The Secular Frontier

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series, I argued that we have good reasons to believe that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The problem is that the characterization of Jesus' ministry and teachings in the Gospel of John conflicts with the characterization of Jesus' ministry and teachings in the Gospel of Mark. In Part 5, I argued that the following three alleged discourses by Jesus in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable: The Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:35–58) The Good Shepherd Discourse (John 10:1–18) The True Vine Discourse (John 15:1-17) In Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8, I argued that the following four one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and some individual in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable: Dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3:1-21) Dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (John 18:28-19:16) Dial ... Read Article

Last time I said: If we can think back to a notion of boredom not yet encased in a hermetically sealed “I” but as a feature of the world, this helps us overcome Hume’s challenge when we see causality is a category of the understanding and a feature of the world. We can then see this structure in other phenomena, like how the world appears to the schizophrenic as conspiracy saturated, or the world appears as holy to the religious person. Have you ever wondered why a favorite gospel song can be experienced as overwhelming and holy for one person in church, bland for the person next to them, and can go from holy to irritating simply by being played 15 times in a row? Here are some thoughts from the history of theology and philosophy. Against the currently popular argument that eternal return for Nietzsche most fundamentally means infinite cosmological repetition of nature, either in fact or as a visualization, we can point to numerous historical analogies (Ecclesiastes, Stoics, Schopenhauer) ... Read Article

I participated in a yearlong seminar of presentations for young researchers on the topic of Transcendental Idealism through the Sorbonne.  The below is based on my presentation. The gauntlet of Hume that awakened Kant from his dogmatic slumber was centered around the problem of causation, and more generally how synthetic a priori judgments are possible.  Hume had noted that we associate causes with effects because we see them following one another all the time, but it is not a feature of the world.  We don’t see the necessity of the boiling of water following heating, just that effect follows upon cause. Kant objected we do indeed experience necessity here, specifically in terms of irreversibility.  So, ball hitting ball is positively one directional, comparatively greater as a temporary change of form (liquid to gas) when you boil water, and superlatively one-directional such as in cooking an egg which then can’t be uncooked.  Causality is thus a rule furnished by the understandin ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 through Part 4 of this series, I argued that we have good reasons to believe that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The problem is that the characterization of Jesus' ministry and teachings in the Gospel of John conflicts with the characterization of Jesus' ministry and teachings in the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark clearly implies that "the kingdom of God" was a central focus of the teachings of Jesus, but the Gospel of John implies that this was NOT a central focus of the teachings of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark clearly implies that casting out demons (exorcism) was a focus of the ministry of Jesus, but the Gospel of John implies that this was NOT a focus of the ministry of Jesus. Furthermore, the Gospel of John implies that asserting religious claims of the form "I am the..." was a key focus of the teachings of Jesus, but the Gospel of Mark implies this was NOT a key focus of the teachings of Jesus. Because ... Read Article

The Biblical Studies Carnival is out today and I have a contribution  in it.  Check it out: https://readingacts.com/2025/09/01/biblical-studies-carnival-228-for-july-and-august-2025/ ... Read Article

Previously: Announcing A New Blog Series: THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL PAUL Now the conclusion (I will be adding the reviewed essays to the above page as they are published). The earliest reception history for the Gospel of John,  John 21 which is a later stratum addition to the Gospel of John itself, understands the author as the beloved disciple.  The Gospel presents itself as the work of an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ ministry and death. It doesn’t say it was written by John but instead states that it is the work of a “disciple whom Jesus loved,” who “testifies” to what he has seen (1:14; 19:35; 21:24). Eyewitness testimony here is an important point in the Gospel. It is because the one who wrote the Gospel had seen these things happen and written them down that “we know that his testimony is true” (21:24). (Moss, 2020).  Mendez argues the Gospel of John and 3 letters of John fictively “imply” the beloved disciple as the author though the differences in writing sugge ... Read Article

Previously: Announcing A New Blog Series: THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL PAUL The Corrupt Trial of Jesus and Paul Let's try to resolve an apparent contradiction between the Gethsemane prayer in Hebrews and the one in Mark.  We read: 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. (Hebrews 5:7) 33 He took with him Peter and James and John and began to be distressed and agitated. 34 And he said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” 35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 He said, “Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me, yet not what I want but what you want.”  (Mark 14:33-37) What we seem to have here at first glance is a massive contradiction, one where the Geths ... Read Article

