Jesus supposedly rose from the dead his own disciples didn't believe it. They demanded physical proof. What's more, Jesus supposedly gave it to them. He supposedly told Thomas to touch the holes in his hands and the wound in his side to prove that he was alive and resurrected. Now that's logical evidence Eric, and that's what every Christian should have. Why should anyone today settle for anything less—such as your "emotional" conviction?
Eric, if you agree that God gave human beings a mind capable of reasoning then you should you also agree that he expects us to use this ability. I say that God expects us to logically examine the physical evidence and make a rational decision, even if what we have been taught from childhood about him turns out not to be the truth.
By the way, Eric Snow also ends his paper with one last warning of eternal death by quoting Matthew 10:33, after which he recommends that people read Gleason Archer and two more of Josh McDowell's books. He also offers a host of other Christian scholarship—including Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox, one of the liberal "higher critics" he condemned me for using in my book.
Speaking of recommended reading, I would like to also ask Eric if he upholds and embraces the criticism that his mentor Josh McDowell offers about his other hero, Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God, which, if you remember, is the parent organization of Eric's church.
Good old by-gosh Josh McDowell, whom countless ministers in Worldwide Church of God's splinter groups (United Church of God, Global Church of God, Church of God, International, and other branches of "God's church") openly admonish their followers to read as a counter to my book, has a chapter in his book, A Ready Defense that openly attacks Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God, which he calls "Armstrongism."105 Having once been a "life-long" member of the old WCG, I can tell you that McDowell's presentation of "Armstrongism" is not completely honest—an appraisal with which I think Eric would agree.
Although I no longer agree with "Armstrongism" I can say that Josh McDowell's outline of Armstrong's teachings is one-sided and prejudicial. Tell me Eric, could this also be a solid indicator of McDowell's methods and his presentation of the so-called evidence in support of Christianity? Reading McDowell's refutation of "Armstrongism" surely makes one wonder whose side Armstrongites Eric Snow and his United Church of God are on when they recommend Josh to their followers?
Sadly, Eric's biased scholarship, coupled with the fact that it will primarily reach an audience that has been trained to follow the dictates of a man, means that he will probably achieve his objective and warn his fellow Christians away from my book. However, as I came to the end of Eric's paper the thought crossed my mind that if my book was really as flawed as he makes it out to be, then he should be encouraging people to read it instead of fleeing from it. Such a flawed work would surely prove his points about Christianity!
At any rate, the highly selective fundamentalist, if not evangelical born-again Christian scholarship, offered for the reading enjoyment of Eric's audience will surely please those who want to stick their heads in the sands of ignorance. In fact, Eric ends his list of recommended authors by saying: "Warning!—only for the determined reader!" As Commonwealth Publishing co-founder Kirk Gearhart commented after reading this warning: "He's right—his list is only for those readers determined to salvage Christianity at all costs!"
Availability: In addition to the Servant's News, (P.O. Box 220, Charlotte, MI, 48813-0220) Eric's paper is also posted on the Internet at the Ann Arbor, Michigan United Church of God's web site. The address is: http://www.io.com/~ucgaa/email.html
One may also be able to obtain a copy by writing to The United Church of God, Ann Arbor, P.O. Box 1326, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Eric V. Snow's e-mail address is: Snoweric@pilot.msu.edu
Availability
In addition to the Servant's News, (P.O. Box 220, Charlotte, MI, 48813-0220) Eric's paper is also posted on the Internet at the Ann Arbor, Michigan United Church of God's web site. Here is the Link.
One may also be able to obtain a copy by writing to The United Church of God, Ann Arbor, P.O. Box 1326, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Eric V. Snow's e-mail address is: Snoweric@pilot.msu.edu
Post Script: A BRIEF REPLY TO ERIC SNOW'S ROUND TWO
After Eric Snow wrote his paper,Is Christianity a Fraud? A Preliminary Assessment of the Conder Thesis, in reply to my book, and after I wrote a reply to this paper, entitled By-Gosh Josh, we exchanged several brief e-mails over the issues raised in each paper. This happened because those of us at Commonwealth Books, in an effort to be honest in this debate, wanted to offer Eric's critique along with my works to any interested party.
In one of these e-mails I told Eric that I would leave this issue with him, as I wanted to move on to other things. However, when I read Eric's reply to By-Gosh Josh, I couldn't resist the temptation to toss out a few more points. This is because Eric's emotional Christian bias essentially begs for such a response.
Eric's new paper is appropriately entitled, Round Two. In addition to being posted by the United Church of God on their web site, it is also being offered by several fundamentalist Sabbatarian Christian groups, which means that it is found in several different formats. I took my copy from the Internet site of Eric's own United Church of God (which isn't so "united" anymore, as its president, who was embroiled in some controversy with his board, recently took a group off to form a new congregation). At any rate, with these different formats it is meaningless to give a page number as a reference when answering Eric's paper. I will, therefore, simply give a subheading title as a reference.
Reply to Round Two
How ironic that Eric starts his Round Two by complaining that my By-Gosh paper is really just restating my book's arguments. This is my complaint with his Round Two. Essentially, if you've read Eric's first paper, then you've read his second. He simply repeats his arguments and again liberally uses Christian fundamentalist, Josh McDowell as a major reference - which, of course, is why I titled my reply to his first paper By-Gosh Josh.
From the outset of his paper Eric once again tells his readers, by virtue of his own analysis of his own paper and sources, that my By-Gosh paper "is weighed and found wanting once again." Gee, Eric, you could have at least waited until you had presented you arguments before making your statement!
Eric complains that the Commonwealth Catalog didn't adhere to truth in advertising in its description of my book. That's his opinion. The several thousand people who have now left Christianity as a result of my book didn't have a problem with the advertisement; neither did the majority of those who read the book and disagreed. It seems that those who take exception to the ad is Christians, like Eric, who watch their fellow "once-converted" brothers and sisters leaving their congregations because they finally allowed a little truth in front of their eyes!
