Modern Psychology And The Church

 

There are situations that get to all of us. I had a friend from work who went through more than most people ever will. The poor woman was diagnosed with breast cancer at 38 years old. It was very aggressive and at 40 things were not looking good for her. Her sorry excuse for a husband abruptly abandoned her at this point. Three months after he left her, an electrical fire burned her home to the ground, and she (along with her then 12 year old daughter) had to move into her mother's basement. She went to Judgement less than a year later. Is there anyone who wouldn't be depressed at such a turn of events in their life? Thank God there were psychiatrists to give anti-depressants, and a good therapist (specializing in depression) with whom to talk. Of course getting spiritual help is paramount while getting other forms of  assistance. 

No one should feel ashamed to seek help if they need therapy. If you break a leg, you see a doctor; there's no shame in that, and there should be no shame in seeking out psychological help when needed. A great Traditionalist I knew was a psychologist who attended the Ave Maria Chapel of Fr. DePauw for many years. However, just as there are bad doctors, there are bad therapists and bad psychological methodologies. Many are anti-theistic and seek, not to help, but to weaken or destroy belief in God.

Although few like to state it, sinful living is the source of many ills that plague us. Few therapists believe that, let alone proclaim it. More and more, psychology is less about mental health, and mostly about pushing ideological agendas, like the "transgender" insanity. The dependence upon therapy is also out of control. According to one source, in 2002, around 27.2 million adults in the United States received treatment or counseling for their mental health within the past year as compared to 55.8 million in 2022. That's more than double in only twenty years. 

(See statista.com/statistics/794027/mental-health-treatment-counseling-past-year-us-adults). 

In the Vatican II sect, the "priests" are little more than glorified social workers, promoting a gospel of self-love and acceptance, and from which all traditional Catholic teaching on sin and the need for grace has been removed. It would be wrong and potentially tragic for individuals who need serious counseling to forsake it because they feel “all psychology is worthless.” That is not the case, nor is it the message of my post. 

In this post, it will be demonstrated that much of modern psychology:

• has inherent anti-Christian bias
• has many hidden dangers
• has occult influences

Hopefully, after reading this post, you'll be equipped to avoid the pitfalls of much of modern psychology, and receive real help should such ever be necessary. Such is possible. Besides the psychologist who was a Traditionalist, I have another psychologist friend ("conservative" Vatican II sect) who is very ethical. With this in mind, let the exposing of modern psychology begin.

An Inherent Anti-Christian Bias

While there is an almost universal rejection Sigmund Freud's (the so-called "father of psychotherapy") diabolic theories, there are some of his ideas that have remained and infected the practice of psychology. True psychology should seek behavior modification, drug therapies, and help deal with trauma to overcome phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders, etc. False psychology has pushed the following ideas:

• There is no sin. God is either denied or considered some vague "higher power."  No one needs forgiveness from God, they just suffer from an "addiction." Adulterers are merely "sex addicts." Those who bully others are "power addicts." Vatican II sect "priests" no longer offer sacrifice to God or forgive sin. They are more or less social workers using occasional religious verbiage. The confessional is not about doing penance, but discussing your "problems" that don't need supernatural remedies.

• Normalize the deviant. In 1973 the American Psychological Association (APA), removed homosexuality from its second edition of the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This is the book which lists mental problems. Since then, sodomites are considered "normal," they were no longer to be considered sick and/or immoral. Now gender dysphoria, along with sodomy, is celebrated. A man who wants to be a woman, or vice-versa, is "healthy and normal" as opposed to sinful or sick. 

• Make deviant the normal. People who reject "sodomite rights" for religious and/or ethical reasons are "homophobic." In other words there's something wrong with you in opposing sins against nature that (literally) "Scream to Heaven for Vengeance." If a man wants to "identify as a woman" we are expected to believe he is actually a woman. This is delusional and divorced from reality. Yet, YOU will be labeled as having a mental disorder---"transphobia." Ironically, those afflicted with anorexia and see themselves as morbidly obese when they are dangerously underweight, are rightfully treated as being mentally ill. How long before we must accept them as overweight or be labeled "transweight-phobic"? If you tell the truth that the statement "I identify as..." really means "I pretend to be..." you will be demonized and could lose your job in many cases. 

