“Theopneustos” represents the Greek word used in the NT to describe the Bible as “God-breathed,” a very interesting myth I have traced back to an earlier one in Genesis, the primeval myth of “man as divine image.” Of course, the basis for the second commandment is the truth that God has no image, since He is inherently “aoratos” (Gk. “invisible,” or else “having no visible form”). Here are some other good reasons we ought to rethink the Christian system of thought — as obviously inadequate on its own terms — in favor of the kind of Deism responsible for the founding of our U.S. legal documents — namely, the Declaration and U.S. Constitution (which mentions “nature’s God”).
1. The creation is said by the Bible falsely to be “good, but fallen” (where fallen means “bad”) after the accretive section known as Genesis 3 was added to the original work, which work originally absented that chapter.
2. The idea of a fallen creation respresents a category mistake, since inanimate objects like stars and sidewalks cannot make moral choices. Adam and Eve “fell” by making a bad moral choice, but their both their culpability and liability supposed transfer to the whole of creation by way of their headship. This is confused since the fall in the former case rendered humans as evil as Romans 3 11-20 would indicate. But the creation did not become evil, since rocks do not become reprobate. The creation remains good. But then it did not fall after the fashion of our first fathers. Perhaps its entropy increased. But that is not merely what happened to humans in the fall.
3. Philippians 3 and 4, as well 1 Cor. 15 make is clear that Christians will be like the stars (heavenly bodies) in the resurrection unto glory. Here the stars are not fallen, since the analogy breaks down if they are. Christians are said to be redeemed and restored (“unfallen”) in the resurrection unto glory.
4. Matthew 19.4 makes it clear that Jesus expects that God will restore all things (Acts 3.21) to their pristine state in Genesis 1. But when this happens, there will be no fall, and thus no need for a Bible. Recall that no Bible existed in the beginning. Instead the light of nature sufficed for all things regard what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man. In fact, according to the NT, Moses did not begin writing the Bible until sometime around 1450 B.C. — and yet it was needful to correct the fallen and darkened (sic) light of nature since “the Fall,” showing a putative divine effort to redeem mankind that was much too late in the game.
5. Genesis 1.31 records the concluding “wrap-up” of the whole chapter — God saw everything that it was good. The word everything indicates what Hebrews reiterates, that God create nothing after day 6 of the creation account. This omits heaven (as a place where God lives and the departed souls of the saints go upon their demise), hell, angels, demons (and the big bad D). These are only added much later in (and retrofitted to) the biblical record. With no devil running about to energize the antichrist of Revelation, of course, this would require that he find a new duracell.
6. The bibical notion of miracles is also faulty and completely at odds with the rival (accurate) notion of God’s infallible, providential governance of the creation — here, no miraculous “whiteout” is needed. Infallibility does not need an errata page.
7. The notion of Jesus’ sacrifice is undone in the Bible in a straightforward way — killing is forbidden, and thus so are the Levitical sacrifices in terms of which the NT sacrifice of Jesus is characterized. The vegetarian diet of Genesis 1 — consistent with the sheep metaphor of Christians in the NT — necessarily implies that the sixth commandment included animals under its death prohibition (see Matthew 19.4 where this diet is forever normative). This forbids both Leviticus and its sacrifices, as well the sacrifice of Jesus, from being offered to God, who does not want death or sacrifice that involves death. Rather, “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord; but the (bloodless) prayer of the upright pleases him.”
8. The Jewish leadership was said in the NT to have sacrificed Jesus because “it is better that one man should die than that the Romans should come and take away our holy place. Rome sacrificed him according to the NT to keep the peace, safety and security of the Roman empire (i.e. “This man claims to be a king and [is therefore] no friend of Caesar”). Thus the sacrifice of Jesus, which may be more than the sacrifice of the wicked, is not less than that — according to the NT. This makes any such sacrifice unacceptable to God.
9. The book of Hebrews indicates that only teh death of the testator (one who makes a testament or covenant) can put into legal effect the new covenant – just the opposite of what is shown in teh four Gospels, where Jesus supposedly installs it — while quite alive — with bread and wine (contra Hebrews). Strangely, this New Covenant with its bread and wine are never mentioned in the proleptic anticipations of the Messiah’s “suffering and rising” event-complex otherwise thoroughly described many times in the Synoptic Gospels. Nor is the NCov or its “bread and wine” ever mentioned again, before or after its installation, in the Synoptic Gospels or in the sermons of the Acts. The New Covenant seems so unimportant and never to have happened according to these books.
10 The (false) doctrine of the Trinity is said after Nice (AD 325) to be absolutely and centrally important to the Christian faith. But Jesus failed this litmus test in the Synoptics, and so did the apostles there and in the sermons of the Acts — where in all cases it is never mentioned or taught at all — it is so important. If it is so centrally important as to be only implied (as incidental, not ), central this falsifies Nice. In all other instances of central doctrines, like the Kingdom of God in Luke, we know of its centrality not by some bare implication, but by repeated mention and self-conscious unpacking.