Under the subheading, "CONDER'S MISTAKE IN ADOPTING HIGHER CRITIC METHODOLOGY, NOT JUST THEIR 'FACTS"', Eric again points out to his readers that the Old Testament is essentially in as bad, or worse shape, as the Christian New Testament: "if Conder used the same methods of reasoning that higher critics do against the OT, it too would fall before his critical pen." To illustrate his point, Eric takes a statement from my By-Gosh Josh paper and removes the references to the NT and substitutes the OT, Jesus for Moses etc. All I can say to this example is, you are right Eric. But you've done it now! By raising these questions and admitting the truth of the facts, you are now going to have to write a book to defend the Old Testament. Of course that shouldn't be hard for a scholar like you, as I'm sure that you have all of Josh McDowell's works still at hand. You also have the "faith card" to which you appeal in this subheading. Oh, and I like this one: "The real issue isn't what 'facts' these higher critic scholars may find against the Bible's reliability, but what principles of interpretation and the overall philosophy they bring to their work." (Emphasis is Eric's.)
In other words, Eric, to hell with the facts, let's psychoanalyze the men who are writing. This was the approach of some of your church's ministers when they claimed to be preaching against my book. They introduced what amounted to slander against me, personally, in an effort to discredit my book. If someone points out a blatant error in the bible, who cares if he is an atheist, Buddhist—or even you, Eric, who, with your M.A and B.A. degrees, have pointed out how flawed you find the Old Testament. I must say that by your pointing out the flaws of the Old Testament, you are getting rather drastic, considering your entire Christian faith stands or falls on the infallibility of the Old Testament!
"WHY MY ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE MAKES ME SUSPICIOUS OF MYSTERY BABYLON'S SOURCES". Here we are treated to an outline of Eric's educational credentials, which he offers with the note that he hoped that their presentation wouldn't be perceived as arrogance on his part. Let's see, Eric has a B.A. in marketing; he has a M.A. from Michigan State in history, which was obtained by writing a thesis on English farm workers during the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure your family and friends are very impressed with your accomplishments Eric, but explain to me why you offer this criticism of the late Dr. Asimov: ". . . the fact remains that when a man trained in biochemistry writes a commentary on the Bible, his level of expertise is going to be no higher than most other outsiders. The realm of academia is so specialized that when a scholar or scientist writes or speaks out on something outside his area of special training, it should be regarded as having little more weight than what a typical college-educated member of the public would think on it."
So, by you own admission Eric, the information you've been passing off on your fellow Christians as a defense of the bible is useless! Why should they even bother to read a defense of Christianity that has been written by a marketing major? Even more to the point, by the above words you are also admitting that the experts in Christian academics, like Dr. Burton Mack, whom you disparage in this latest paper, should be taken seriously. Of course, all of this is another of your famous smokescreen. What you are trying to do is to draw people's attention away from the real issue, which you yourself sum up brilliantly in The Ambassador Report: "I believe Conder's [new] book is the most thorough going trash imaginable, but refuting it isn't as easy as you may think. Dealing with his arguments on the messianic texts is particularly a challenge - more than you may think a priori ... This guy is real poison . . ." (December 1997, article titled: The Conder Controversy.)
To use one of your expressions Eric, here the "rubber meets the road!" You come right to the point. Why, Eric, do you waste time arguing about your credentials versus the credentials of the sources I use? Why not just take on the real evidence? What are you so afraid of?
Eric's next subheading says it all: "HOW BEING TOO OPEN-MINDED CAN CAUSE YOUR BRAINS TO FALL OUT". One has to wonder how in the hell this guy ever made it through college! I guess that's beside the point. In an effort to rationalize this subheading statement, Eric quotes James 1:6,8: "But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. . . . being a doubled-mined man, unstable in all his ways." Eric, isn't there something about the early Christians searching the scriptures daily to see if what they were being taught about Jesus was true or not? Wouldn't you agree that these Christians were doubting? But I guess we can excuse them because they lived in the first century and it would be another few hundred years before the New Testament was finally composed, which means that they never read the warning from James.
HOW BOTH SIDES' SOURCES ARE ARGUABLY BIASED. I really don't understand why Eric bothered to write this section. The only reason I pointed out that his sources were biased completely in favor of Christianity is because he originally complained that my sources were biased against Christianity. At any rate Eric slams Dr. William Harwood's book, Mythology's Last Gods, without mentioning and thereby not commenting on his impressive educational credentials. His only reaction to my use of Dr. Harwood is to denounce the publisher (Prometheus Books) as "a known publisher of polemical books by atheists and/or other unbelievers." Noticeably Eric doesn't explain or defend Josh McDowell's use of publishers like "The Sword of the Lord Publications" as unbiased, reliable sources to back his works.
CONDER'S PASSING OVER MANY OF ICF'S [IS CHRISTIANITY A FRAUD] ARGUMENTS IMPLY THEIR CORRECTNESS. Here Eric argues that by not specifically addressing his complaints in By-Gosh Josh that I'm admitting (by my silence) he's right. Well, as I noted in By-Gosh Josh I'd already written a full book on these points, and also in Masada Magazine, and as I bluntly said in BJG, I didn't want to rehash it all in my reply to Eric. I advised, and still do, that one obtain copies of my book, and the back issues of Masada and simply read my explanations.
