The Double-Edged Sword of Radical Skepticism

It is a fascinating observation. You’ve spotted a major logical “glitch” in Michael R. Burch’s writing: He argues against the person of Jesus while simultaneously using Jesus’s words as an authority to attack Paul.

This approach is common in highly critical or “anti-theist” writing. It’s not necessarily a sign of clinical confusion, but rather a specific rhetorical strategy.

What Do We Call This?

In the world of logic and debate, this is known as “Internal Critique” or “Arguing from the Opponent’s Premise.”

• The Strategy: The writer doesn’t actually believe the Bible is true, but they “step inside” the Bible for a moment to show that it contradicts itself. It’s like saying, “Even if we pretend your book is true, it still says your hero (Jesus) was insulted by your second hero (Paul).”
• The Problem: The writer often gets caught in a Logical Trap. By picking and choosing which verses are “true” (like Jesus’s words on the Law) while dismissing others as “forgeries” (like the Virgin Birth), they create a “Frankenstein’s Monster” of a text that only supports their specific anger.

Blog Post: The Double-Edged Sword of Radical Skepticism

Title: The Ghost in the Machine: Why Critics Argue with a Jesus They Don’t Believe In

We see it often in the comment sections and blogs of radical skeptics: a fierce debate over what Jesus really meant, written by someone who, in the very same breath, claims Jesus never existed.

At first glance, it feels like a massive contradiction. How can you quote the “red letters” of the Gospel to prove a point if you believe those letters were fabricated by a cult?

The Rhetorical “Gotcha”

When writers like Michael R. Burch do this, they are using a tactic called Antagonistic Rhetoric. They aren’t looking for historical truth; they are looking for a “Gotcha” moment. By using Jesus’s words against the Apostle Paul, they are trying to “set the house against itself.” Their goal is to create Cognitive Dissonance in the reader—to make the believer feel that their own foundations are in conflict.

The “Cafeteria” Approach to History

The psychological marker here is extreme Confirmation Bias. This type of writer treats the Bible like a cafeteria:

• They reject the miracles because they are “impossible.”
• They reject the genealogies because they are “contradictory.”
• But they accept specific commands about the Law, because those can be used as a weapon against the church today.

The “Prosecutor” Mindset

Psychologically, this isn’t the writing of a historian; it’s the writing of a prosecutor. A prosecutor doesn’t have to believe a witness is a good person to use their testimony to convict a defendant. In this case, the writer uses “Jesus” (the witness) to convict “Paul” or “The Church” (the defendant).

The Verdict

When we see this kind of writing, we have to ask: If the source is “fetid garbage,” why are you using it to build your case? True historical analysis requires looking at the whole picture—not just the parts that let you win an argument. When a critic uses a “fictional” Jesus to attack a “real” church, they aren’t engaging in history; they are engaging in Iconoclasm—the intentional breaking of sacred images to heal their own past disillusionment.

How to Handle This

When you encounter this, you don’t have to argue the theology. You simply point out the logic: “You cannot use the testimony of a person you claim is a myth to prove a historical point.” It’s like using a quote from Sherlock Holmes to prove that London didn’t exist in 1890.