For more than a decade, the senior pastor at Texas U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico’s home church has been teaching that the resurrection did not literally happen and that Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead, according to a recent clip unearthed by Protestia.
The pastoral staff at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas (PCUSA) has been under fire for weeks, most recently after Rev. Babs Miller revealed to undercover cameras that most of their congregants are agnostic or atheist.
In a newly unearthed clip from the church’s 2023 Easter sermon, Rev. Jim Rigby, who is pro-abortion, once admitted an avowed atheist into church membership, and who denies the virgin birth, can be heard saying that he doesn’t believe in a literal resurrection, but rather that it’s all just symbolic.
The denial of the resurrection in this Easter sermon echoes what he’s been publicly preaching for more than a decade, along with sharing on social media:
With a church and pastors like these, why would anyone believe Talarico thinks and confesses any different?
12 responses to “James Talarico’s Pastor Says Jesus Never Rose From The Dead, No Literal Resurrection”
If a person believes all the bible including what it says God his mighty word and innocent body and blood does in the sacraments . you will.never have to worry about how much you can reject of any part of the bible and still be concidered by God his redemmed child . will.ya!
You can’t repent of sin while continuing in the sin. Nowhere does the Bible say that anyone is saved by “sacraments”. That’s not in there. You’ve been taught a false gospel and do not understand what it means to be born again, indwelled by the Holy Spirit. See 1 John 3:4-10.
Your reasoning false a bit short. Scripture does not conflict.
Blind leading the blind. He does not know or understand the Gospel and what it means to be born again, indwelled by the Holy Spirit with the implanted word to overcome the corruption of mankind and creation from the sin of Adam, when death entered the world. To ultimately overcome death. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And this is important to understand. Jesus’ resurrection is not just symbolic. It was overcoming death that entered the world because of sin.
Notice he tries and claims to be rational, but his reasoning and conclusions are based on his own assumptions and unsubstantiated preconditions. His “reasoning” is entirely baseless and necessarily circular, because it will always return back around to his own assumptions. Notice, he deceptively presents an assumption as if it were absolute fact, then bases his reasoning on that assumption. One example is the assumption that God was just being a meanie who punished Adam and Eve for no reason. Yet scripture all throughout makes it clear that it was “because of” Adam’s sin. The first thing God said is “cursed is the ground because of you”. So Mr. Rigby assumes that there was no natural cause and affect, and/or would necessarily assume that God had no good reason or justification for what He did. And why would he make such an assumption if not because he assumes the Creator did not set that natural cause and affect into motion in the first place? Would not the one who created it all be the one who knows? See there is a great possibility, and scripture backs this up, that God was simply warning Adam and Eve of the due consequence (and that’s an important phrase – due consequence) of sin. Sin has due consequence. Now God did supernaturally intervene. But it is very unwise to assume that He didn’t have good reason, because only He fully knows and understands that natural “due consequence”. And it’s important to understand that at every time God intervened at every covenant/dispensation, it was an act of mercy and grace. The fact that He allowed creation to continue to exist at all was an act of grace. Right. He could’ve said well that turned out bad, let’s just get rid of it, then with the utterance of one word all of creation along with Adam and Eve could’ve ceased to exist. And He would’ve certainly been justified in doing so. The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23 – in context with Romans 5:12) Even Mr. Rigby will admit this as it relates to the sins he doesn’t like (and the “sins” he changes and adds in the course of teaching as doctrine the commandments of men – just like the pharisees did – Matt. 15:8-9) in the course of rejecting God’s standards and making up his own. And this is just one example. I don’t know what formal fallacies might be involved in all his “reasoning”, certainly there is a deceptive appeal to his own authority, but I’d say there are many formal fallacies to be pointed out.
He needs to read Romans and follow along with the concrete and irrefutable reasoning that Paul, by the instruction of the Holy Spirit, lays out and explains.
As it now stands Mr. Rigby seems to think anything he himself doesn’t personally understand, or finds hard to believe, must be stupid, irrational, and untrue. Which, of course, is itself irrational, as well as extremely prideful. He needs to consider the possibility that maybe Almighty God knows and understands and thing or two that Mr. Rigby does not.