Eric touts Christian fundamentalist Gleason Archer and demands proof that Archer is wrong in his assessment of the book of Daniel. Okay Eric, because you recommend the shoddy work of Gleason Archer to defend Christianity, I'm going to do something here that will probably cause you a little discomfort. I'm going to recommend to your fellow Christians a free magazine called The Skeptical Review. It can be obtained by writing to P.O. Box 717 Canton, IL 61520-0717 (telephone 309-647-4764, e-mail jftill@midwest.net). It is edited by by former minister Farrell Till who has been a deadly thorn in the side of Christianity for many years, as he has publically debated some leading Christian scholars and left them and their bible publically in shambles. By the way Eric, his academic credentials are very impressive! Anyway, he has taken on Gleason Archer in his magazine; additionally, he has offered to debate Archer on his Christian scholarship, but Archer refused.
Of course, if Eric writes a "round three" against me, he will probably note that I have skipped over much of his Round Two paper. He will be right. Eric has written a 129 page reply to By-Gosh Josh which essentially is a repeat of his Is Christianity a Fraud paper. How many times can you repeat yourself Eric? Despite the "this guy is real poison" comment you made to The Ambassador Report, why not be honest and recommend that people read my book and then your reply before making up their minds?
Eric defends Josh McDowell's use of personal testimony to prove Christianity. All I can say to this is what does someone's opinion prove? It doesn't belong in a book that is supposed to prove Jesus as the son of God — unless, of course, that opinion is supported by facts, which it is not in McDowell's books.
EVIDENCE FROM HOSTILE SOURCES THAT JESUS COULD DO MIRACLES. Here Eric points to outside sources to prove Jesus could perform miracles. Notably he points to the arguments of the "pagan" Celsus and his complaints against Christianity. By noting that Celsus mentions that Jesus performed some magic which he learned in Egypt, doesn't prove Jesus actually performed miracles. Celsus is merely reporting on something that he had heard—in other words, he isn't an eyewitness to Jesus' supposed miracles. Eric also notes that Celsus didn't dispute these alleged magic feats, which Eric implies proves that they did happen. This is an argument from silence, a point that I will pick up later.
If the Celsus argument is all the proof that Eric needs to prove Jesus performed miracles, then why not believe the accounts of all the other charlatans of history who were supposed to be gods, and who, it is reported, performed miracles?
I will also comment here on Eric's use of the Talmud and its notice that Jesus performed miracles. In this example Eric is completely misleading his readers. Does he not notice that the "Yeshua" mentioned is accused of "sorcery" which is not one and the same as miracles? If sorcery is the equal of performing miracles, then the countless so-called witches and wizards throughout the centuries can be proven to be miracle workers by virtue of being an accused sorcerer. And touching on the Talmud's reference to one "Yeshua," Eric surely knows that he is opening a can of worms if he is really advocating that this is a reference to Christianity's Jesus (see my book for an outline of this information). Further, if Eric wants to use the Talmud as reliable evidence about Jesus, then does he accept all of it? If he does, then he must surely be prepared to abandon Christianity!
Let me note here that it really doesn't matter to me if Eric accepts certain references in the Talmud as reliable while rejecting others; I only bring it up because later in his paper Eric criticizes me for accepting certain writings of the early church fathers, while rejecting other aspects of those same works.
WHY PAGAN MYTHS ARE INTRINSICALLY UNRELIABLE ACCOUNTS OF MIRACLES. Here Eric argues that by virtue of being recorded in the Bible, and believed by biased "raised-from-the-cradle" Christians as "gospel," that his evidence for Jesus' miracles is superior to the accounts of pagan miracles. He specifically mentions Buddha's past life as an example. Okay, let's look at Jesus' past life. He claimed to be a human reincarnation of God. According to the Gospel of John, he is supposed to be the creator of the universe, the all-wise eternal one. This is exactly what the pagan savior gods of the ancient world claimed. So what is the difference? I mean, why should Jesus' claim—or the claims made about him by others—be any more believable than any of the other savior gods?
Would you, Eric, believe me if I introduced some Jewish man as God incarnate? What if my claim was augmented by his putting on a spectacular performance in front of you producing what he called miracles? Well, the answer to these questions is that you wouldn't believe me. You'd never take such a claim at face value. You'd try your best to take my claim apart. Not believing that my Jewish claimant actually performed miracles, you would undoubtedly tear into his background in an effort to try to find out where he studied magic—which you'd probably find. Armed with this you'd explain his miracles as illusions. And of course you'd be right. I would, however, like to note that the external sources you cite to "prove" Jesus actually worked miracles, also say that he studied magic in Egypt.
But what if my Jewish claimant had lived and died, say 1,000 years ago? What if there was no original records, but only legends about his claims. Further, what if I claimed I believed in his "son of God" status by my faith? The answer to that is that you'd be completely unable to disprove my claim - neither, of course, could I prove it! Likewise, there is no way to prove that Jesus isn't the son of God. Neither is there any way to prove that he is. On this note, there is no way to prove that Buddha isn't God. Neither is there anyway to prove that the other countless savior-gods of the ancient world are not who they (or someone else) claimed. It all comes down to Eric's stubborn refusal to look at the external evidence, such as a critical analyses of the New Testament, and admit that his religion is based on nothing but faith.
Here I'm going to make a statement with which you, Eric, will probably have a "field day." I agree with you about creation. A creator is how I personally believe that the universe came to be. But, there is no way to prove that there is a God. There is certainly evidence that points to a creator, but there is no actual proof.
WHY THE EBIONITES' DENIAL OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH PROVES NOTHING. Sabbath-keeping Eric must have been thrown by a loop with my tossing the Sabbath-keeping Ebionites into my rebuttal of his ICF paper. The Ebionites were a first century Christian sect who denied the virgin birth of Jesus. On this note, Eric writes: "By denying the plain meaning of the Gospels (which came first), whatever contrary 'ancient Christian tradition' that developed on this point was plainly heretical. Note Matthew 1:18,25. . . . Although upholding the OT law and the Sabbath, the Ebionites can't be considered fully Christian in their theology due to degrading Jesus' role as Savior and Paul's role as an apostle. . . . Citing Ebionite theology on the virgin birth proves nothing, since it so plainly contradicts the text of the NT."