• Everything is ethical as long as you "don't hurt anyone" and there is "consent." Adultery is only wrong if your husband or wife doesn't consent. Having an "open marriage" where one or both can sleep around is ethical. Murder is wrong because someone gets hurt against their will. Euthanasia is ethical because the person consents to be killed. This concept of "consent" is out of control. I once told someone who was making anti-Christian remarks at a legal conference I attended, that I would not listen to his offensive garbage.. As I got up to leave, I said, "You must be battling some horrible demons affecting you. I'll be praying for you." Enraged, he shouted "Don't you dare! I didn't consent to your prayers! And I don't believe in demons!" At this point, I turned around with a silent room watching. I calmly but forcefully stated, "Luckily, I don't need your consent to pray for you or anyone else I so choose. Just because you don't believe in demons doesn't make them any less real. If your understanding of the law is as poor as what I've heard today, I pity your clients. I'll double my prayers for you tonight." He stood red-faced with anger as I then exited. 

The Cult (and Dangers) of Unqualified "Self-Love and Acceptance"

There are two fundamental principles at work in modern psychology; you must love yourself and accept who you are. It sounds both innocent and benevolent, but it is neither. It is a huge departure from Church teaching. 

1. Self love. "If you don't love yourself first, no one else will." How often have you heard this slogan? Psychology will play off this notion and make you believe, "I won't be good to others if I'm not good to myself." Next thing you do is send your three-year old off to daycare forty hours per week, or dip into family funds to drink and gamble.

 Should you love yourself? That depends. We should like ourselves when we live in conformity to the Will of God. We should like ourselves for the good we do. However, we should not like ourselves and feel guilt for the evil we do. This is anathema to psychology. Psychologists want us to think of the self-rejecting teenager, trying to be popular. She should just love herself. Really? Even if she's not popular because she spreads rumors and manipulates others? Modern psychology denies Original Sin and the Fall.

Vatican II incorporated this idea into the heretical document Gaudium et Spes para. #13, "For sin has diminished man, blocking his path to fulfillment." It should say that, sin "prevents man from attaining his salvation." The error promotes the belief that man's "fullness" (he's "diminished" and has a blocked path to reaching his "fullness" or "fulfillment") is the principal value and, moreover, is the basic element of the idea of sin. On the contrary, the Church's perennial teaching is that sin is an offense committed against God because of which we merit legitimate punishment, including eternal damnation.

2. Accept yourself because you're not responsible. 

• We are products of our environment. (Blame your parents, poverty, society, but not yourself for anything about yourself you don't like)

• Therefore, we are not responsible or accountable for our actions.(Denial of free will)

• Therefore, we are victims. (No sin, just "addictions." You're a "man trapped inside a woman's body"? You were determined to be that way, so be proud of gender dysphoria, etc.)

Ironically, modern psychology tells us we are responsible for our own happiness. Yet how can we be responsible for anything if we are biologically and/or environmentally determined? (Self-contradiction won't interfere with their teachings!). In the Vatican II sect, many clergy teach that God must love us unconditionally since we can't help the way we are as products of our society. One of my regular readers wrote that she went to "confession" in the Vatican II sect (before finding her way back to the True Church), and for "penance" she was told to sit for a while in the Church and "let God love you" (whatever that means--you can't make this stuff up).

 Vatican II joins modern psychology in the heretical teaching of humanity's "intrinsic self-worth." In Gaudium et Spes, para. 24 states, "...if man is the only creature on earth God has wanted for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself," as if people possesses such value in themselves that it would cause God to create them.  In the Catholic meaning, the self-worth or "dignity of man" cannot be considered as a characteristic in people's very nature that imposes respect for all choices, because this dignity depends on right will turned toward the Good and is therefore a relative and not an absolute value.

