Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Star of Bethlehem: 2nd Reply to Arrogant Aaron Adair

Star of Bethlehem: 2nd Reply to Arrogant Aaron Adair

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:43 am by Dave Armstrong

Star of Bethlehem: 2nd Reply to Arrogant Aaron Adair 2026-06-06T00:43:23-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I have replied to atheist physicist Aaron Adair once already: Star of Bethlehem: Reply to Obnoxious Atheist Aaron Adair (Plus Further Related Exchanges with Aaron and a Few Others in an Atheist Combox) [1-14-21] He has come back with a new hit-piece: “Who do you say I am?” Bad Commentary Research on the SoB [1-18-21], which was a “reply” to my post, Bible Commentaries & Matthew 2:9 (Star of Bethlehem) [1-13-21].

What follows is my counter-response, which was also posted underneath his article in the Tippling Philosopher forum. No doubt it’ll lead to another “feeding frenzy” of atheists insults. Let ’em fly! I engage in serious discourse. not excrement-throwing contests. Aaron’s words will be in blue.

*****

Dave proves that he is not an honest researcher, but the worst form of apologist, including hiding relevant information and even straight-up knowingly lying. I don’t like to make this latter accusation, but it is provably so, as I will demonstrate. . . .

Now, he’s taken this tactic to the level, dishonest level. . . .

Mr. Armstrong is imposing a lot onto this commentary and ignoring virtually everything else. Obviously because it doesn’t fit what he wants. So this is both a lie of omission and a lie of saying something is there which is not.

. . . he is lying. He knows this isn’t true, but says it anyways. That makes him a lying liar.

Now, let’s take stock of all of this. Does Dave’s failure to honestly present information . . .

He doesn’t know the facts, and he cannot honestly represent the data.

This is even more ridiculous and fact-challenged than Arrogant Aaron’s last hit-piece (and that was an awfully low bar itself). It deserves no reply at all, excepting just one thing:

Can you see a pattern yet? Dave continuously avoids showing what else these commentaries say. That is a classic quote mine, and it is a disingenuous method of citation. It actively hides what the quoter doesn’t want you to know. However, so far, these are lies of omission.

Absolute lie: and this is the bulk of his pseudo-“argumentation.” He simply repeats the same falsehood over and over. I made it very clear in my paper citing many commentaries:

For the sake of brevity, I only cite them where they agree with me or when they claim not to know what it was (neutral or agnostic position: II and IV below). I’m not denying at all that these commentators may also disagree on the other major point or additional ones. Readers who want to see their entire comment on Matthew 2:9 can follow the links I provide.

This wasn’t added “after the fact” in the face of Aaron’s tortured logic and cynicism as to my honesty and competence. It was there from the beginning.

Aaron for some reason that I cannot fathom, seems to be unable to comprehend the notion of citing someone where they agree, whereas the same person cited may very well disagree on other things. It’s not automatically dishonest citation. Aaron hopes and wishes that it is so in my case, so he can mock and dismiss my overall case, but it simply isn’t: try as he may to make it so.

Citation of this sort (i.e., in partial agreement) happens all the time in apologetics and theology. To give one example of hundreds: Martin Luther agrees with Catholics (over against someone like Zwingli in his time and Baptists in ours) that in the Eucharist is Jesus’ Real Presence. But he disagrees with our doctrine of transubstantiation and also of the sacrifice of the Mass. This is all made very clear in my writings. I wrote one book very critical of him overall (while still noting agreements) and then edited another consisting of all writings of Luther’s that Catholics would agree with. This is not dishonest or “lying” at all. It’s an exercise in seeking to find as much unity as possible.

I even entitled the book, The “Catholic” Luther. Now, once Aaron sees that, with his ludicrous methodology, he’ll say, “See! Dave is such a liar and incompetent buffoon that he thinks Martin Luther is a Catholic!” He would likely miss the quotation marks, which change the meaning entirely. In my seven-page introduction I explain myself very carefully, so there is no doubt. And it is the same sort of approach that I took in this paper about Bible commentators and the star of Bethlehem:

I have been very critical of Luther’s theology, where one would except a Catholic apologist to be, but I’ve also always sought to give him credit where it is due, to defend him against bum raps, and to note as much agreement between Luther and Catholics as it is possible to do. . . .