Now hold on, Eric! First of all you nor Josh nor any other Christian has proved the Gospels as the word of God; second, the Gospels by which you judge the Ebionites were penned at a time later than the time of the first-century A.D. Ebionites—a point that neither you nor Josh McDowell can refute. Should we, therefore, not judge the fourth century theology of the Gospels by what first century Christians believed? Since they lived and practiced Christianity before the composition of the New Testament, shouldn't we seriously consider Ebionite beliefs as reflective of original Christianity? Does the example of the Ebionites at least give weight to the critical assessment that the Gospel stories were developed over the course of several centuries?
Further, when you say that the Ebionites can't be considered fully Christian by virtue of their beliefs, can we not also turn this around and conclude that present-day Christianity isn't fully Christian because it contradicts a known first-century A.D. account of Christian theology? I mean, here you are Eric, faced with evidence from the first century about your New Testament, produced by people who, for all you know, may have met Jesus and the apostles in person, and all you can do is to dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your faith! You call them "heretic!" You would have made a good Catholic scholar Eric.
WHY CLAIMING THE GOSPELS ARE LEGENDS DOESN'T DISPOSE OF THE RESURRECTION. Under this heading Eric complains that I dismiss his "Great Trilemma" nonsense without answering him. He says: "Conder's casual dismissal of the alternative theories shows he has no explanations . . ." This is another silence is proof argument from Eric. I'll say this again, Eric, so that even someone who majored in marketing and English Industrial Revolution history can understand it: When you first prove to me that the Gospels are the word of God, and that the accounts found there are historical, then I will seriously consider the points you and Josh McDowell raise in your Great Trilemma. In all seriousness, if I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead anymore than did the other dozens of savior gods did, then why should I waste time trying to explain details of Jesus' resurrection? Give us all a break!
HOW THE BOOK OF ACTS IMPLIES THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE C. 63 A.D. Here is another "the New Testament proves the validity of the New Testament" exercises. What more need be said?
WHY PUBIC DEBATES WITH HERETICS BEFORE A LOCAL CHURCH IS A BAD IDEA. Eric quotes II John 10-11 to back this one: "If anyone comes to you [as a group] and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." A very convenient argument—for you, Eric Snow, who believes in the infallibility of the bible! By the way, your little insert clarification in the middle of this scripture (which changes the meaning of what "John" is saying) violates the NT command not to add to or take away from the "holy" book!
Also I notice in this section that you again correct me as to where you attend church services ("Lansing, MI, not Ann Arbor"). Well, excuse me; your paper is posted on a site maintained by the Ann Arbor/Lansing, MI United Church of God. If your church is really "united" what difference does it make? Reading through the site, you apparently have the same pastor, a Melvin Rhodes, and he apparently keeps your mind sufficiently closed so there is no chance of your brain falling out, but in the future I promise to be more careful about the location of your church.
MISCELLANEOUS ATTACKS ON THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS REBUTTED. Noting my rejection of the so-called logic that Jesus' empty tomb proves that he rose from the dead, which he borrowed from Josh McDowell, Eric writes: "Of course, what matters was this empty tomb, not some other one. It's necessary [for Conder] to explain how this one became empty." Good grief! Look Eric, the so-called authority you cited in this nonsensical exercise argues that the other tombs of supposed savior-gods were still occupied, and that Jesus' tomb was empty, and that combined these supposed facts proved that Jesus rose from the dead. I still say that this point is pure lard! If your so-called authority can try and make his point by comparing Jesus' tomb to other tombs, then so can I. If the empty tomb of Jesus proves he rose from the dead, then the empty tomb of another alleged savior god proves the same thing! By using this man's illogic in your paper you gave me the right to use the same so-called reasoning against you both.
WAS EUSEBIUS A RELIABLE HISTORIAN? Eric stanchly defends the Christian church father Eusebius' traditional history of the apostle's supposed martyrdoms. This is because Eusebius' so-called evidence is essential to his argument that no one would dye for a lie—meaning that the apostles wouldn't die for the faith if they knew that Jesus' resurrection was a hoax. He notes that Eusebius had access to the great libraries of the ancient world. So what? He doesn't cite any of the books from these great libraries in the case of the apostles, does he? Eusebius was, and is still considered a liar by many scholars and the truth is that you, Eric Snow, would point out this fact in a minute if the shoe were on the other foot and I had used such a man for proof against Christianity. Furthermore, why didn't you bother to answer the arguments of the critics I quoted in this matter?
HOW SKEPTICISM ABOUT PRIMARY SOURCES CAN DESTROY ONE'S OWN ARGUMENTS. Eric's main complaint here is that I "pick and choose" from early Christian writings only what makes my case. To that I plead guilty as charged. But I'd like to also point out that my employment of this method simply follows that of virtually all Christian scholarship. Even take-it-on-faith Eric Snow does this, so why shouldn't I? (Remember Eric's selective use of the Talmud to try and prove a point about Jesus' alleged miracles?) After all, my whole point in writing my book was to point out the inconsistency of the New Testament and the writings of the early church fathers.
My criticisms of Tertullian, Eusebius, Justin or any other church father, has ample precedent in Christian scholarship. And on that note, I would like to say that I wouldn't even use these sources if Eric and company didn't cite them as proof of their Christian faith. When they do this I have the right to use these sources, both the positive and negative points, to argue against their stand.
I'll make a deal with you Eric, stop using such faulty references as proof of Jesus' resurrection and the reliability of the Gospels, and I'll stop using them against your arguments!