On April 8, 2024, the so-called "Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith" (DDF) published the declaration Dignitas infinita (On Human Dignity), approved by Bergoglio. Two glaring errors in the declaration:

• Only God possesses infinite dignity
• Not all humans have equal dignity. A priest has more inherent dignity than a layman. A person who does good works to reach his final end possesses a dignity that is greater the more he seeks this end. Likewise, a person who turns away from his end and does evil forfeits this dignity, and is subject to the death penalty in certain circumstances, which Begoglio heretically rejects in principle

That's how far the Vatican II sect has fallen in line with modern psychology's obsession with "self-worth and acceptance." 

The Occult Teachings in Modern Psychology

 Psychology today is increasingly accepting the occult—so much so that an entire post would be needed to do justice to this topic.  As far back as 1988 psychologist Gary Collins wrote, “There is evidence that occult practices have been accepted by a large and perhaps growing number of psychological professionals.” (See Gary R. Collins, Can You Trust Psychology?, [1988], pg. 104).

 Indeed, their numbers are growing daily. Jungian, humanistic, shamanistic, transpersonal, Hindu, Buddhist, and fringe or esoteric psychologies as well as parapsychology are now fusing psychology and the occult as a means of very powerfully changing people. In a joint quest for self-awareness and personal empowerment, occultists themselves are joining hands with psychologists to blend their respective disciplines into a new discipline more potent than either discipline alone.

Texts such as Ken Wilbur’s The Atman Project and Alta LaDage’s Occult Psychology: A Comparison of Jungian Psychology and the Modern Qabalah, Seymour Boorstein’s (ed.) Transpersonal Psychotherapy, Walsh and Vaughan’s (eds.) Beyond Ego, Charles Tart’s (ed.) Transpersonal Psychologies, and periodicals such as The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology are only a few illustrations from psychologists or occultists which clearly indicate that psychology and psychotherapy have become working partners in the promotion and expansion of occult ideas, influences, and practices in our society. Jungian psychology is especially responsible.

Consider the conferences given by the Association for Humanistic Psychology (AHP). Its influential membership has had a major impact in modern psychology and within twentieth-century American culture. Yet, AHP conferences have included subjects such as past-life regression, Tantric medicine, spiritism and trance channeling, Gestalt astrology, shamanism, aura reading and voodoo. (See Maureen O’Hara, “Science, Pseudoscience, and Myth Mongering” in Robert Basil, ed., Not Necessarily the New Age: Critical Essays, pgs. 147-48, 164).

Today literally thousands of humanistic psychologists are actually open to spirit contact either directly or indirectly, though usually under some other name.

Sigmund Freud: Needing a Therapist and an Exorcist

That psychology began with antagonism towards God cannot be denied. Sigmund Freud ((1856-1939) remains the best known pioneer in the field of psychology. While his ideas are mostly ignored today, they still have had a great impact on society. Freud is portrayed as an atheist who shunned religion because of the "science of psychology" which supposedly proved God was a subconscious projection of the human mind.  Freud's criticism of the belief in God is called The Projection Theory. According to this theory, God is a projection of our own unconscious desires. As Freud wrote in his book The Future of an Illusion, "...the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection...which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fears of the dangers of life."

Freud's Projection Theory commits the genetic fallacy in logic. This occurs when you try to discredit an idea based on its origin. Even if belief in God came from an unconscious desire for a father-figure, this doesn't prove God non-existent. Perhaps the very reason we have such a desire is because Our Creator made it innate within us to seek Him out. But was Freud a man who "had it all together" and was a convinced atheist? Dr. Paul Vitz, a former professor of psychology at New York University, and a former atheist himself, gives us some insight into Freud in his book Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious. [1988]

Here are some interesting facts on the "Father of Psychotherapy:"

• Freud was very interested in occult phenomena such as telepathy and poltergeists

• On Saturday evenings, he would frequently play tarock - a form of a tarot card game associated with the Jewish Kabbala

• In 1937, when he was urged to flee Nazism, he responded that his real enemy was the Roman Catholic Church

• Was a cocaine addict and his excuse was  "I was making frequent use of cocaine to reduce some troublesome nasal swellings." 