I can already foresee one of the criticisms that will inevitably be made against this book: “you have quoted him out of context! If you read the next paragraph, you’ll see something very different . . .”, etc., etc. . . .

I’m simply citing the portions of Luther’s writings that a Catholic would agree with. Often it will be a partial agreement, later nuanced and qualified by Luther, and sometimes contradicted by Luther, as his thought is not always necessarily logically consistent or coherent. . . .

Every work of systematic theology does the same thing: citing short portions of Scripture to establish a common theme of one strand of theology. It’s impossible to provide two pages of context for each passage. That’s not the purpose of it. . . .

I cite portions of his writing that particularly appeal to Catholics, since we fully agree with them, with the understanding that Luther and Catholics don’t agree on every jot and tittle. This is not quoting “out of context.” It’s partial quotation of one truth that Luther asserts, while not necessarily always noting (as is impossible to do in a quotations book) other truths that he places alongside these. The two things are different.

The present Introduction is, therefore, supremely important for readers to grasp exactly what I am trying to accomplish and what I am asserting about Luther and his theological positions: to be interpreted within the parameters and assumed qualifications here surveyed.

The ecumenical endeavor is devoted to finding things that Christians have in common. This book will do exactly that. My aim is not to exaggerate or distort anything in Luther, in order to make out that it is something it is not, or that he is different than he was.

Ironically, I’ll likely receive heavy criticism from several directions. Some Catholics (especially those who consider themselves more “traditional” on the spectrum) will think I am whitewashing Luther and giving the public a “cleaned-up” version who appears so Catholic that they will think there is scarcely any difference between the two theological camps. They’ll object to that as dishonest and compromised.

Some Lutherans, on the other hand, may object insofar as they might think I have deliberately concealed Luther’s “Lutheran distinctives” in order to make him palatable to Catholics. And this will offend them. They’ll say that I’m not presenting him as he was, and not in context.

This is, of course, an extended analogy, and Arrogant Aaron has shown that he doesn’t comprehend those, either, since every analogical argument I have made in my many papers on the star has been utterly ignored by him as supposedly “irrelevant” or off-topic.

Be that as it may, it remains a perfectly legitimate form of argumentation. And this material from my book of Luther “Catholic” quotations illustrates exactly how Aaron is dead-wrong in his current critique, just as he was in his last one. He’s simply engaging in sophistry and trying to make out that I am an inveterate liar. I don’t say he is that, because I don’t play his game. But I do say that he is lying about me over and over and speaking falsehood about me.

I have explained exactly how he is doing that in the above piece of trash.

***

Aaron replied underneath his paper:

You can’t honestly quote several sources together, categorize them as “I. Star of Bethlehem Was a Natural Celestial Phenomenon”, and yet not a single one thought the Star was natural. Not. One. That makes you a liar. Clearly so to any literate person.

[Y]ou ignore what the commentaries are explicit and unambiguous about: the Star was supernatural. They said so. In every. Single. Commentary you cite.

I summarized what the sections regarding “natural” or “supernatural” showed about the views of commentators:

Summary:

A comet or a supernova or a conjunction are “natural phenomen[a]” according to Michael J. Wilkins, who says that “many” commentators have taken one of these views.

Philip Schaff and Robert H. Mounce think it was a conjunction (my own view).

Coffman Commentaries says “we may not know the exact nature of that star” (thus it allows for the possibility of a natural explanation).

D. A. Carson says that “supernatural [view] is possible” which clearly means that a natural view may have been the case.

All this and you come up with your alt-reality nonsense. It’s bizarre. You deny the obvious reality of what you are reading. I think it’s explained simply by extreme hostility. That does odd things to a mind (even an otherwise brilliant one) and causes it to spew out the most ridiculous interpretations.

***

Photo credit: cover of 2013 book by Aaron Adair, from its Amazon page.

***

Atheism & Agnosticism

astronomy & the star of Bethlehem

atheists & the magi

atheists & the star of Bethlehem

atheists & the wise men

Bethlehem

Christmas

conjunctions

conjunctions in daytime

The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View

three wise men

Tippling Philosopher

Venus

Previous Post

January 15, 2021

Purgatory in the Bible (vs. Calvin #60)

Next Post

January 18, 2021 Loftus Lies #22: Paine, Stanton, & Twain Were NOT Atheists

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz