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

2026-06-13T13:11:21-04:00

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.

God, Modern Physics, & Dark Energy: An Analogy

Last updated on: June 13, 2026 at 1:11 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

This is the initial transcript for the video, What is God Made of? (Catholic Bible Highlights, with Kenny Burchard, 4-10-26).

*****

Does modern science have anything to say about the existence of God, Whom Christians believe to be an eternal spirit? Is the idea of a spirit itself an absurd, unverifiable idea? Science by definition is the study of the laws of physical matter, so in that sense it can’t directly speak to the question of God, and atheists seize upon that to declare that science disproves God. On the other hand, new trends and discoveries now taking place on the cutting edge of physics and cosmology have made it possible to make strong analogies to God, based on what we now know about the universe and matter and, yes, even “spirit.”.

Atheist and critic of theism Bob Seidensticker ran the influential Cross Examined blog, which is no longer active. In its heyday it was a clearinghouse for hundreds of anti-Bible and anti-Christianity arguments. I replied to him in writing 85 times, and all were ignored. One of his articles, called, “Defending 10 Atheist Arguments (4 of 5)”, made the following provocative statements, that will serve as a starting-point for our analysis. St. Thomas Aquinas loved to state opposing views first, and then analyze and refute them. That’s what we’re doing, too. Let’s take a look at what our atheist friend believes:

What is God made of?

There is no evidence that spiritual energy exists, so we can conclude that psychics, ghosts, and gods are non-existent. Otherwise, God has nothing to be made of. You can’t just magic something into existence with a definition. . . .

God is not made of anything, least of all spiritual energy, but he’s made of spirit? Or he is spirit? Or something? . . . This is the problem with just handwaving stuff into existence. Your embarrassing ad hoc arguments will mean you’ll no longer be able to sit at the adult table.

So God is not made of matter or (heaven forbid!) spiritual energy . . . but he’s made of something, right? . . . Don’t play Simon Says, just tell us. And whatever you say God is made of, show us that it exists.

It’s our atheist critics who are constantly informing us Christians that atheism itself is, alas, not a formulated worldview, but only the absence of belief in God. I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve heard that. Yet lo and behold, now we witness the spectacle of an atheist complaining that we can’t define spirit in a way other than what it is not (matter). It’s one thing for atheists to challenge theists to produce arguments in favor of the existence of God. We’ve produced dozens, but of course none are ever good enough for hard-core atheists. It’s quite another thing to argue that an immaterial or spirit being (the very category) is absurd.

Bob’s argument has the following logical structure:

Spiritual energy is nonexistent.

God supposedly consists of such spiritual energy.

Therefore, God cannot exist, since he is said to consist of a thing that itself doesn’t exist.

Whether spirit and immaterial beings exist is a key premise that lies behind the classic theistic understanding of God. Many atheists merely assume that certain things aren’t true, and indeed, to hear them tell it, can’t possibly be true. Most atheists are philosophical materialists: that is, the view that everything can be reduced to matter and physical processes, and that nothing exists beyond that.

A few atheists are, however, dualists, and believe that something exists that can’t be reduced to observable matter. I always cite the brilliant philosopher David Chalmers, who has four books with Oxford University Press and one with MIT, as one prominent example. His Wikipedia page notes that “he believes mental states are ontologically distinct from and not reducible to physical systems.”

Bob had a field day mocking Christians for believing that God is a spirit or immaterial; not a physical thing (with atoms, etc.). Once again, as always in his colorful and entertaining polemics, theists are made out to be anti-scientific ignoramuses and dumbbells. The argument that follows is one of analogy: arguing for one thing based on its profound similarity to another, with basically the same epistemological basis (i.e., similar reasons for why it’s believed).

Before we get to that, let’s take a brief look at how the Bible describes God and some of His extraordinary qualities in relation to the universe that He created. Here’s what it tells us:

Nehemiah 9:6 (RSV) . . . “Thou art the LORD, thou alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and thou preservest all of them; . . .

Psalm 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it:

Jeremiah 23:24 . . . Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD.

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. . . .

2 Corinthians 3:17 . . . the Lord is the Spirit . . .

Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Colossians 1:17 He [Jesus] is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Hebrews 1:3 . . . upholding the universe by his [Jesus’] word of power. . . .

Hebrews 2:10 . . . he, for whom and by whom all things exist . . .

With these passages in mind; ones that not only refer to God as the creator of the universe, but also its preserver and upholder, let’s now take a look at some amazing, mind-boggling discoveries of science regarding the universe. Physicists and astronomers are currently quite excited about new phenomena called dark energy and dark matter. These ideas or concepts have only made their appearance over the last 30 years or so. The term dark energy was coined by cosmologist Michael Turner in 1998. It’s now widely accepted. An article on the NASA website, entitled “Dark Energy” provides a basic definition.

What exactly is dark energy? The short answer is: We don’t know. But we do know that it exists, it’s making the universe expand at an accelerating rate, and approximately 68.3 to 70% of the universe is dark energy. . . .

Right now, dark energy is just the name that astronomers gave to the mysterious “something” that is causing the universe to expand at an accelerated rate. Dark energy has been described by some as having the effect of a negative pressure that is pushing space outward. However, we don’t know if dark energy has the effect of any type of force at all. There are many ideas floating around about what dark energy could possibly be.

The article goes on to list four theories that scientists propose to try to explain it, but has no conclusion other than “Dark energy is one of the great mysteries of the universe.” An earlier version of the same article that I linked to four years ago, elaborated, referring also to another mysterious entity: dark matter:

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest – everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter – adds up to less than 5% of the universe. . . . One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. . . . one version of Einstein’s gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: “empty space” can possess its own energy.

NASA’s article, “The Universe’s Building Blocks” asserts regarding dark matter:

Like ordinary matter, dark matter takes up space and holds mass. . . . While scientists have measured that dark matter makes up about 27% of the cosmos, they’re not sure what it is. Theories include several kinds of as-yet unidentified types of particles that rarely interact with normal matter. . . . Scientists today think dark matter exists in a vast, web-like structure that winds through the whole universe – a gravitational scaffold that attracts most of the cosmos’ normal matter. They’ve determined that dark matter isn’t composed of known particles of matter because the universe would look very different if it were. The search for what makes up dark matter continues.

If these overviews from NASA are true, it turns out that science in all its glory (arguably, atheism’s quasi-religion) has been studying a mere 3 to 5% of all that exists in the universe. 68-70% (i.e., dark energy) is something other (spirit?) than what we have known up till now as “matter”: with protons and neutrons, etc. Another 27% consists of the equally mysterious dark matter, which has mass but no “known particles of matter.” The last 3 to 5% of the universe is made up of matter as science has understood it up to this time. Obviously, non-material entities or whatever we call them, have been a far more important aspect of the universe than we (least of all materialist atheists) had ever imagined.

Meanwhile, Christians and other theists are mocked and derided and considered simpletons simply because we have believed all along that God isn’t material, either, but rather, is an eternal and omnipresent spirit, Who created the world. What’s the difference? I see very little. We’re told that dark energy and dark matter are very mysterious entities that make up 95% of the universe. The Bible teaches that God is mysteriously present in 100% of it, and preserves and upholds all of it.

If scientists can manage to believe in things they can’t prove and know next to nothing about (only about what the unknown thing theoretically causes), then why can’t theists and Christians believe in an extraordinary spirit or “energy” that doesn’t have material characteristics? We’ve never made the claim that everything we believed in could and must be proven scientifically, or empirically. Theology is partly derived from philosophy: itself a study of mostly non-material concepts. And God reveals Himself through His inspired Word, the Bible.

Conclusion? It looks like “spirit” – and a very pervasive one at that — is quite possible, according to the latest advances of science. Materialism, the philosophy that has dominated atheism since time immemorial, is just about dead as a doornail. The Bible and Jews and Christians have asserted this for over 4200 years. Now science is catching up. Better late than never!

Why then are Bob Seidensticker and almost all of his millions of fellow atheists prattling on as if good old-fashioned matter — before we get to dark matter and dark energy — is all there is? Scientists believe – at least at this point in time — that indeed it’s only 3-5% of all that exists in the universe. Bob needs to get up to speed and catch up with the latest scientific advances before further embarrassing himself and his fellow atheists. Who’s against science? Christians have nothing to fear from it at all. It’s always been harmonious with our views, and today it is more than ever.