• The Catholic psychiatrist Gregory Zilboorg concluded: "Religion was, for Freud, a field of which he knew very little and which moreover seems to have been the very center of his inner conflicts, conflicts that were never resolved."(Emphasis mine). 

Freud was psychologically conflicted, a drug addict, and an occultist. Not a shining example to follow.

(See also The Freudian Fallacy: Freud and Cocaine by E M Thornton [1986]).  

Conclusion

Psychology can be a force for good to help people. Unfortunately, it all too often turns out to be a substitute for religion--and a very poor one at that. The Vatican II sect is all about self-esteem and self-acceptance forgetting that Our Lord told us, "... If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." (St. Matthew 16:24). A proper, Christian understanding of self-esteem and self-acceptance is good; but we must reject our sin-prone nature, deny our wants, and conform ourselves to the Will of God. To do anything less is to resign oneself to sin and Hell.

The Four Temperaments---Sanguine (Part I)

 

To My Readers: I have received several requests for posts on the subject of The Four Temperaments. This week's post is the fourth installment to this most important and interesting topic. I will follow-up with other posts so that by 2025, I will have done some justice to presenting the Four Temperaments. I originally thought I could finish by December of this year, but that won't happen.  

I want to acknowledge that I take no credit for the posts on this topic. My primary sources will be from theologian Schagemann and his work entitled Manual of Self-Knowledge and Christian Perfection (1913).  Also, the work of theologian Hock The Four Temperaments (1934) will be used throughout this series of posts, with various other sources. I take absolutely no credit whatsoever for the content of this post (or the ones on this topic to follow). All I did was condense the material of these theologians into a terse post that hopefully will be advantageous for  those looking for information, but without time to read an entire book or two from the pre-Vatican II era on the subject.

I was going to treat of the phlegmatic temperament, but I have decided to publish that last due to the information being the least. I will combine it with some concluding considerations.  

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Sanguine Temperament---Part I

CHARACTER OF THE SANGUINE TEMPERAMENT 

The sanguine person is quickly aroused and vehemently excited by whatever influences him. The reaction follows immediately, but the impression lasts but a short time. Consequently the remembrance of the impression does not easily cause new excitement. 

FUNDAMENTAL DISPOSITION 

1. Superficiality. The sanguine person does not penetrate the depth, the essence of things; he does not embrace the whole, but is satisfied with the superficial and with a part of the whole. Before he has mastered one subject, his interest relaxes because new impressions have already captured his attention. He loves light work which attracts attention, where there is no need of deep thought, or great effort. To be sure, it is hard to convince a sanguine person that he is superficial; on the contrary, he imagines that he has grasped the subject wholly and perfectly. 

2. Instability. Because the impressions made upon a sanguine person do not last, they are easily followed by others. The consequence is a great instability which must be taken into account by anyone who deals with such persons, if he does not wish to be disappointed. St Peter assured our Lord that he was ready to go with Him, even die for Him, only to deny a few hours later that he did not know "this man." The crowds hailed our Lord with their Hosannas on Palm Sunday but cried: Crucify Him! a few days later. The sanguine is always changing in his moods; he can quickly pass from tears to laughter and vice versa; he is fickle in his views; today he may defend what he vehemently opposed a week ago; he is unstable in his resolutions. 

If a new point of view presents itself he may readily upset the plans which he has made previously. This inconsistency often causes people to think that the sanguine person has no character; that he is not guided by principles. The sanguine naturally denies such charges, because he always finds a reason for his changes. He forgets that it is necessary to consider everything well and to look into and investigate everything carefully beforehand, in order not to be captivated by every new idea or mood. He is also inconsistent at his work or entertainment; he loves variety in everything; he resembles a bee which flies from flower to flower; or the child who soon tires of the new toy.