THE VARIATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT REVISITED. "Conder calculates that 25,000 variations have weight and 3,333 are substantial." Apparently my point here "got under Eric's skin," because my calculations were based on the figures he supplied in ICF. He asks "Should these numbers scare Christians?" I'll answer that Eric: Only if the Christian happens to be one of those who maintain the infallibility of the bible!
THE GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST REVISITED. Eric argues for a woman being included in the inheritance of David's throne. He notes: "If Conder still accepts HWA's [Herbert W. Armstrong's] framework of British-Israelism, then he'd have to accept that a woman (Elizabeth II) occupies that [David's] throne today, and women have occupied it in the past . . ." Specifically Eric notes the supposed transfer of David's throne to Ireland by the king's daughters, meaning the legendary Tea Tephi who was supposedly the daughter of King Zedekiah and who supposedly married the king of Ireland, thus transferring the throne of David to Ireland and thence to Scotland and later Britain. This is all based on an absurd and completely mistranslated verse in Jeremiah which is claimed by Anglo-Israelism as a prophecy of three overturns of David's throne.
I can answer the above criticism simply enough: NO! I don't accept this theory. Further, I would like to note that I have spent some thirty years on this subject and would be pleased to debate it with anyone, with or without college degrees. You cannot prove the assertion that Queen Elizabeth II is the descendant of King David and I challenge you, Eric, or anyone else to try! Outside the writings of Anglo-Israelism there is not one shred of evidence.
THE ARGUMENT FROM BURNED BOOKS IS AN ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE. Here Eric notes my compliant that the Christian Church burned books by the tons in an effort to stamp out the truth of their dishonesty. He says that whatever the evidence these books contained can't be considered because they no longer exist. He says that I'm arguing from silence. Eric is right. But explain to me and your readers, Eric, why it is okay for you to use this same reasoning when it suits you. You do it in your paper ICF, and, as I have noted several times, you do it in your Round Two paper—specifically this statement in a subheading: "CONDER'S PASSING OVER MANY OF ICF'S ARGUMENTS IMPLY THEIR CORRECTNESS." By my silence on these points you claim that I'm admitting you're right, which contradicts your above point loud and clear.
WHY OTHERS SHOULD AVOID READING MYSTERY BABYLON. Yes, before you say it Eric, I'm skipping over a lot of your repetitious paper by going to this subheading. But, to make this point again, I've already answered all of your complaints in my numerous writings, so I really don't want to do for a second or third time.
Now, to the subject of his subheading: how insightfully Christian of Eric to note that politician and born-again Christian Pat Buchanan once said that a person doesn't need to lift up a manhole cover to know the sewer stinks. This cute little Christian aside has one flaw: manhole covers also conceal waterworks, which give city people life; and they also conceal telephone lines (have you ever noticed those covers with a bell symbol and the words "Bell System" written on them Eric?). Telephone lines give people access to knowledge, via the Internet where Eric's paper is posted. So maybe it is prudent for someone to lift a manhole cover—or a book cover—to see what is there. If someone goes through life fearing that they might get a whiff of "sewage" if they ask a question, then they sure won't go far!
Eric notes: "At the price of appearing intellectually arrogant (although that's not my intention), to explain why I believe this is good advice, it's necessary to consider the analogy made in Eph. 4:11-16 and I Cor. 12 between a human body and the church. Different people in the church have different functions." He then explains that, essentially, the average lay member doesn't have the education that he does, and that being far above their level of ignorance, via his higher education and degrees, he will read books, like mine, and decide if they are fit for Christian consumption. Eric even augments this offer by letting us all know that he also has a B.A. in philosophy. Wow Eric! This certainly backs your next point: "So when I read and carefully critique such a work as Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time, and conclude it spiritual poison and biased polemical nonsense often based upon similar sources that make its pretenses to scholarship ring hollow . . . why should others in the Body of Christ put a lot of effort into reading and refuting it privately (without publishing anything about it)? . . . We have better things to do with our time than to read what others [he means himself] reliably have exposed as nonsense or false."
So there you have it folks! What else is left to be said? The highly educated Eric V. Snow has done all the unpleasant dirty work for you. All of you can rest assured inside your comfortable church congregations: You not only have the word of a notoriously corrupt church that the bible is God's word, you now have marketing major, English Industrial Revolution history major, philosophy major, Herbert W. Armstrong and Josh McDowell admirer Eric Snow's word for it! My only comment on this is simply this: if the bible is the infallible word of God, then why does anyone need Eric or any other man or woman to write millions of books and papers to constantly defend its discrepancies? And on that note, I'll leave this with by-gosh, Eric Snow.
ENDNOTES
(1) P.O. Box 220, Charlotte, MI 48813-0220.
(2) See my article in the spring 1997 issue of Masada Magazine, "Josh McDowell: Christian Scholar or Born-Again Joke?"
(3) Eric refers his readers to a book by Ronald Nash for the Harnack quote. However, the same Harnack quote is offered by McDowell in his book, He Walked Among Us (p. 197), and Josh cites Nash as his source.
(4) The inset words are supplied by this author to clarify what I think Eric is trying to say.
(5) Page 5, footnote 4.
(6) Page 5, footnote 4. Eric is talking about the eminent New Testament scholar and liberal theologian, Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), who is cited and discussed adversely by Josh McDowell in He Walked Among Us, pp. 14-15. Bultmann claimed over three decades ago that he had produced a Gospel free of myth? I have one of his books in my personal library (New Testament & Mythology and other Basic Writings) as well as an answer by David Cairns, Professor of Practical Theology at Christ's College, Aberdeen, Scotland, entitled, A Gospel Without Myth? Bultmann's Challenge to the Preacher (1960, SCM Press, London). Of course if I used Bultmann's work Eric would immediately pounce on it as the work of a "higher critic" and therefore biased.