Previously Lot’s Angels and Jesus as a Great Angel in Paul Eusebius of Caesarea, a 4th-century Christian historian, attributed the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and the Jewish loss of land following the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE) to divine punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus. In his Ecclesiastical History (Book III, Chapter 5-7), Eusebius explicitly connects the calamities faced by the Jews, including the siege of Jerusalem and the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt, to their rejection and execution of Jesus. He interprets these events as fulfillment of biblical prophecies and divine retribution, a common view in early Christian apologetics. For example, he cites the suffering described by Josephus during the First Jewish-Roman War as evidence of God’s judgment. This perspective reflects the anti-Jewish sentiment prevalent in some early Christian writings, though Eusebius’ tone is more theological than personal. He frames these events within a broader narrative of divine providence, ... Read Article

Previously: Announcing A New Blog Series: THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL PAUL Paul and the Churches: From Corinth to Rome The Jews believed that God actively governed history, using tragedies to discipline and restore His people.  With the destruction of the temple in 70 CE and the loss of their homeland after Bar Kokhba, it was ‘as though’ God was punishing them for a horrific crime like torturing and killing God’s beloved innocent Son.  Jesus was thus analogous to the 2 angels’ visit to Lot in Genesis 19 which serves as both an investigation and a catalyst/test for the people’s vileness to become conspicuous. The angels’ presence exposes the depth of Sodom’s sin through the inhabitants’ desire to rape the angels, confirming the need for divine judgment.  Jesus uses the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of divine judgment on sin, emphasizing its suddenness and severity.  Jesus suggests that rejecting the gospel is a greater offense than the sins of So ... Read Article

Previously: The Incarnation in the Prologue of the Gospel of John and Paul’s letters The communities of the letters may be idealized as to the length of Paul’s reach, like the seven communities of Revelation represents universality, not literal places.  For example, considering Corinth as a literary entity the term “to Corinthianize” (Greek: korinthiazomai) was used in some Greek literature to mean living licentiously, suggesting a stereotype of moral laxity associated with the city.  Paul’s letters to the Corinthians address specific issues in the church, including:  Factionalism (1 Cor 1:10-17); Sexual immorality, including a case of incest (1 Cor 5:1-13); Lawsuits among believers (1 Cor 6:1-11); Misuse of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12-14); Confusion about the resurrection (1 Cor 15); Disorderly worship and social divisions (1 Cor 11).  These issues contribute to the perception of Corinth as a morally troubled church in a corrupt city. Paul uses strong language to correct ... Read Article

Previously: Announcing A New Blog Series: THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL PAUL The notion of the incarnation is well known from the Gospel of John.  We read The Word Became Flesh (John 1) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it… 14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. Boyarin comments In light of this evidence, the Fourth Gospel’s Logos theology is not a new creation in the history of Judaism; its innovation is only, if even this, in its incarnational Christology, namely the taking on of flesh by the Logos in v 14. John 1.1– 5 is not a hymn or a poem, but a mid ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series, I presented evidence sufficient to show it is probable that the Gospel of John is a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of the historical Jesus. (For a summary of those posts, see "WHERE WE ARE" in Part 5 of this series.) In Part 5 and Part 6, I began to present further evidence that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of the historical Jesus. In Part 5 of this series, I began to show that the sermons or discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John are historically dubious compared with the sayings and parables of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of Luke. I argued that the following three sermons/discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John are either fictional or are inaccurate and unreliable representations of the words of Jesus: The Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:35–58) The Good Shepherd Discourse (John 10:1–18) ... Read Article

I'm doing a series of 4 articles on the historical Paul based on my 8 post blog series. A PhD specialist is looking at the articles to make sure there are no egregious errors. Here is the first one: https://infidels.org/library/modern/quest-for-historical-paul-a ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series, I showed there was good reason to believe that the Gospel of Mark was written about three decades before the Gospel of John (70 C.E. vs. 100 C.E.). In Part 2 of this series, I showed that there was a significant conflict between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John over this question: Was “the kingdom of God” a central focus of the teachings of Jesus? In Part 3 of this series, I showed that there was a significant conflict between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John over this question: Was casting out demons a key focus of the ministry of Jesus? In Part 4 of this series, I showed that there was a significant conflict between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John over this question: Were religious statements by Jesus of the form "I am the ..." a key focus of his teachings? Because the Gospel of Mark was probably written about three decades before the Gospel of John, that gives us good reason to accept the view of the Gosp ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series, I showed there was good reason to believe that the Gospel of Mark was written about three decades before the Gospel of John (70 C.E. vs. 100 C.E.). That means that if there are significant conflicts between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, we should infer that the Gospel of Mark is more likely to be correct on those points than the Gospel of John, other things being equal. In Part 2 of this series, I showed that there was a significant conflict between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John over this question: Was “the kingdom of God” a central focus of the teachings of Jesus? In Part 3 of this series, I showed that there was a significant conflict between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John over this question: Was casting out demons a key focus of the ministry of Jesus? In Part 4 of this series, I showed that there was a significant conflict between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John over this question: Were reli ... Read Article