 3. Tendency to the external. The sanguine does not like to enter into himself, but directs his attention to the external. In this respect he is the very opposite of the melancholic person who is given to introspection, who prefers to be absorbed by deep thoughts and more or less ignores the external. This leaning to the external is shown in the keen interest which the sanguine pays to his own appearance, as well as to that of others; to a beautiful face, to fine and modern clothes, and to good manners. In the sanguine the five senses are especially active, while the choleric uses rather his reason and will and the melancholic his feelings. The sanguine sees everything, hears 16 everything, talks about everything. He is noted for his facility and vivacity of speech, his inexhaustible variety of topics and flow of words which often make him disagreeable to others. The sanguine person in consequence of his vivacity has an eye for details, an advantageous disposition which is more or less lacking in choleric and melancholic persons. 

4. Optimism. The sanguine looks at everything from the bright side. He is optimistic, overlooks difficulties, and is always sure of success. If he fails, he does not worry about it too long but consoles himself easily. His vivacity explains his inclination to poke fun at others, to tease them and to play tricks on them. He takes it for granted. that others are willing to take such things in good humor and he is very much surprised if they are vexed on account of his mockery or improper jokes. 

5. Absence of deep passions. The passions of the sanguine are quickly excited, but they do not make a deep and lasting impression; they may be compared to a straw fire which flares up suddenly, but just as quickly dies down, while the passions of a choleric are to be compared to a raging, all-devouring conflagration. This lack of deep passions is of great advantage to the sanguine in spiritual life, insofar as he is usually spared great interior trials and can serve God as a rule with comparative joy and ease. He seems to remain free of the violent passions of the choleric and the pusillanimity and anxiety of the melancholic. 

BRIGHT SIDES OF THE SANGUINE TEMPERAMENT 

1. The sanguine person has many qualities on account of which he fares well with his fellow men and endears himself to them.

 a) The sanguine is an extrovert; he readily makes acquaintance with other people, is very communicative, loquacious, and associates easily with strangers. 

b) He is friendly in speech and behavior and can pleasantly entertain his fellow men by his interesting narratives and witticisms. 

c) He is very pleasant and willing to oblige. He dispenses his acts of kindness not so coldly as a choleric, not so warmly and touchingly as the melancholic, but at least in such a jovial and pleasant way that they are graciously received. 

d) He is compassionate whenever a mishap befalls his neighbor and is always ready to cheer him by a friendly remark. 

e) He has a remarkable faculty of drawing the attention of his fellow men to their faults without causing immediate and great displeasure. He does not find it hard to correct others. If it is necessary to inform someone of bad news, it is well to assign a person of sanguine temperament for this task. 

f) A sanguine is quickly excited by an offence and may show his anger violently and at times imprudently, but as soon as he has given vent to his wrath, he is again pleasant and bears no grudge. 

2. The sanguine person has many qualities by which he wins the affection of his superiors. 

a) He is pliable and docile. The virtue of obedience, which is generally considered as difficult, is easy for him.

 b) He is candid and can easily make known to his superiors his difficulties, the state of his spiritual life, and even disgraceful sins.

 c) When punished he hardly ever shows resentment; he is not defiant and obstinate. It is easy for a superior to deal with sanguine subjects, but let him be on his guard! Sanguine subjects are prone to flatter the superior and show a servile attitude; thus quite unintentionally endangering the peace of a community. Choleric and especially melancholic persons do not reveal themselves so easily, because of their greater reserve, and should not be scolded or slighted or neglected by the superiors. 

3. The sanguine is not obdurate in evil. He is not stable in doing good things, neither is he consistent in doing evil. Nobody is so easily seduced, but on the other hand, nobody is so easily converted as the sanguine. 

4. The sanguine does not long over unpleasant happenings. Many things which cause a melancholic person a great, deal of anxiety and trouble do not affect the sanguine in the least, because he is an optimist and as such overlooks difficulties and prefers to look at affairs from the sunny side. Even if the sanguine is occasionally exasperated and sad, he soon finds his balance again. His sadness does not last long, but gives way quickly to happiness. This sunny quality of the well trained sanguine person helps him to find community life, for instance, in institutions, seminaries, convents much easier, and to overcome the difficulties of such life more readily than do choleric or melancholic persons. Sanguine persons can get along well even with persons generally difficult to work with. 

No temperament is so well suited as this to make a man a useful member of a community. By nature he is inclined to serve others. It is a pleasure to ask favors of him. He is always ready to give his services. He is forgiving. Though he has been wronged, he is not inclined to harbor an ill will towards the of fender. He will quickly forget the wrong done to him. At the same time he is indulgent to the faults of others. He will not judge harshly nor treat his companions with severity. One trait that especially endears him to his associates is his frankness. All that have intercourse with him are charmed by his cheerful disposition.

Then, too, he is apt to captivate others, because he is a ready speaker. One of the greatest advantages of this temperament is, that, without much difficulty it can accommodate itself to a life of obedience and spirituality.

Conclusion

This concludes the first part of understanding the sanguine temperament. The next installment will discuss the "dark side" of the sanguine, and how those with such temperament should self-train for spiritual advancement. That post will conclude the second temperament under consideration. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 31

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Is Jesus History?

Once again there are rants by so-called "Internet infidels" and other secularists that question Jesus Christ. To be certain, they are not questioning His Divinity. There are atheist scholars who do so, claiming Jesus of Nazareth was a mere Human and myths grew about His Life; it was "mythologized history." Rather, these pseudo-scholars claim that there was no such Person as Jesus of Nazareth; it was "historical myth." 

These historical skeptics speak out of ignorance. My attention was brought to that of one Dr. Steven Novella (b. 1964), a clinical neurologist and associate professor at Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Novella blogs on all things using "science and reason." Of course, he is a self-admitted atheist. Novella has a post (from 2017 and being regurgitated today) where he cites two articles; one in favor of the historicity of Christ, and one opposed. (See https://theness.com/neurologicablog/the-evidence-for-the-history-of-jesus/). Novella finds the skeptic's article more convincing (surprise, surprise), and ends with this conclusion:

In the end we are left with, I think, two main conclusions. The first is that we simply do not know if Jesus was an actual person who existed. The evidence for a historical Jesus is thin, but there is no specific evidence refuting his existence.

The second conclusion, however, is that it doesn’t really matter. Even if a prophet named Jesus lived at that time and some of Christian mythology is based on his life, the core of Christian mythology is not. As Tarico argues, any actual history is muddled by mythology.

So there you have it. We don't know if Jesus Christ existed, and if He did, it was all "muddled mythology" anyway. Why would someone bring this to my attention? Well, Novella is highly educated and intelligent. Although absolutely true, he is an ultracrepidarian, i.e., one who speaks outside the realm of his expertise. In today's world, anyone with an Instagram account can be an "expert." Lest anyone ask how a lawyer blogs about theology, the answer is I wouldn't if the Great Apostasy hadn't happened. We would have the pope and his bishops to guide us. I'm not a theologian, but a simple layman doing the best he can to make his Catholic way through these spiritually dark times. I credit Fr. DePauw, a real canonist, for helping me. In the absence of Magisterial authority, I can defend Church teachings, and see how they can be applied to today's situation.

For Novella, why is he injecting himself into a subject of which he has no expertise? His position gives credibility to what he believes, and he uses this to his advantage. It is telling that he cites very little from Dr. Simon J. Gathercole, Professor at the University of Cambridge and a scholar on the topics of the New Testament and early Christianity. Dr. Gathercole wrote in favor of the historicity of Christ. Instead, Novella cites approvingly and several times from  the authors of the article opposing the historicity of Christ: Valerie Tarico and David Fitzgerald. Who are they, you ask?

• Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and former Protestant turned atheist. She has written books against religion. She is a feminist and advocates for abortion.

• Davis Fitzgerald is described as "an atheist author, public speaker and historical researcher who has been actively investigating the Historical Jesus question for over twenty years, and was an associate member of CSER (the former Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion). " He has written a book called Jesus: Mything in Action.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the problem here. A woman with a doctorate in psychology and wanting to have the "right" to murder innocent unborn babies, assisted by a man whose education is unknown and does his own non-peer reviewed "research" are no more qualified to write on this issue than the man from Roto-Rooter is qualified to give someone a colonoscopy. They are, nevertheless, endorsed by a clinical neurologist ("ooh! Ahh! He must know everything!"). 

I will be the first to admit that even if someone is qualified to speak on a subject, it doesn't necessarily make them correct in what they state, but it's the place from where you must start.  You (hopefully) wouldn't want an attorney to perform surgery, no matter his intelligence. Nor should you give credence to a neurologist when it comes to matters of theological importance. 

To show how bereft of understanding these sciolists really are, read the following from Tarico/Fitzgerald's article:

Either way, as New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman points out, the Testimonium Flavanium merely repeats common Christian beliefs of the late first century, and even if it was 100% genuine would provide no evidence about where those beliefs came from. This same applies to other secular references to Jesus–they definitely attest to the existence of Christians and recount Christian beliefs at the time, but offer no independent record of a historical Jesus.

In sum, while well-established historic figures like Alexander the Great are supported by multiple lines of evidence, in the case of Jesus we have only one line of evidence: the writings of believers involved in spreading the fledgling religion. (See rawstory.com/2017/04/evidence-for-jesus-is-weaker-than-you-might-think; Emphasis mine). 

Bart Ehrman (b. 1955) is indeed a New Testament scholar, whose historical-critical methodology led to his becoming an avowed atheist. Tarico/Fitzgerald cite him in support of their position that the historical Christ never existed. Is that really the case? Do we only have a single line of evidence for Jesus Christ---the writings of believers in early Christianity?

As an attorney, one of the best things that can happen is having a hostile witness testify that something you presented to the court is true. Both judge and jury will accord such great evidentiary weight because the witness does not want your case to prevail. Therefore, anything to which they admit which helps your case is seen as having no confirmation bias, i.e., the witness would not want anything that helps your case to be true. 

The rest of this post will present, in their own words, what atheist Bible scholars have said about the historicity of Christ. Remember, it would be a great benefit to them if they could declare the Person Christianity reveres as God to be a mythical figure and non-historical. 

What Atheist Biblical Scholars Really Teach

Bart Ehrman is one of the most respected New Testament scholars of our day.  He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, and received his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary.

Ehrman says that the proponents of the Christ-myth theory do not define what they mean by “myth” and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.  He discusses leading contemporary mythicists by name in his book Did Jesus Exist?, and dismisses their arguments as “amateurish”, “wrong-headed”, and “outlandish”.  The whole book outlines all of the historical evidence for Jesus, which tearing down the unscholarly view that Jesus is a myth.

Ehrman in his own words:

There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.

And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.. (See huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544; Emphasis mine).

In The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, (2000), he says:

One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. (pg. 162; Emphasis mine).

In addition to Ehrman, here are others who have no love of Christianity; they deny that Jesus is the Son of God, they don’t think Jesus was divine in any way, and they deny that Jesus rose from the dead.  They are just atheistic or agnostic scholars of the ancient world who hold academic positions in fields of study relevant to the history of Jesus of Nazareth.

Gerd Ludemann (d. 2021) – A German New Testament Historian. Professor at the University of Gottinggen as a member of the Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity.  He believes Jesus existed but denies His divinity and the resurrection:

Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable. In The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, (2004), pg 50; Emphasis mine. 

John Dominic Crossan (b. 1934)– An Irish New Testament professor and historian. He was an apostate Catholic priest, ordained in 1957.  He teaches Jesus existed but wasn’t God:

That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus…agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact. – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.  pg. 145; Emphasis mine. 

Michael Grant (d. 2004) – A Classicist, 3 history degrees, former vice-chancellor at Queen’s University of Belfast and former president of the University of Kartoum:

In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (2004) pg. 200.

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Ibid, pgs. 199-200; All emphasis mine. 

Ed Parish Sanders (d. 2022) – A New Testament scholar. Former Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, North Carolina. Two doctorates in theology. One of the most respected New Testament historians.

The Historical Figure of Jesus, pgs. 10-11:

I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.) Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great; he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptized by John the Baptist; he called disciples; he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities); he preached ‘the kingdom of God’; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover; he created a disturbance in the Temple area; he had a final meal with the disciples; he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest; he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

He goes on to say:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism. Ibid.; All emphasis mine

Geza Vermes (d. 2013) – Ph.D. in theology. Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan.  Former professor of Jewish studies at the University of Oxford:

Who was Jesus? Did he exist? Was he God? Is he still relevant? To start with, the existence of Jesus is no longer debatable. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea between AD26 and 36, and was most probably born shortly before the death of Herod the Great in 4BC. Quasi-certainty stops here. (See ebionite.tripod.com/GV.htm; Emphasis mine). 

George Albert Wells (d. 2017)– Atheist and Emeritus professor of German at the University of London. Once believed Jesus was a myth, and one of the best known advocates of the so-called “Christ myth” theory. Wells changed his position to accept the existence of a historical Jesus. In 2003 Wells stated that he now disagrees on the information about Jesus being “all mythical:"

“Nearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus’ historicity as ridiculous.” He adds, “the view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity … is today almost universally rejected.”  “Serious students of the New Testament today regard the existence of Jesus as an unassailable fact” – Did Jesus Exist?, Revised edition (1986), pg. 213. and The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988), pg. 218; Emphasis mine.

Marcus Borg (d. 2015) – Ph.D. Former Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University. He was a Bible scholar and an agnostic who believed Jesus was a Jewish prophet and teacher.

In an interview, Borg is asked “So we have the proposition: “Jesus once walked this earth.” True or false?”. Borg responds: “True.  The reasons for thinking that Jesus was invented by the early Christians are so weak. We have no reason to think that they did...Now if someone wants to say, “Can you prove absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus existed?” one would have to say, “No.” Can one prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Julius Caesar existed, one would have to say, “No.” But again, we’re talking about probability judgments, so that the inability to prove something absolutely, does not mean that its opposite is therefore likely to be true." 

(See blog.homileticsonline.com/interviews/being-christian-in-the-21st-century-interview-with-marcus-borg; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

It is a fact that not a single academic scholar today with a  doctorate in a relevant field of study claims that Jesus did not exist. However, we live in a world where an "Internet influencer" is revered as an ersatz "expert." Is it therefore any wonder that if an atheist psychologist, aided by an atheist "researcher" with no advanced education at all, writes an article that claims Jesus didn't exist, people will be taken in by it? Making it "more impressive" is its endorsement by a neurologist who knows little to nothing of historical research methodology. 

The same reasoning applies in all areas of our lives. You wouldn't take a medication that sat around so long that a professional pharmacist told you it may be poisonous now. You wouldn't let a lawyer perform open heart surgery on you, and you wouldn't want a surgeon defending you in a criminal trail. How much more must people not listen to people like Fred and Bobby Dimond, two men who have no formal ecclesiastical education or training and no secular education beyond high school, yet they will tell you where St. Alphonsus Liguori "made mistakes." Thousands of people follow them into Feeneyite heresy. Likewise, don't be fooled by pseudo-experts in irrelevant fields who try and tell you there was no historical Jesus Christ. "Do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell. " (St. Matthew 10:28).