Another very significant problem is that he is essentially claiming that scripture is a lie, while also claiming that it’s a “good” lie. If it’s not true, but is rather just “poetic” symbolism of some sort, then he implies that lies are good. Which is to imply that it is nothing but some sort of tool of psychological manipulation. And God, by allowing it into His word, would Himself be sinning and justifying sin. Mr. Rigby himself then, in turn, will lie in order to manipulate others, believing something good could result from sin. And this is far worse than perverting the grace and love of God into a license to sin (Jude, 2 Peter 2, etc.). It is claiming that God approves of sin and Himself engages in sin. And that is far worse. It is the same lie of the serpent – the claim that God is a liar and deceiver.
There’s much more that could be said and pointed out, but it’s plain to see that the man doesn’t begin to think as rationally as he thinks he does. And it’s not even close. What’s driving him is the wickedness in his heart. It’s his flesh. Of the flesh, by the flesh, for the flesh.
Words are cheap – people can and WILL just make stuff up and toss it up on the wall to see if it sticks.
But who cares? Why give these morons the time of day. Why give them the attention and publicity, when they’re obviously such losers?
Why? For the “clicks”? That’s pathetic.
Because many are led astray by false teaching. Because the eternal fate of others is at stake. Because it matters. Because scripture tells us to refute false teaching.
There’s also a fairly significant false dilemma in the implication that something could be symbolic or true. Yet it is certainly possible for something to be both symbolic and true. When you talk about symbolism, you’re talking about a representation, reflection, example, and so on, that is a means of explaining an underlying truth. Sure Jesus’ resurrection is symbolic. It is symbolic of so much in fact, specifically because it is true. The same can be said for all of the Gospel beginning at the beginning from Creation and the sin of Adam. It’s symbolic of many things. It explains many things. And the reason it explains so many things, and is such a reflection of underlying truths that we all plainly see and understand, is because it is in fact true.
So he needs to start at Romans 1 and read through at least Romans 6. The Holy Spirit through Paul explains this right in the first chapter of that book. What does He say? He says it’s plainly evident (Rom. 1:19). And what else does it say? It says because God showed it to them. And there is yet another example of possible reasons for the Resurrection that Mr. Rigby has not considered. To him it’s all about power, because that’s his worldly, fleshly, atheistic mindset. But maybe … just maybe … it was more about God just plainly showing us the truth. He showed us because He loves us. And so all are without excuse.
Now then, if it’s all about power and manipulation and control of others, then would it not be the one who believes that lying is acceptable, that it’s ok to manipulate others with falsehoods, who would be the true manipulator and controller? Who’s the authoritarian? If it’s ok to manipulate people with “poetic” falsehoods, then who’s the real power-hungry control freak? Who’s the real dictator?
Does the truth imprison, or does it set free? How could the truth possibly be oppressive or unjust? If the truth is unjust, then justice is unjust. If there’s no truth then there’s no justice.
Mr. Rigby should consider these things. Then he might see that he is the one who is trying to unjustly exert undue power and control over others, and who is essentially trying to take God’s place. And I’m not talking about politics. I couldn’t give less of a flying flip about politics. I’m talking about the real and true Gospel of the real and true Jesus Christ.
Not only did Jesus rise from the dead, he disappeared from within the strips of cloth used to wrap him. Unlike Lazarus, who needed help being unloosed from his burial clothes, Jesus simply rose up through them. That’s what it says, that Peter saw the strips of cloth “lying there by themselves”, as if still wrapped around a body which was no longer there.
[…] James Talarico’s Pastor Says Jesus Never Rose From The Dead, No Literal Resurrection […]
The real question is that Talarico is a follower of a non Christian pastor, and probably a true atheist which you have to be to be a communist. This is not a legal disqualification but if you are a believer and Christian and you vote for someone who is out to destroy your rights you have blasphemed God directly.
[…] read the Protestia article and format it in the same WordPress summary style.In this Protestia article, staff writers report that Rev. Jim Rigby, longtime pastor at Texas Senate candidate James […]