*****

My Related Books (Science- and Atheism-Related)

The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023, 271 pages)

The Word Set in Stone: “Volume Two”: More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible (free online book with 163 sections and possible future additions) [September 2024 and ongoing]

Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? (Oct. 2010, 301 pages)

Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism (Sep. 2002, 218 pages)

Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved (free online book, June 2023)

My Related Article

Seidensticker Folly #71: “Magic” Spirits & 68% Dark Energy (2-2-21)

Other Cited Articles

“Dark Energy” (NASA)

“The Universe’s Building Blocks” (NASA)

My Related Web Pages

Atheism, Agnosticism, & Secularism [see especially section “XXXIII. Bob Seidensticker”]

Philosophy, Science & Christianity

***

Summary: Does modern science actually point toward God? Ultra-mysterious dark energy and dark matter make up roughly 95% of the universe. Sure sounds a lot like a pervasive spirit.

Atheism & Agnosticism

Philosophy & Science

Trinitarianism & Christology

2026-03-15T14:35:47-04:00

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.

2nd Reply to Anglican Sean Luke on Catholicism & Celibacy

Last updated on: March 15, 2026 at 2:35 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: The Calling of Saints Peter and Andrew (c. 1603-1606), by Caravaggio (1571-1610), which entailed Peter leaving his wife [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Sean Luke obtained Masters of Divinity and Masters of Systematic Theology degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He runs the YouTube channel, Anglican Aesthetics, which includes a video, “This ONE Issue Debunks Roman Catholicism” (7-1-25), in which he made the gigantic claim that certain proclamations and practices of a local council in 1022 and some other related ones, brought about binding Catholic proclamations that were intrinsically evil, which in turn inexorably leads — so he argued — to the conclusion that Catholic authority is null and void.

I critiqued it in my article, “History of Required Celibacy Disproves Catholicism?” (3-11-26). He quickly counter-replied with a Substack article entitled, “The History of Clerical Celibacy Still Refutes Roman Catholicism: A Reply to David Armstrong” (3-12-26). I now reply to that.

His words from the Substack article will be in blue; if I cite his words from his initial video and an earlier one on the same topic, they’ll be in green, so readers will quickly know where each citation came from. Citations of my own words from my previous critique will be in purple.

*****

See the entire four-part debate:

History of Required Celibacy Disproves [the Authority of] Catholicism? [3-11-26]

2nd Reply to Anglican Sean Luke on Catholicism & Celibacy [3-12-26]

Reply to Protestants: Invalid Catholic Authority? [3-12-26]
*

Catholic “Wicked Married Sex”?: 4th Reply to Sean Luke [3-14-26]

*****

First, a word on what I regard as some questionable argumentative methods in Sean’s reply. Near the beginning he wrote:

He intersperses his rebuttal with assorted comments of how “frequently Protestants sadly misrepresent things” or “the sexual perversions in Protestantism is why I left” . . . I will ignore these parts and refer readers to the video above and elsewhere. If you’d like me to address Dave’s irrelevant rambles about the woes of Protestantism, I can below. Here, I will focus on the argument.

Does it look like he was actually quoting me, above? Some readers might interpret it that way, though it’s not absolutely necessary to do so and it could be taken as an expression of paraphrase. But even his descriptions of what I wrote in this regard are inaccurate. This is always the danger of summarizing opponents’ arguments as opposed to simply citing them and letting readers draw their own conclusions. The words “frequently” and “misrepresent” and “perversions” never appear in my article. Nor were these passing remarks about Protestantism “irrelevant rambles.”

They were directly on-point because Sean is attempting to maintain that Catholicism collapses — yes, that is his contention — due to one or two statements it made in local councils as long as ten centuries ago, that he regards as “intrinsically sinful” (his words at 2:39 of his video). I merely pointed out — in a “turn-the-tables” sort of way — that there are many such decrees in larger Protestantism. Now, here’s what I actually wrote (!):

Those sort of things are rampant within Protestantism, especially regarding any sexual-related issue, like divorce, abortion, contraception, cohabitation, homosexual issues, etc. All kinds of things that are intrinsically sinful — and were formerly regarded as such by the vast majority of Protestants — are now massively fine and dandy among them. It’s very sad. And it’s a big reason why I left evangelicalism.

Of course all of that can be debated (feel free, but it won’t go well!), but it’s not irrelevant to the discussion. If someone says, “I disbelieve in your Christian authority x because of its objectively sinful proclamations a and b” it’s perfectly relevant to reply with, “oh, by the way, I disbelieve in your Christian authority y because of its objectively sinful proclamations [in light of the Bible and apostolic, patristic Christianity] c, d, e, f, and g.” All the points can be discussed, of course, but it’s neither “irrelevant” nor a “ramble” to make the point that I made. I also made the related remark:

Nowadays, Anglicans have no use for annulments, since they have caved on the biblical teaching prohibiting divorce. This is one of several moral reasons why I moved from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism in 1990, because I wanted primal, apostolic, biblical morality, not compromises with the modern zeitgeist and calling evil good, which we see (institutionally, not just in practice) in the mainline Protestant denominations, increasingly in evangelicalism, and even in Eastern Orthodoxy, when it comes to contraception and divorce.

In other words, the form or overall thrust of my argument in statements like these is, “you object to a decree of Catholicism ten centuries ago and disbelieve in Catholicism as a result. By the same token, I object to five major teachings regarding morality that are widely promulgated by almost all Protestants today, and as a result, I left evangelicalism for Catholicism.” The other related remark I made was in direct response to an old, tired whopper from Sean:

21:54 And the logic, as we just saw, of the second Lateran Council is that marriage and sex mark you with a kind of impurity that make you unfit to celebrate the mass.

That’s not what it stated. It’s simply read into it with the usual Protestant prejudice and anti-factual mentality that the Catholic Church is somehow against sex and marriage as “dirty” and sinful things. Of course it isn’t. We’re the ones that regard a valid marriage as a sacrament and indissoluble (both things denied by virtually all Protestants). It gives grace (as all sacraments do). It even helps to save a person in some cases (1 Pet 3:1; 1 Cor 7:13-14, 16). . . . The Catholic Church had long taught that marriage was holy and good and not sinful . . . [I go on to document that] . . . If Sean thinks that the Catholic Church taught differently, then let him prove it through official documents.

This wasn’t a statement about how [his presentation of my supposed thought] “frequently Protestants sadly misrepresent things” but a protest against a very common theme in contra-Catholic polemics and in secular impressions of Catholicism and Catholics: that we supposedly think all sex — even moral marital sex — is “dirty” and “evil”. Sean repeats that, and I would have none of it. So I was saying that this theme is a “usual Protestant prejudice” because it demonstrably is (I would know that, as a catholic apologist these past 35 years, who constantly deals with Protestant objections), and Sean gave us a classic example of it. It wasn’t a sweeping, general accusation; only about this specific thing.

This “Catholicism hates sex and teaches that it is dirty” theme (and I’m not directly quoting him there; but I will below!) is more prominent in his first video on the same topic (5-14-24):

13:15 Pope Gregory’s rationale is explicitly rooted . . . in the idea that somehow sex is a bad thing; sex and marriage is [sic] bad. It’s somehow dirty . . . sex in marriage is for the immature . . .

14:28 it was premised on this idea that sex and even sex in marriage is somehow defiling, such that a priest can’t have sex with his wife the night before the mass . . .

15:35 . . . sex is somehow intrinsically defiling . . .

The first statement is ridiculous and self-refuting (we’ve never officially, magisterially taught that, which is why he never documents that we did, whereas I documented that we do not believe this nonsense), but the second is, in a way, even more surprising and remarkable, in that Sean seems unaware of the basic Christian and biblical idea and practice of asceticism: which is the giving up — temporarily or permanently — , not of bad and evil things, but of good things. Fasting and abstinence and Lenten practices are examples. Paul is a supreme example of this practice:

Philippians 3:7-8 (RSV, as throughout) But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. [8] Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ

Does it follow that Paul is saying that all these “things” that he willingly gave up are “bad” and that he gave them up because they were “bad”? No! Priestly celibacy is, of course, one of the many examples of heroic self-sacrifice or what Catholics call “the evangelical counsels” — and Sean himself acknowledges it to some extent by writing, “It is not that the canonical requirement of clerical celibacy contradicts Scripture or anything like this.” Moreover, St. Paul actually teaches exactly the same principle, of temporarily abstaining from sex for spiritual reasons:

1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, who have married priests, practice this temporary abstention from sex in conjunction with the Divine Liturgy (and their bishops are totally celibate). It’s obviously not an “anti-sex” thing in these instances; it’s asceticism. But Sean doesn’t appear to understand this. In his mind, it was antipathy to sex as evil that must have been in Pope Gregory’s mind, not these quite biblical principles. He doesn’t know that; he didn’t prove it. He merely assumed it, due to his existing misconceptions. Many Protestants — including Sean’s Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. observe Lent and fast. I used to fast when I was an evangelical Protestant. I understood the spiritual principle of self-sacrifice.