(7) Footnote 9 on page 8 of Snow's paper.
(8) Pages 8 through 17.
(9) E-mail letter dated June 15, 1997 to "Paul" from Eric V. Snow.
(10) Volume 1, p. 103. (San Bernardino, Ca.: Here's Life Publishers, copyright 1972, 1979 by Campus Crusades for Christ Inc.)
(11) Eric uses Herbert W. Armstrong's books, Mystery of the Ages, The U.S. and British Commonwealth in Prophecy and the booklet The Bible Superstition or Authority? . . . And Can You Prove It?, as references.
(12) See especially chapter seven of Marion J. McNair's Armstrongism: Religion or Rip-off? (Expose: The Armstrong Modus Operandi) Orlando, Florida: Pacific Charters Publishing Division, 1977.
(13) Page 118, 1967 edition, published by Ambassador College, Pasadena, Calif.
(14) The original name was "Derry," an anglicized form of the Gaelic "Doire," which means "the place of oaks." Londonderry received its present name in 1613. The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 16, p. 973.
(15) "Paul" gave all the e-mail communications with Eric Snow to Commonwealth Publishing.
(16) The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church defines "apologetics" as "The use of theology in order to justify Christianity before men, in the claims it makes to be ultimate truth, in the demands it makes on its followers, and in its universal mission." p. 56.
(17) Page 46 of Eric's paper.
(18) Page 136.
(19) Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 112.
(20) See The Encyclopedia Britannica 11th ed. Vol. 8, p. 842 for a history of the Ebionites and their beliefs.
(21)On page 115 of Evidence That Demands a Verdict McDowell asks "How did the concept of a virgin birth arise so soon if it was not based on fact." In my book I underscore my belief that the virgin birth scenario emerged early on in Roman Christianity through the establishment of a first century church by the half pagan, half Christian Simon Magus, who taught his followers the ancient virgin mother-goddess doctrine. Even if one doesn't want to accept this explanation, then the mere fact that the early church was made up by scores of pagan converts, who "formerly" believed in the virgin-birth of their "former" savior sun-god, should answer McDowell's question.
(22) This situation is identical to that of the evolutionist. Their books and lectures are predicated on the biased assumption that the theory of evolution is a demonstrable fact, which, of course, it is not. Likewise, Christian ministers argue specifics of Christian doctrine predicated on the biased assumption that there is no question of NT authenticity and historicity.
(23) To demonstrate my point, I will refer the reader to a book by Professor Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection. Ludemann is Professor of New Testament and Director of the Institute of Early Christian Studies at the University of Gottingen. He also taught at Vanderbilt Divinity School. Ludemann doesn't believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, yet he doesn't offer the excuses put up by McDowell. As a Christian and a believer in the New Testament he uses the Gospel narratives to find solutions to the questions raised by the impossible stories of Jesus' supposed resurrection. The book is copyright in 1995 and is published by Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Ky.
(24) Page 182 of Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
(25) op. cit., page 193.
(26) op. cit., page 363.
(27) Eric cites J.N.D. Anderson as an authority on this question. Anderson is one of McDowell's quoted authorities in his books, The Resurrection Factor, p. 81, and More Than a Carpenter, p. 95. Anderson's specialty, by the way, was law. He was, according to McDowell, a "dean of the faculty of law at the University of London." I'm sure he was a well-meaning man, but with all due respect, his opinion isn't worth the paper that Eric and McDowell used to record it.
(28) Page 35. On page 34 Eric follows Josh McDowell's quoted sources, Kirsopp Lake's The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and asks "what if the women went to the wrong tomb." It should be noted that Professor Lake believed that the Gospel accounts of Jesus were basically reliable, but like many liberal Christians, didn't believe in a literal resurrection.
(29) Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 259.
(30) Forlong's Encyclopedia of Religions, volume 1, pp. 394-395.
(31) The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. 1, p. 61. The letters are found in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 1.13.
(32) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ii, 79.
(33) Volume 2, p. 79.
(34) I would like to point out that the historicity of the "traditional tomb of Jesus" in Jerusalem is backed only by Christian legend. No one knows where the Jewish carpenter Jesus was buried, which means that no one can prove his grave is empty!
(35) Page 4.
(36) Again, these works are cited by virtually all Christian scholars..
(37) See Ezekiel 33:16 and 37:14 for two examples.
(38) Notice also that in 2 Samuel 12:13, when David sinned and was worthy of death, he repented and was forgiven. The prophet Nathan didn't tell him to go out and offer a burnt sacrifice on an alter before he could be forgiven, he simply said that God had forgiven David his sins.
(39) Malachi 3:6.
(40) See Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 33:18, and Ezekiel 46:2, 12, 13, 15.
(41) Page 493.
(42) Pages 26-27 November/December 1997 issue.
(43) 1995, Harper-Collins publishers, pp. 8-10.
(44) Pages 9-10. Dr. Burton L. Mack's book, Who Wrote the New Testament, was published in 1995. ISBN # 0-06-065517-8.
(45) The Journal of Higher Criticism, 3/2 (Fall, 1996), pp. 315-318.
(46) BAR, Man/June 1997, p. 11. Metzger is cited by both McDowell and Eric as an authority!
(47) I would like to mention that Dr. Bruce Metzger is also the editor of The Oxford Companion to the Bible which I use in my book as a reference and which Eric Snow attacks as the product of unreliable "higher critics." One of the contributing editors to The Oxford Companion to the Bible is F.F. Bruce, one of Josh and Eric's most oft cited NT experts.
(48) See pp. 112-115 of Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
(49) This "evidence" is offered on page 10 of Eric's first "preliminary assessment" of my book.
(50) Eric attacks my conclusions about Simon Magus, which are based primarily on the writings of the Christian Church fathers.
(51) Nevi'im is the Hebrew designation for the books of the prophets.
(52) Page 7.
(53) Oxford's Companion to the Bible, p. 739.
(54) I'd like to comment here about Eric's criticism of me on page 8 of his paper: "Conder builds on the inaccuracy of oral transmission . . . while ignoring that the NT was written down in the first century." Eric goes on to cite author Alex Haley's book, Roots, as an example of the reliability of oral tradition. The fact is that I've never denied the reliability of oral tradition when it was entrusted to specially trained men (called bards in English) for preservation. However, when tradition is passed around from one generation of born-again ignorant peasants to another, who could possibly deny the probability for corruption? In fact, the many contradictions in the early NT manuscripts backs up this observation. Also, I'd like to say that in my book I proposed the theory (backed by some compelling evidence) that an original "Gospel" was composed in first century Rome by Simon Magus, who was known as the "Peter" of Rome. I maintain that this document, which was later combined with the sayings of Jesus, came to be the prototype of the dozens of conflicting Gospels of Christianity. By the way, I want to emphasize that last point; there were many dozens of Gospels in early Christianity, and most of these completely contradict the now canonized four conflicting New Testament Gospels. I think this fact alone backs up my point about oral tradition!
(55) Greenlee and Sitterly are cited by Josh McDowell as sources!
(56) On page 14 of his paper Eric offers a secondhand source called The Problem of the New Testament Canon by one K. Aland, "as cited in a Jehovah's Witness book, All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial."
(57) McDowell quotes H.W. Armstrong: "[In] A.D. 69, the apostles and the church fled to Pella from Jerusalem according to Jesus' warning (Matthew 24:15,16). That was the END of the organized proclaiming of Christ's gospel by His church to the world! . . . For eighteen and one-half centuries, all worldwide organized proclaiming of Christ's gospel was stamped out." Armstrong goes on to explain that only his church is the true church, and that only they were preaching the "true Gospel" of Jesus. McDowell was quoting from pp. 502-503 of Armstrong's The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, Pasadena, Ca., Ambassador College Press, 1967.
(58) Page 16.
(59) Copyright 1959 by Ambassador College, Pasadena Ca.
(60) Elder A. N. Dugger had been the leader of the Sabbath-keeping Church of God, Seventh Day when Herbert W. Armstrong was ordained in the organization as a minister in the 1930's.
(61) Page 847.
(62) McDowell gets around the argument on page 113 of his book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by simply saying "the one listed in Matthew is that of Joseph and the one in Luke is that of Mary," after which he moves on without one shred of proof to back up what he has just stated.
(63) Eric says, "First, this ignores the adoptive relationship in question between Joseph and Jesus, wherein legally an adoptive son becomes a son as much as a physical one." I will also note that Eric makes the argument that God promised both Solomon and David that He would establish their thrones forever, which Eric declares to mean a reference to Jesus: "To have an everlasting throne, an immortal king is required, which will be fulfilled when [Jesus] returns as king of kings and lord of lords (I Tim. 6:14-16)." However, Eric doesn't explain how it is that the prophets refer to this everlasting throne by declaring that King David himself will be resurrected to rule forever sitting upon it. The prophecies don't say anything about there being room for Jesus on that throne!
(64) Volume 1, p. 100.
(65) The Catholic Church still maintains this position.
(66) The Gospels say that Joseph was David's direct male descendant and that he also had legitimate sons and daughters; further, the early church fathers claim that the sons of Joseph went on to have children. However, moving into the realm of actual history we can trace an unbroken male line extending from David's house to the time of the captivity to the time Jesus to the present. After the captivity these descendants came to be known as "exilarchs" and at various times in Jewish history actually held an office of authority. Their descendants are still known today.
(67) Paper entitled, Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time, by Darrell W. Conder; A Critique by Douglas S. Winnail Ph.D. The quote is from page 2. Global Church of God is a "sister" church to Eric's church, United Church of God.
(68) In He Walked Among Us McDowell opens his chapter on paganism and Christianity by saying that he "will rely heavily" upon Dr. Ronald Nash, former head of the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Western Kentucky University, and his book Christianity and the Hellenistic World. (p. 176). Eric's use of McDowell's material in his section on Christianity and mythology is taken from McDowell and Nash, meaning his sources are third-hand.
(69) McDowell, op. cit. page 283.
(70) Page 541.
(71) Page 539.
(72) Page 674.
(73) The book was copyright in 1992 and is published by Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York. ISBN number 0-87975-742-6.
(74) Considering Eric's criticism that such "ideas" were circulated by the uninformed until about 1940, it is odd that on page 41 he quotes Gordon J. Laing's book, which was published in 1963, and admits that he "is quite willing to draw parallels between Christianity and the mystery religions . . . " I would like to point out that in this section of his book Eric denounces the famous historian, H.G. Wells, who compared New Testament Christianity to the mystery religions. However, Eric's hero and mentor, Josh McDowell, uses H.G. Wells in his book, More Than a Carpenter, to shore up his contention of Christianity's validity. (Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p.129) Which is it Eric? Who is right—you or your friend Josh McDowell?
(75) On page 42 Eric complains that my book stated that the mystery religions "still had a hold among the Samaritans in the first century" CE. With emphasis he says, "But this claim faces a major problem: Was this true?" According to Eric it isn't, which he backs up by someone named Norman Anderson, who, by the way, he found quoted in Josh McDowell's book, He Walked Among Us, p. 185. First of all, whoever this Anderson was his book (Christianity and World Religions) was published by Inter-Varsity Press, a fundamentalist Christian publishing house, so we could hardly expect him to be offering un-biased opinion—especially if it in any way undermined his pre-conceived ideas about Christian origins. Eric says "Conder should provide specific evidence that proves the first-century Samaritans were idolaters, etc. before this claim should be accepted." Well, Eric, I offered "specific evidence" in both my books. Of course you wouldn't know this because, as you've admitted, you've never read my first book. In Rivals and Forerunners of Christianity, Francis Legge discusses the pagan mysteries as taught by Simon Magus. He writes "To judge from its later developments, the religion of the Samaritans at the beginning of the Christian era retained little of Judaism besides a reverence for the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses, and its other elements were apparently Greek. We should therefore expect to find in Simon's teaching before his meeting with the Apostles, a leaning towards a mixed religion in which Greek elements played the chief part, although the sanction attached to it might be Jewish." Part 1, p. 177. This conclusion is backed by the Encyclopaedia Biblica, article "Samaritans." (Editors T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black.)
(76) Information from Conder, Mystery Babylon the Great, citing Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 444, Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy, p. 186, and Homer W. Smith, Man and His Gods, pp. 228, 253.
(77)From page 237 of Mystery Babylon the Great, citing the 11th ed. Volume 13 p. 516 of The Encyclopedia Britannica and Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, pp. 457-458.
(78) On page 43 Eric offers this type of "evidence" of Christianity's validity when he says, "There is only one true religion to a Christian, as Jesus made plain (John 14:6) . . . Similarly, Peter declared to the Jewish leadership that everyone had to accept Jesus to be saved . . . Paul and Barnabas made a point . . ." etc.
(79) On page 57 Eric advises his readers, "If you are still concerned [after listening to Eric's and McDowell's evidence], you should consider pursuing the references in [Ronald] Nash's book, and those in Conder's book to the original sources (not the secondary works so much) of the myths themselves, and check if Conder's case can hold up under close scrutiny." Well Eric, I have "Nash's book" and I have to say that the original sources he cites are not too original. Mostly I read his opinion, shored up with what Eric would term as "secondhand" sources. Even when he cites originals they are copies that were made many centuries after the events that they outline.
(80) Marcus Minucius Felix, The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix, pp. 106-107.
(81) See page 63 of my book, Mystery Babylon the Great, for a detailed discussion on the history of crucifixion in pagan Mystery Religions and the references I use.
(82) See page 230 of McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict, subsection entitled "The Phenomenon of the Christian Sunday."
(83) This is outlined in chapter 9 of He Walked Among Us.
(84) Stinson, in a taped sermon I reviewed, said openly that the pagan religions had been known to borrow from Christianity, a statement for which he offered no reference. However, in the same sermon he later said there was really no similarities at all in either religion. See the spring 1997 issue of Masada Magazine for more on Vance Stinson's sermon and my answer.
(85) Information from a sermon given in Tyler, Texas in 1996 to a Church of God, International congregation. In this sermon Stinson recommended Josh McDowell's book, He Walked Among Us. Stinson's example about Heracles is taken from page 178 of that book.
(86) Eric complains that the resurrection myth of Dionysus can only be traced to the fourth century. However, that complaint is a two-way street: What Eric doesn't want to accept is that he has no older evidence for the stories of Jesus' supposed resurrection. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that a first century document declaring that Jesus rose from the dead was discovered in Jerusalem; what would that prove? A first century document declaring Jesus' resurrection doesn't make it so. Likewise, if we found a fifth century BCE. document declaring Dionysus to be a crucified savior god who rose from the dead, that wouldn't make it a historical reality.
(87) Page 46, footnote.
(88) See Roger O'Connor's Chronicles of Eri, volume I for numerous examples of the Hebrew language to Irish.
(89) 1995, Jason Aronson Inc., publishers. ISBN # 1-56821-615-7. For those who are interested in subject, I highly recommend Dr. Terry M. Bloodroot's book, Phonological Similarities in Germanic and Hebrew. You might want to read Hebrew, Source of Languages, by Matituyahu Glazerson. He makes the argument that Hebrew is the source of every language on earth! Also, Isaac Mozeson discusses this possibility in his book, The Word. Although he doesn't mention "cannibal" in the book, on page 40 he does discuss "canoe," which, as he notes, is said to be a Spanish corruption of a Caribbean Indian word. Glazerson essentially explains that the word entered the English language via the Spanish people, who, in turn, received it from Hebrew.
(90) The Worldwide Church of God recently offered Woodrow's new books to their membership through their church publication, The Worldwide News.
(91) Page 132. (Gerd Ludemann) What Really Happened to Jesus, (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).
(92) Pages 139-140.
(93) McDowell quotes Bruce on page 44 of He Walked Among Us.
(94) One good source is Michael Martin's The Case Against Christianity. Another is G.A. Wells, The Jesus Legend, which contains a chapter entitles, "The 'Catholic Truth' on the Historicity of Jesus."
(95) The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume I, p. 609 says, ". . . Justin's assertions was based on nothing more than hypothesis. This is the opinion of the majority of experts."
(96) Volume VIII, p. 580.
(97) Forlong's Encyclopedia of Religions Volume 3, p. 348 says, "Dr. Sanday says that 'not one half of the writings attributed to [Justin] are genuine.' ... The evidence of such works as the Apology, as affecting the age and text of the Bible, is now admitted to be of very doubtful value." The article also notes that some authorities have questioned the very existence of Justin.
(98) The 74th page in Eric's paper contains a list of recommended books.
(99) See Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1985, p. 924.
(100) Volume 9, pp. 479-480.
(101) ibid
(102) Page 925.
(103) Vol. XIII pp. 723-724.
(104) I'd like to also mention that one of the directors of Jews for Judaism told me recently that his organization is almost ready to release a 300-400 page book addressing the out-of-context examples that Jews for Jesus use from the Talmud and the Mishna.
(105) Pages 359-362.
Copyright © by Darrell W. Conder, Olympia, WA; 1997, 2003. All rights reserved.