If Sean does understand this, he apparently temporarily forgets it when he is analyzing historical Catholics, and attributes to them low and sinful motives. This judgment and slander is itself sinful. He may take that as a personal attack or as “irrelevant.” But it’s not. In my opinion (and motivation), it’s an example of what Paul says ought to typify “Lord’s servant”: “correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Tim 2:24-25).

The other absurd tactic that Sean employs is to utterly ignore the many biblical passages that I brought to bear on the topic. I need not summarize them (why should I have to?). Readers can go see for themselves. I was backing up Catholic teachings and proclamations with Scripture that justified it. I used the Bible because that is the common ground between Catholics and Protestants. We can have discussions about that. It’s the common premise: upon which any constructive dialogue must build upon and start from. But if a dialogical opponent simply ignores all of that, as if it doesn’t exist, that is not a legitimate counter-reply. He’s not interacting — at all — with the very heart and essence of my reply. It’s yet more mutual monologue.

What Sean does is — whether he is consciously aware of it or not — an old tactic in sophistical pseudo-debate: ignore the opponent’s critiques of your argument and simply repeat it over and over, as if there was no counter to it, and as if that makes an argument stronger, in and of itself, and dig in and reassert – -rather than defend — the original argument with more quotes (in this instances, from local Church councils). This is not legitimate back-and-forth debate. It’s not debate at all, and Sean would fail a 6th grade debate class if he tried to pull this nonsense there. No one in debate class is told to ignore the opponents’ arguments. They’re taught to know it better than the opponent knows it, and to interact with it in order to show how it’s wrong and refute it.

Sean, in fact, scarcely interacts with anything I wrote. I guess that’s how he could respond in lightning-quick fashion. He cites exactly two paragraphs of my reply (regarding a relatively minor point). That’s it! My reply was almost 4500 words long. Yet he made the statement, “We will address Dave’s comments below.” He directly quoted 161 words from my article, or 3.6% of it, and absolutely none of the biblical arguments or citations. I’m thankful that at least he did link to my article, so folks can read it if they wish. But he certainly hasn’t made a serious critique. Now on to what he does write:

He summarizes the thesis that he is presenting:

The Roman magisterium forced lawfully married Priests, by a magisterial act, to leave their wives. Given that the magisterium—even the non-infallible magisterium—is owed religious submission of mind and will, this would imply the absurdity that Priests were obligated to give religious submission of mind and will to forsake their God-hallowed covenant with their spouses and all the attendant obligations.

I gave several Bible passages that justified this or something akin to it (in the cases of annulment), but Sean ignored them all. Maybe he’ll decide that it’s worthwhile to discuss relevant inspired revelation if he replies again. I sure hope so. If not, then I’ll interpret that as forfeiting the argument by default. Scripture isn’t scary or something to ignore. It’s truth, has something to say (if only at times deductively or indirectly or implicitly) about any topic we could come up with. As Protestants love to cite regarding supposed defense of sola Scriptura, it’s “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

I proved from the Bible (Abraham, God the Father, Ezra, Jesus, Paul) that what the Catholic Church decreed about married priests who violated the newly adopted rule of celibacy is thoroughly biblical and not “intrinsically sinful” at all. Jesus not only taught that Peter as a married man would receive a “hundredfold” back in this life, for leaving his wife and following Jesus, but also that he would receive eternal life for it (Mt 19:27-29; Lk 18:29-30). God sanctioned Abraham sending away his concubine and his own son, Ishmael (Gen 21:9-21).

If the Catholic Church was gravely sinful in doing the same thing, then so is God Himself, per inspired, inerrant revelation. That’s what’s called a reductio ad absurdum in logic, folks . . . I guess it’s because I completely exploded his argument from the Bible, that Sean chose to absolutely ignore all of my biblical arguments. “Hear no evil, see no evil . . .” / head in the sand etc. That’s a way for him not to deal with the relevant biblical data, but it’s not rational argumentation or debate, and it’s a strange and ironic “anti-biblical” approach, especially coming from a Protestant.

The claim seems to be that because the Council of Pavia is not in Denzinger, it isn’t magisterial. But this is an absurd claim. Literally no magisterial scholar—Francis Sullivan, Cardinal Avery Dulles, etcetera—has ever claimed Denzinger to be exhaustive. Just because some act isn’t found in Denzinger does not mean it is not magisterial.

I did write in the two paragraphs — the only two — that Sean cited from me: “Enchiridion symbolorum (Denzinger) is the standard compendium of the most important Catholic magisterial documents.” That’s not all of them. If the local council of Pavia in 1022 is “magisterial” it wasn’t, nevertheless, considered significant enough to be included in Denzinger. In the Introduction to the 37th edition (included in the 43rd edition — my own copy — , on p. 1), a reviewer was approvingly cited noting that “this collection makes no claim to absolute comprehensiveness . . .” The same Introduction stated that “Denzinger wanted to cover the essential stages in the development of the Church’s doctrine” (p. 1). In another introductory section, mention is made of a 1971 article about Denzinger by Yves Congar. Summarizing his thought, it stated:

The succession of texts [in Denzinger] . . . are in themselves of widely differing importance . . .

There are many ways in which the faith can be protected and interpreted . . . Tradition cites the Fathers as well as the liturgy, the great theologians, and so on, Magisterial documents represent merely one of the forms of this interpretation by which the faith is protected. (p. 9)

But Sean does have a legitimate point that I will now concede. I contradicted myself because after noting that Denzinger wasn’t comprehensive, I still went on to state that:

although the 1022 council in Pavia might be interesting and relevant in terms of the historical background of the Catholic celibacy requirement, it’s not what one would describe as a “magisterial” document. It doesn’t carry the authority that Sean seems to think it does.

. . . it’s not “magisterial” in the first place. Otherwise, it would have been included in Denzinger.

I now retract those statements and will remove the second excerpt and modify the rest of the above to the following (while preserving my former error here, for the sake of the record):

The 1022 council in Pavia is interesting and relevant in terms of the historical background of the Catholic celibacy requirement, but it’s not nearly as historically or canonically influential or important or “universal” in significance, as Sean seems to think it is, even if technically “magisterial.” Magisterial authority, like the very complex levels of infallibility, has differential importance and application.

Why even bring this point [about Denzinger] up?

To show its relatively lesser importance in the overall scheme of things. It’s already a disciplinary matter in the first place, which as Sean knows, is a different category altogether from dogmas and doctrines. Knowing this, he then emphasizes the obligation of assent. Sure; every religious authority requires assent. That’s what creeds and confessions are about. But Sean’s goal is much more grandiose; he holds that Catholic magisterial authority collapses because of a few statements in a local council in 1022, since they supposedly commanded an immoral thing (they did not, as I proved from the Bible and God Himself). It’s also quite unclear whether these decrees were promulgated or observed very widely at all, as I showed by the citation of a scholarly article specifically about it. Here is that portion again:

Rafał Marek, in his article, “Some Remarks about the Legislative Provisions of the Pavia Council of 1022″, observed in his abstract that its “provisions” were “quite vague and not (at least directly) implemented in Italy” and that “the synodal statute was not received as a binding law and we have no traces of its use by bishops or secular judges.” And in his conclusion he was inclined to believe that the “resolutions of 1022 had minimal effect or even no application at all.”

I submit, then, that this council has very little importance in either the Catholic disciplinary rule of celibacy that was required not long afterwards, nor in Sean’s particular argument concerning Catholic magisterial authority.

Now, if he is trying to argue that it isn’t magisterial from the article he cites, he should note that the article he cites never says it isn’t magisterial.

l cited that to show — I think it was made clear — that it had little lasting importance at all: so much so that it wasn’t implemented even locally, let alone universally in a binding fashion. Yet this is the council and the topic that Sean thinks will bring down the entire Catholic Church as an institution commanding and requiring immorality (which itself is a notion that I thoroughly refuted from the Bible)? It’s absurd and desperate, and what we call in debate “special pleading.”

The fact that it had a minimal effect in implementation is simply irrelevant to identifying whether it expresses the mind of the Pontiff.

That’s correct, but the bottom line is if the decrees are intrinsically immoral (because that‘s what Sean’s argument depends on). I have argued, and will continue to argue that they are not. Sean proceeds to cite at length the decrees of Pavia 1022. I will cite the key portions, as he sees them (retaining his bolding):

According to the law of Justinian, both father and children become slaves of the curia; thus fathers will serve in the civic curia with their sons, that is, they will become servants of the curial administration. . . .

Thus the sons of such men are servants of the Church, since they inherit their servile condition from head to foot.

However, lest these sons of clerics think that they may escape all bonds of servitude and flee freely as fugitives, we grant them this provision: that they shall be treated like the Gibeonites (the Nethinim), who received life from Joshua. Therefore we assign them the service of the temple, so that they may perform tasks they cannot escape—drawing water, cutting wood, and performing other such duties for the Church.

Therefore it must be judged that the sons and daughters of all clerics belonging to the household of the Church—no matter from what women they are born or how they are joined to them—are the proper servants of their church. For the servitude of their fathers accuses them, and the adultery of their mothers disgraces and condemns them.

Thus the sons of clerics who belong to the Church’s household will themselves be servants of that Church, whether born from free women or from slaves: if they follow their father they will serve as he served; if they follow their mother, as some judges claim, they will serve as she served.

The reference to Joshua and the Gibeonites is interesting. They had deceived Joshua (Josh 9:22) as to their identity, for fear of being killed, per the Lord’s instructions) and entered into a covenant with the Israelites (Josh 9:3-16). They couldn’t kill them because of the covenant they made, but Joshua said, “Now therefore you are cursed, and some of you shall always be slaves, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God” (9:23). The false pretenses entailed there have some similarity to what was going on with clandestine marriages of priests and property rights of children therefrom. Rafał Marek, in his article, elaborates (most Latin excerpts omitted):

The pope laments the destruction and dissipation of ecclesiastical property: Clergy who have illegitimate offspring use apparently permitted legal deeds or fabricated documents to illicitly appropriate substantial ecclesiastical property of economic importance for their families, especially children. . . .

[footnote 30: Papal complaints of economical character are not unsubstantiated. Endowment of priests’ offspring with ecclesiastical property caused pauperization of local churches, as it is witnessed by Adam of Bremen.]

Papal praefatio gives insight into local legal practice used by the accused clergy. Fures ecclesiae, that is clergymen having children with free women in spite of canonical prohibition, invoke legal argumentation stating that the offspring follows the legal status of their mother – . . .

Still, the pope argues that this rule cannot be applied to the clergy, thus he contradicts „fraudulent” attempts to use the Roman law to the detriment of the Church. (p. 69)

The direct aim of papal argument is to accentuate that illegitimate offspring of the clergy cannot be free and that such children share the servile status of their father. Such status is reasonable and acceptable as it is established ecclesiae propter utilitatem et necessitatem. . . . The pope speaks in favor of the doctrine of strict correspondence between violation of ecclesiastical property and blasphemy . . . (pp. 70-71)

One cannot find any direct repetition or quotations from the Pavian law of 1022. Still, some traces of inspiration can be noticed in local legislation. Apart from the already mentioned instances, the Aquitanian council of Bourges of 1031 contains regulations similar to the provisions promulgated at Pavia in 1022, which were directed against establishment of the so called „hereditary priesthood” or „dynasties of priest” due to clerical marriage
and prevalent understanding of churches together with their property as sources of wealth for the family of the priest and a kind of assurance of social position of his relatives (especially offspring) due to control over ecclesiastical landed property. (p. 75)

Seen in this light, one can understand at least part of the motivation of this establishment of enforced servanthood of the sons of these priests. It was a particular period of transition. The question of slavery itself and the Bible and Christianity is extremely complex. I’ve written about it several times:

Dialogue on the Crusades, the Inquisition[s], & Slavery [1998; 11-2-03]
*

Biblical Inspiration & Cultural Influences: Contradictory? (emphasis on slavery) [8-10-18]

Slavery in the Old Testament [8-20-18]

Slavery & the New Testament [8-20-18]

And I’ve collected other resources:

The Bible, Church History, & Slavery (Resources) [2-11-11]

A Response to John Noonan, Jr. Concerning the Development of Catholic Moral Doctrine (Usury, Marriage, Slavery, Religious freedom) (Patrick M. O’Neil)

*
Catholic Encyclopedia: SLAVERY AND CHRISTIANITY

Catholic Encyclopedia: ETHICAL ASPECT OF SLAVERY

Intra Arcana and Pope Clement VII: Did the Church “OK” Forced Conversions of Native Americans? (The Not-So Angelic Doctor, 10-18-15)

Did the Church Ever Support Slavery? (Steve Weidenkopf, Catholic Answers Magazine, 9-18-17)

Suffice it to say that there are many different kinds of slavery (many vastly different from the brutally sinful chattel slavery of the American South in the 19th century): many if not most — at least in some places and times — amounting to an indentured servanthood, scarcely different from (involuntary) gainful employment with room and board. It’s impossible to absolutely condemn it outright or in every case, because God Himself sanctioned it. “Slave[s]” appears 100 times in RSV in the Protestant Old Testament. Here are some examples:

Genesis 17:23 Then Abraham took Ish’mael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.

Genesis 21:12-13 But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the lad and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your descendants be named. [13] And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.”

Isaiah 14:1-2 The LORD will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land, and aliens will join them and will cleave to the house of Jacob. [2] And the peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the LORD’s land as male and female slaves; they will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them.

The New Testament casually assumes the existence of slavery and doesn’t condemn all forms of it. Sean can make of that what he will, but the fact remains that it’s not an absolute condemnation:

Matthew 8:9-10 For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes, and to another, `Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it.” [10] When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.

1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Ephesians 6:5-8 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; [6] not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, [7] rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, [8] knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.

Colossians 4:1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.

Titus 2:9 Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory,

In fact, the Preface of Pope Benedict VIII (r. 1012-1024), that Sean cited, gave an indication of what this servanthood (aka “slavery”) would be like: they would have the job of “service of the temple . . . drawing water, cutting wood, and performing other such duties for the Church”: similar to the ancient Gibeonites. In other words, provisions were made for them. This is not intrinsically evil, because the Bible teaches us that it isn’t.

Nor is it intrinsically evil in all cases to leave one’s wife or children. God commanded or didn’t disapprove of it in some cases (Abraham and Ishmael), Mosaic Law commanded it in the case of corrupting, idolatrous “foreign women” and Jesus commended disciples like Peter who left wives and families and siblings and parents and land to serve Him, saying that they would attain eternal life as a reward for it (so how could it be a bad thing in those instances?!).

These are the two grounds that Sean uses to try to affirm an intrinsically sinful binding, magisterial Catholic example, in order to discount the entire authority of the Church. Both are annihilated by Holy Scripture. He has nothing left. He can cite these harsh-sounding decrees (to our modern oh-so-“enlightened” and superior ears) all he wants, but it won’t salvage his failed, shortsighted and woefully insufficient critical argument.

Now, one would understand why Dave would want to excise this from the magisterium. The picture is not pretty.

I don’t have to, to defeat his argument. I clarified and retracted a few erroneous statements that I made, but it had no bearing on the heart and essence of my counter-argument. It still succeeds. All I had to do — my “burden” — was show that the things expressed by the pope and Church in this area were not intrinsically evil, and I’ve done that from the Bible. Sean has utterly ignored the argument in this debate, except for citing Pope Benedict VIII, who drew a biblical analogy, precisely as I have done.

. . . the claim that the Council makes here is that these marriages can be implicitly dissolved retroactively. Dave tries to defend this by pointing to “annulment”. But an annulment would be a recognition that the marriage was never valid in the first place. This doesn’t make sense, however.

I use biblical proofs to establish very particular things, not (usually) everything all at once. Annulments are not an exact analogy to this particular situation of declaring priests’ marriages null and void because of the new celibacy requirement, but it’s similar. I first brought up annulments in response to this statement from Sean:

8:17 How is it that Rome could declare a marriage retroactively invalid any more than she can declare a tree not a tree? Marriage, remember, is a structure of nature. It was instituted at creation.

Here Sean — not surprisingly — expresses his opposition to annulments altogether, but I showed that it’s a concept in secular law and that there are strong analogies in the Bible as well. More directly analogous are the examples of Jesus in effect requiring Peter to leave his wife for the sake of following Him (that was a legitimate marriage) and sanctioning and rewarding others who do so (including the leaving of children), and Abraham ceasing to take care of his son Ishmael, legitimately conceived through permitted concubinage in cases of a barren wife. If priests married knowing that it was forbidden, then these remedies would apply all the more so, and be more — almost perfectly — analogous to annulment.

Obviously the Eastern Churches repudiated this, and did not share that understanding with Rome.

Yes, and they also repudiated the apostolic, ancient and biblical view on the prohibition of divorce and the indissolubility of marriage. Nothing new there. They were consistently in error in cases where they disagreed with the Apostolic See: Rome, just as they were over and over (by their own admission now — including several lengthy wrongheaded and unjustifiable schisms) in the matter of early Christological heresies. Now the latest Orthodox fascination is acceptance of contraception, which they had never done until the last sixty years ago, and which no Christian body ever did until the good ol’ Anglicans started calling evil good in 1930, allowing for “hard cases” only. No thanks. I’ll stay in the bark of Peter, where biblical and apostolic morality is uniquely — sometimes even exclusively — sustained and cherished.

Most of Sean’s lengthy quotations are perfectly irrelevant as to the burden that he has to defend: an intrinsically sinful magisterial proclamation that bound all Catholics (which is why I’m not dealing with them; they’re not immediately relevant, and I want to get down to brass tacks in this second lengthy reply). The issue, for example, of protest against and resistance to the celibacy requirement when it began is perfectly irrelevant to Sean’s overall thesis. He simply hasn’t successfully defended his thesis and claim; hasn’t come to within a million miles of it, in fact. But all those words look impressive, don’t they? Well, they will to those unfamiliar with how proper debate ought to proceed and how one goes about proving and defending a grandiose, sweeping claim such as the one he has made.

Sean himself reiterated what he is trying to do near the end:

Now, the point of all this is to point out that the Roman Church demanded religious submission of mind and will to two objectively evil decrees.

Isn’t it obvious that he has to prove that they are “objectively evil” in order for his point to stand? But he hasn’t done that at all. He has simply repeated the claims over and over and assumed that they were evil, without proof. This is actually a fallacy. AI summarizes it, citing Wikipedia:

The fallacy of repeat, known as argumentum ad nauseam or proof by assertion, is an informal fallacy where a claim is repeatedly stated, rather than supported with evidence, until listeners accept it as true. It relies on the illusory truth effect, where familiarity makes false information seem credible.

I tried to bring in the Bible (as I always do with Protestants): i.e., an objective — and inspired, inerrant — authority we both accept, to see what it has to say on the matter, but he absolutely ignored all of that. So there’s really nowhere else to go. Sean is the classic case of someone with brainpower and a ton of zeal (I do appreciate the fact that he replied at length to me: something that virtually no Protestants are willing to do), but only a dim comprehension of how to engage in a back-and-forth, point-by-point, rigorous, constructive debate / dialogue. At the very least he must interact with the biblical texts I have brought to bear, but I made many more arguments that he also totally ignored. That’s simply not debate.

some have tried to argue that the Roman magisterium only declared marriages contracted after ordination to the Priesthood invalid. But this is simply false,

I didn’t make that argument, but I did argue that it seemed to me at first glance, that the decrees could plausibly be seen as largely directed towards those who knew they were doing something against Church rules by getting married.

If the marriage was valid prior to ordination, then it does not become an invalid marriage after ordination.

It can be in this case, because a new rule against it was instituted. Now I would even agree with Sean that, in my opinion, exceptions should have been granted, just as they are today, until that generation at the time of the new rule died out. But that’s not what was done, as far as we can tell. In any event, a biblical argument can be made based on Abraham and Ishmael and Peter leaving his wife to follow Jesus. They were a legitimate son and wife, but other factors were involved, bringing about a sanctioned separation.
*

Remember, annulment is the decree that the marriage was never valid to begin with, and so a marriage that was in fact a true marriage cannot be properly annulled.

That’s correct, but on the other hand, the Church has the prerogative to say, “the requirement now is that you can’t be married and be a Catholic priest, so you have to choose between marriage and the priesthood. If you want to be married, then you can’t be a Catholic priest.”

So Dave’s attempt to file this away under the category of “annulment” simply doesn’t work.

That wasn’t my entire argument; not even my primary one, as explained above. But it does have some relation to the discussion. All analogies are imperfect. That’s understood: at least by those who understand analogical argument, and many many people do not. I go through that all the time, as an apologist-debater and one who absolutely loves analogical argumentation. I’m constantly told that my examples are irrelevant to the discussion or “off-topic.”

Now, Dave objected to me citing Sperry’s work. Fine.
*

Technically, I objected to Sean concealing or being unaware of his lack of historical credentials and his authorship of an outrageous anti-German nativist pamphlet. But it’s all good if it’s against bad ol’ Rome, right? It’s a “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” sort of thing . . .

Here, I’ve cited the primary source texts themselves and Helen Parish who is a Tutor at Oxford.

The relevant question is: why wasn’t that done from the outset? But at least he more or less concedes this objection, so that’s good.

***

Photo credit: The Calling of Saints Peter and Andrew (c. 1603-1606), by Caravaggio (1571-1610), which entailed Peter leaving his wife [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: This is my second reply to Anglican Sean Luke, who argues that the way in which priestly celibacy was implemented in the 11th century disproves Catholic legitimacy & authority.

Church (Ecclesiology)

Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals

Sexuality and Gender Issues

consecrated virginity

eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom

evangelical counsels

heroic sacrifice

priestly celibacy

undistracted devotion to the Lord

2026-10-23T20:54:59-04:00

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.

My “Number Articles”: Alphabetized by Topic

Last updated on: October 23, 2026 at 8:54 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: cover (Theodore Schluenderfritz) of my 2009 book, published by Sophia Institute Press.

See the original: My “Number Articles” (“150 Biblical . . .” Etc.).

*****

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Succession: 40 Biblical Arguments [5-25-26]

Atheism

Reply to Seidensticker’s 50 “2-Minute” Anti-Christian Arguments [12-15-22]

Athanasius, St.

14 Proofs That St. Athanasius Was 100% Catholic [National Catholic Register, 6-4-20]
*

Augustine, St.

St. Augustine: Thoroughly Catholic: 135 Proofs [8-30-12]

22 Reminders That St. Augustine Was 100% Catholic [National Catholic Register, 4-23-20]

Did St. Augustine Accept All Seven Sacraments? [National Catholic Register, 11-15-17]

St. Augustine Accepted All Seven Catholic Sacraments [9-25-10]

Baptism

14 Bible Verses That Show We’re Saved Through Baptism [National Catholic Register, 11-30-21]

Baptism: Church Fathers

13 Church Fathers Defend the Catholic Teaching on Baptism [National Catholic Register, 8-26-24]

9 More Church Fathers Explain the Catholic Belief About Baptism [National Catholic Register, 8-30-24]
*

Bible: Archaeological, Scientific, & Historical Verification

Evangelist Luke & Archaeology & History (50 Separate Extrabiblical Verifications of Luke’s Historical Accuracy) [2-4-22]

OT & Archaeology: 25 Fascinating Confirmations [9-21-21]

Pearce Pablum #72: Flood: 25 Criticisms & Non Sequiturs [3-8-22]

Gospel of John & Archaeology & History (17 Extrabiblical Verifications of the Gospel of John’s Historical Accuracy) [2-8-22]

15 Archaeological Proofs of Old Testament Accuracy (National Catholic Register, 3-23-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of New Testament Accuracy (National Catholic Register, 3-30-23]

Ten New Testament Archaeological Confirmations [5-11-23]

Archaeology & Ten (More) Kings of Judah & Israel [4-20-23]

Archaeology Confirms Dates of Five Biblical Battles: Battles at Beth She’an (c. 926 BC), Beth Shemesh (c. 790 BC), Bethsaida & Kinneret (732 BC), and Lachish (701 BC) [2-6-23]

Bible: Inspired, Inerrant, Non-Contradictory Revelation

Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved [book: June 2023]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (8 Parts) [4-11-22]

Refutation of Atheist Paul Carlson’s 51 Bible “Contradictions” [4-6-21]

12 Alleged Resurrection “Contradictions” That Aren’t Really Contradictions [National Catholic Register, 4-7-21]

11 More Resurrection “Contradictions” That Aren’t Really Contradictions [National Catholic Register, 5-8-21]

Bible: Perspicuity (“Clearness”)

50 Biblical Disproofs of “Evident Clearness” of the Bible: One of the Key Tenets of Sola Scriptura, and the Protestant Rule of Faith [7-16-26]

25 Brief Arguments Regarding Biblical “Clearness” [2009]

Bible: Sola Scriptura (the Bible as the Only Infallible Rule of Faith)

601+ Bible Passages Disprove Sola Scriptura (Featuring an Emphasis on the Scriptural Data Regarding the Strong Influence of Jewish Tradition in Early Christianity) [1-6-25]

350 Bible Passages vs. Sola Scriptura [4-11-26]

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura [book: Nov. 2011]

Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura [10-10-03]

10-Point Biblical Refutation of Sola Scriptura [National Catholic Register, 12-11-16]

Bible: Sola Scriptura: Church Fathers

Ten Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura: Reply to anti-Catholic Protestant apologist Jason Engwer’s Catholic But Not Roman Catholic Series on the Church Fathers [8-1-03]

Calvin, John

50 “Catholic” John Calvin Views [3-18-10]

Top 15 “Catholic” Beliefs of John Calvin [8-22-15]

Defending John Calvin’s “Top 15 ‘Catholic’ Beliefs” [9-2-15]

John Calvin’s 15 Surprisingly Catholic Views [National Catholic Register, 10-10-17]

John Calvin’s Ten Striking “Catholic” Views [2-11-25]

Catholicism, General

Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths [over 2,000 biblical passages] [book, August 2009]

Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics [book: October 2013]

150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) a Catholic (Featuring 300 Biblical Evidences Favoring Catholicism) [1992; revised 9-28-05]

Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked [OSV pamphlet, July 2002]

James White’s Top Ten Questions for “Romanist” Converts Answered [9-4-07]

Top Ten Anti-Catholic Lies About Catholicism (+ Part 2 / Part 3) [10-16-26]

Christmas and Related Themes

Christmas Carols and Songs: An Alphabetical, Chronological, and Geographical Catalogue [135 carols] [December 2005]

Pearce’s Potshots #11: 28 Defenses of Jesus’ Nativity (Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great) [1-9-21]

Star of Bethlehem & Magi: 20 Fascinating Aspects [1-22-21]

Star of Bethlehem & Wise Men: 14 Fascinating Considerations [Catholic365, 12-11-23]

My First Six Christmas Poems [1996-2003]

Church, Infallibility of

Jerusalem Council & Ecclesial Infallibility: 50 Proofs [12-12-25]

25 Arguments Regarding Binding Church Authority [1-13-09]

Deuterocanon (aka “Apocrypha”)

67 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References in the Gospels [7-13-05]

60 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References (Philippians to Revelation) [8-10-05]

44 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References (Acts to Ephesians) [7-27-05]

The Deuterocanon: 27-Point Catholic Summary [3-19-02]

25 Brief Arguments on the Biblical Canon & Protestantism [2009]

Development of Doctrine

Doctrinal Development: 80 Bible Passages [12-10-24]

Eucharist: Real, Substantial Presence

God’s Presence, the Ark, the Eucharist, & Death [25 Passages] [2-27-26]

Eucharistic Real Presence & François Turretin (Calvinist Hyper-Rationalism vs. the Biblical Teaching of Twenty Kinds of God’s Presence) [5-23-25]

Patristic Eucharistic Doctrine: Nine Protestant Scholars [12-1-96]

Eucharist: Sacrifice of the Mass

The Sacrifice of the Mass in Hebrews & Revelation [25 passages] [3-6-25]

“New” Mass: Ten Proofs of its Early Origins [9-23-25]

Forgiveness

Should We Forgive Charlie Kirk’s Murderer? (15 Biblical Passages on Forgiveness & Willingness to Forgive / Also, Biblical Teaching on Civil Justice) [9-24-25]

God: Christology (Jesus)

Jesus is God: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (300 Biblical Proofs + Many Additional Related Cross-References) (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012 and 11-26-24]

50 OT Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus [initial research from 1982; slightly revised in 1997; revised and reformatted for RSV edition in 2012; separated from the larger article on 11-26-24]

50 Biblical Proofs That Jesus is God [National Catholic Register, 2-12-17]

9 Ways Jesus Tells Us He is God in the Synoptic Gospels [National Catholic Register, 10-28-20]

Jesus Proved He Was God in Six Ways in Matthew [6-6-26]

God: Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is a Person: 125 Bible Passages [12-26-24]

Filioque & Twelve Eastern Church Fathers [10-23-26]

God’s Love for Us

God’s “Valentine”: His Love, Mercy, & Compassion [50 passages] [2-13-11]

God: Theistic Proofs

15 Theistic Arguments (Copious Resources) [11-3-15]

God: Trinitarianism

Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]

50 Biblical Evidences for the Holy Trinity [National Catholic Register, 11-14-16]

God: Worship of, With Images and Objects

Worshiping God Through Images: Seven Bible Proofs [20 Bible Passages] [6-12-26]

Evangelism, Catholic

“The Harvest is Ready”: 14 Tips for Catholic Evangelism [National Catholic Register, 7-12-17]

Hell

Eternal Hell: 125 Biblical Evidences [12-2-24]

Bible vs. Double Predestination (No Reprobate Parallels) [35 passages] [4-22-10]

Eternal Hell: Biblical? 25 Verses Say So [9-18-26]

Eternal Hell: Ten Undeniable Bible Proofs [1-14-26]

Indulgences

Top Ten Explicit Biblical Proofs for Indulgences [1-9-26]

Lewis, C. S.

15 “Roman Catholic” Views of C. S. Lewis (transcript of a video) [5-20-25]

Luther, Martin

50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated) [3-29-06]

50 Reasons Why Martin Luther Was Excommunicated [National Catholic Register, 11-23-16]

The “Catholic-Sounding” Luther: 25 Examples [6-16-08]

15 Times Martin Luther Sounded Surprisingly Catholic When Talking About Suffering [National Catholic Register, 2-25-21]

Martin Luther’s Excommunication: 13 (of 50) Reasons [4-7-26]

Top Ten Remarkable “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [1-19-15]

10 Remarkably “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [National Catholic Register, 10-6-17]

Martin Luther’s Ten Important “Catholic” Views [2-2-25]

Luther: Extreme “Faith Alone” Antinomian? [Ten Disproofs] [4-7-26]

Mary: Immaculate Conception

Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Ten Biblical Arguments [3-17-26]

Mary: Perpetual Virginity (Jesus Had No Siblings)

Jesus Had No Siblings: 50 Biblical Arguments [7-1-25]

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: Ten Biblical Evidences [1-19-26]

Svendsen’s Dissertation on Mary: 2. “Brothers” of Jesus (Including a Handy, Nine-Point Summary of Solid Exegetical Arguments for the “Cousins” Theory of Jesus’ “Brothers”) [2-2-23]

Mary, Veneration of

Venerating Mary with Heart & Soul, Etc.: Bible Analogies [70 Passages] [3-16-26]

Honoring Jesus Thru Mary: 50 Biblical Reasons [4-21-15]

50 Biblical Reasons to Honor Jesus Through Mary [National Catholic Register, 7-24-19]

Moses

Moses Wrote the Torah: 50 External Evidences [12-14-22]

Original Sin and Total Depravity

Unregenerate Good Works in the Old Testament . . . Over Against the Calvinist Notion of Total Depravity [175 passages] [2-2-26]

Papacy; Petrine Primacy

Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter (4 Parts) [5-30-22]

St. Peter & the Papal Office: 130 One-Sentence Proofs [10-31-25]

St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs [10-22-25]

50 New Testament Proofs for Peter’s Primacy & the Papacy [1994]

Reply to Critique of “50 NT Proofs for the Papacy” [3-14-02]

50 Biblical Indications of Petrine Primacy and the Papacy [National Catholic Register, 11-20-16]

Jason Engwer, Trent Horn, & My 50 NT Petrine Proofs [7-28-22]

Inspired Prophets: An Analogy to Infallible Popes [50 passages] [3-27-26]

Top 20 Biblical Proofs of the Papacy [12-12-15]

Top 20 Biblical Evidences for the Primacy of St. Peter [National Catholic Register, 1-8-18]

Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli) (two parts) [2-13-23]

11 Protestant Objections to Papal Authority Debunked [7-17-26]

Was Peter “Any Old” Apostle? 10 Anti-Papal Arguments [9-11-26]

Papal Participation in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils [4-22-09]

Prayer

Bible on the Power of Prayers of the Righteous [42 passages] [11-16-22]

5 Replies to Questions About Catholic (and Biblical) Prayer [National Catholic Register, 11-30-22]

Predestination

Unconditional Reprobation: Calvinist Biblical Prooftexts [19 passages] [1-26-26]

Protestantism, General

Early Protestant Leaders Damning Each Other: 40 Examples [12-17-25]

Critique of Ten Exaggerated Claims of the “Reformation” [10-31-17]

The Three Most UnProtestant Bible Verses [6-13-26]

Purgatory

Purgatory: 110 Related Biblical Themes [10-31-24]

50 Bible Passages on Purgatory & Analogous Processes [2009]

50 Biblical Indications That Purgatory is Real [National Catholic Register, 10-24-16]

25 Bible Passages on Purgatory [1996]

25 Descriptive and Clear Bible Passages About Purgatory [National Catholic Register, 5-7-17]

17 Church Fathers on Purgatory (Esp. 1 Cor 3:10-15) [8-11-26]

Ten Purgatory Proofs: “Fiery Cleansing” in the Bible [1-23-26]

Saints: Heavenly State

Characteristics of Saints in Heaven (65 Passages) [11-3-25]

Saints, Invocation and Intercession of

Invocation of Dead Saints: 100 Biblical Arguments [5-20-26]

Invocation of Saints: 20 Biblical Proofs [1-15-24]

Biblically Permissible Contact Between Heaven & Earth: Fifteen Examples [2-27-26]

Nutshell Biblical Intercession of the Saints & Angels [10 Points] [2-3-24]

Seven Replies Re Interceding Saints (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [5-25-22]

Prayers to Saints & for the Dead: Six Biblical Proofs [6-8-18]

CARM Forum Wrong About Biblical Prayer to Creatures (Five Biblical Examples Provided) [11-21-24]

4 Biblical Proofs for Prayers to Saints and for the Dead [National Catholic Register, 6-16-18]

Saints and Angels, Veneration of

Venerating Men & Angels: Worship? 20 Bible Passages [4-4-26]

Veneration in the Bible (“Roman Creature-Worship”?) [11 passages] [4-1-25]

Veneration of Human Beings: Seven Biblical Examples (Apostles Paul and Silas, Kings David and Saul, Prophets Daniel and Samuel, Patriarch Joseph) [3-4-19]

Saints: Veneration of Icons & Images

Worshiping God Through Images (vs. Anglican Stearns #4): Including the Biblical Case for Icons [17 passages] [3-20-25]

Salvation: Church Fathers

“Faith Alone” Disproven by 30 Church Fathers [4-24-25]

Church Fathers vs. “Faith Alone”: Handy Capsule Proofs [30 Church Fathers] [4-9-24]

16 Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-23-24]

14 More Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-30-24]

Salvation: Falling Away (Apostasy)

Falling Away (Apostasy): 150 Biblical Passages (+ Catalogue of Sixty Traits That Apostates Formerly Possessed When They Were in God’s Good Graces) [11-19-24]

Salvation: Gospel & Personal Relationship with Jesus

Gospel: Defined by the Earliest Christian Preaching [35 passages] [January 1988; rev. 7-8-02]

Biblical Evidence: Personal Relationship with Jesus [14 passages] [2013; expanded on 1-18-19]

What is the Gospel? Catholic-Protestant Agreement [6 passages] [12-3-96 and 1-4-97]

Salvation: Grace & Faith

Bible on Faith / Belief, etc. “Alone” [?] for Salvation (Fifty Bible Passages Stress Faith or Belief, Regarding the Question of Salvation, Compared to a Hundred that Emphasize or Highlight Works) [10-11-24]

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

Salvation by Grace Alone: 25 Passages, Contra Works-Salvation, or Pelagianism, or Semi-Pelagianism [4-30-26]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [19 passages] [2013]

Salvation by Grace Alone: 15 Bible Proofs [1-22-26]

Degrees of Grace in the Bible (vs. Jordan Cooper) [10 passages] [1-9-26]

Calvinist Irresistible Grace: Biblical? [7 passages] [2013]

Salvation: Holiness / Sanctification

Transformation of Believers in the NT: 150 Passages (Regeneration is Only the Beginning . . .) [12-16-24]

“Blameless” & “Pure” in the Bible (Sinless?): 40 Passages [12-12-24]

St. Paul’s Use of the Term “Gift” & Infused Justification [19 passages] [2013]

Biblical “Power”: Proof of Infused (Catholic) Justification [12 passages] [3-14-11]

Salvation, Justification (vs. “Faith Alone”)

Catholic Salvation: 2043 Bible Passages [12-27-24; expanded on 11-17-25]

Faith Alone: The “Theological Novum”: Disproofs from 525 Bible Passages & 30 Church Fathers [book, May 2026]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [380 passages] [1-21-10]

Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” [book, October 2010; featuring 379 biblical passages]

Banzoli’s 45 “Faith Alone” Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs [6-16-22]

Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 120 NT & 30 OT Proofs [from 26 out of the 27 NT Books] [8-26-24; revised and expanded on 1-18-26]

Faith Alone? 80 Bible Verses Say Otherwise [National Catholic Register, 10-31-24]

Exegesis of 75 NT Faith [Alone?] & Works Passages . . . With an Emphasis on Immediate Context [8-27-26]

NT: 70 Specific Good Works Contribute to Salvation [3-6-26]

50 Unanswerable NT Passages Against “Faith Alone” [2-21-26]

Defense of 50 Bible Passages Against “Faith Alone” (+ Part II) [2-24-26]

Salvation and Justification in the Gospels and Acts [21 passages] [1996]

Can You Be Saved by Faith Alone? 20 Verses Say No. [8-21-26]

Justification by Faith: Ten Bible Proofs [1-15-26]

Saved by Love (vs. Faith Alone): Ten Bible Proofs [1-27-26]

Ten Terrifying, Shocking, “Un-Protestant” Bible Passages [vs. Faith Alone] [2-16-26]

Salvation: Merit & Good Works

Salvation Caused by Actions: 80 Bible Passages (. . . Proving That “Faith Alone” is a False Doctrine) [10-5-24]

Meritorious Works: 50 Biblical Proofs [10-4-24]

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

“Do” in the NT vs. “Faith Alone” (40 Passages) [11-16-25]

Works & Sanctification Partly Cause Salvation: 34 Passages [1-30-25]

24 Biblical Passages on Meritorious Works [National Catholic Register, 9-30-24]

Perfectly Keeping the Law: 15 Bible Passages [12-12-24]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [15 passages] [8-30-23]

Salvation: Mortal & Venial Sin

Bible On Mortal & Venial Sin (vs. Anglican Stearns #5) [31 passages] [3-20-25]

Salvation: Old Testament Theology

Minor Prophets: Their Theology of Salvation [107 passages] [8-2-23]

Isaiah’s Catholic & UnProtestant Soteriology [45 passages] [8-1-23]

Jeremiah’s Catholic & Very UnProtestant Soteriology [44 passages] [7-31-23]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [26 passages] [8-31-19]

Perfectly Keeping the Law: Top Ten Bible Proofs [1-6-26]

Salvation: Process

Salvation as a Process: 75 NT Passages [11-16-24]

Salvation is a Process & Not Instantaneously Assured [33 passages] [2009]

Salvation as a Process: Top 15 Bible Passages [1-6-26]

Salvation: Synergy & “Working Together” with God

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [72 passages] [2013]

God’s “Fellow Workers” Help Spread Salvation & Grace (We “Impart Grace”, “Save” Others, Win Souls, Help Them “Obtain Salvation”, Etc., In Our “Work of the Lord”) [55 passages] [10-29-21]

Salvation: Universal Atonement

Limited Atonement Biblical Arguments Refuted (33 NT Passages Against Limited Atonement and in Favor of Universal Atonement) [11-21-24]

Satan (the Devil)

7 Takes on Satan’s Persecutions and the Balanced Christian Life [National Catholic Register, 11-24-18]

Science (and Christianity)

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields [8-20-10]

33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD [8-5-10]

23 Catholic Medieval Proto-Scientists: 12th-13th Centuries [2010]

Tradition, Apostolic & Patristic

Apostolic Tradition: 28 Passages in Paul’s Epistles (Including Incisive Commentary from the Anglican Tractarian John Keble: 1792-1866) [1-29-25]

25 Brief Arguments for Binding Catholic Tradition [2009]

***

Practical Matters: This is the most comprehensive and multi-faceted Catholic apologetics blog: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT. I offer more than 5,000 free online articles, fifty-nine books, and many scores of videos at the Catholic Bible Highlights YouTube channel (please subscribe!). If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider financially supporting it. PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Dave Armstrong Bookstore”. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: cover (Theodore Schluenderfritz) of my 2009 book, published by Sophia Institute Press.

Summary: Alphabetical compilation of my own articles that feature a large number of arguments (e.g., “Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 120 NT & 30 OT Proofs”), including also a few books and a pamphlet.

Updated on 23 October 2026

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong

Catholic biblical exegesis

systematic theology

2026-06-06T00:54:10-04:00

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.

General Debate on Christianity with an Atheist

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:54 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: Patrick Gannon’s Facebook profile photo, retrieved on 12-7-25.

Patrick Gannon is a atheist who showed up out of the blue on my Facebook page, supposedly “responding” to the cross-posting of my blog article, “Gospel Simplicity” (Austin Suggs) Combox Anti-Mariology”. See the Facebook thread for further boring, tedious details about methodological issues that he made four repetitive complaints about, which was edited out of this. His words will be in blue.

*****

The whole story is ludicrous. An all-powerful god impregnates a young maiden (without first asking for her consent), with himself, so he can be born as himself, so he can sacrifice himself. to himself, all to relieve us of a condition he placed on us to begin with. That’s the best an all-powerful god can come up with? Not very impressive for a being said to be powerful enough to create the whole universe….

Note that in 1854 the Church decided with a wink and a nod from God (but no biblical support), that Mary was conceived without original sin! Hallelujah! However, for some reason, this all-powerful god was incapable of doing that for everyone else, so we have to believe this ridiculous story or spend eternity in conscious torment.
*

It’s time to grow up, face reality, and let these silly old stories fade away.

Thanks for your comment. First of all, if indeed there is an all-powerful, omniscient God and a theistic God (as many great philosophers have believed in), and which is the basis for your rant (if He’s not there, why rant?), I would fully expect there to be things that I thought were — to use your words — ludicrous, ridiculous, silly, and outside of reality. But if there is such a being, or anything near the classic theistic and biblical God, none of this should surprise us in the least.
*

By analogy, as we continue to advance in science, things get weirder and odder, even inexplicable. We learned about relativity, then we got quantum mechanics, which continues to be mind-stretching and almost inconceivable. Now we have dark matter and dark energy. We still haven’t figured out how life began (i.e., in a materialistic universe). Nor have we found life anywhere else in the universe.
*

But do we conclude that science is a false avenue of knowledge for those reasons? No. We rationally determine that physical reality is very complex and a thing that is increasingly difficult to understand, but we learn more and more all the time. We don’t give up and conclude that it’s all “ludicrous” because WE personally don’t care for it and find it unacceptable. That’s what you’ve done with God.
*

Some nitpicking:

*
1) God wasn’t “born as himself” strictly speaking, because God the Father is a spirit. He decided to take on flesh and become a man, while remaining God.

*
2) “a condition he placed on us to begin with.” This is untrue. We were created without sin and any problems. All we had to do was obey our Creator and we would be in a perpetual paradise with all that we need. But we decided that we know better and rebelled. THEN the problems began. That’s not God’s fault. Sometimes parents have a stray, wild child, where it wasn’t their fault. They often have other children who grow up fine. God gave us a free will and that included the possibility of rebellion against Him. I’d rather have that state of affairs than one in which I *have* to follow God because I have no free will or choice and can’t do otherwise. In other words, we’d all be robots. God loved us too much to put us in *that* box.

*
3) I’ve made elaborate but I think convincing arguments that the Bible teaches a sinless Mary, which is the essence of the Immaculate Conception. The Bible refers to several people being sanctified from the womb (e.g., John the Baptist, Jeremiah).

*
Happy holidays!
*

***

*
I’m the apologist here. It’s my article you commented under. You’re welcome to engage my arguments. I gave you an answer. Yet you have replied to everyone under the sun (everyone except me) and acted like a rude, pompous troll. This page is not a platform for atheist propaganda. It’s a place for respectful discussion, which is always welcome and encouraged. All I ask for is basic courtesy and civility.
*

Because you didn’t reply to me, and tried to dominate my page with your anti-Christian rhetoric, I will delete all of your replies to others, as examples of trolling (and delete other replies to you, to be fair). You’re still welcome to have an intelligent discussion with me. But based on your obnoxious behavior so far, I don’t consider it very likely.

I would be delighted to respond to you.

If you’re so “delighted to respond” to me, then why didn’t you respond to my article in the first place, rather than rant and rave with the usual playbook atheist boilerplate (that I am familiar with up and down)?
*

I don’t write for you. I write for others who still have open minds. I have criticized your religion, but I don’t recall criticizing or insulting any people who posted, unless they insulted me first, and I generally just point out that people who do that, tend to lack the intellect to debate a topic in an adult fashion. Now that you brought your posts to my attention, I have tried to respond to each of your points, without resorting to personal insults. If your religion can not stand up to criticism, then perhaps it has problems you should examine in more detail…..

I said, if you are interested in an intelligent discussion, fire away. I’m here, and fully able and ready to interact. That’s why I replied to you. This present attempt of yours won’t cut it. Nice try. You decide beforehand that I can’t take any criticism, before you have even interacted with me or my arguments, and so you set up a scenario where you can depart as a supposed unopposed, triumphant victor against the supposedly “coward” apologist. That game doesn’t work with me. Kindly interact with my arguments or get lost.
*

My article was not the meme that was here before. I just ran across that, thought it was cute, and used it as an image. It was massively misunderstood because it used some sarcasm and generalized about Protestants (as everyone must do because they are made up of hundreds of competing groups). I should have known better. In any event, I’ve now removed it.

*
Oh, by the way, should you decide to stick around and not flee for the hills [which he did a day later], your words will be included in a blog post along with my replies. Here’s your golden opportunity to show how idiotic Christianity and Christians are. That’s obviously what you desire.

*
The article was directed against Protestants in the first place. What does atheism have to do with it? So it was just a pretext for you to come in and preach about how “ludicrous” and “ridiculous” Christianity is? Again, what you posted was not a response to me or my arguments. But you did that on my Facebook page, and I’m now calling you on it and challenging you to man up and make an argument, and try to refute mine. I have a long history of debate with atheists. Don’t believe me? See my atheism web page. Maybe you will stick around and engage. Time will tell.

I cut to the chase. Your article is only pertinent if there really was a virgin birth, and you need to prove that first to be taken seriously.

Huh? My article was not about the virgin birth. Protestants and Catholics both accept that. Therefore, it wasn’t my task to prove or defend that doctrine in an article devoted to Protestant misunderstandings about Catholic mariology. I was talking about stuff we disagree on. It was an educational post designed to do two things:

object to people who clearly know very little about Catholic mariology (i.e., Protestants) consistently misrepresenting it in the combox of a popular YouTube video.

Educating anyone who reads my post as to the true nature of Catholic beliefs about Mary and why we believe in them.

Yet you come along and say I have to prove the virgin birth, and (gasp!) if I don’t, I won’t be “taken seriously.” Right. Next time, I suggest that you 1) read the article you are supposedly responding to, and 2) understand its target audience and purpose. Then you won’t make non sequitur criticisms like this, and you will actually be responding to me and my arguments.

First the science. Please learn a little something about QFT or Quantum Field Theory which derives from QM (Quantum Mechanics) and Relativity. I will post an article at the bottom of this to give you a basic overview of the science. Don’t feel bad, it is still working its way through society, following the last 30 years of testing this 100 year old theory.

I have a fair knowledge about science. I’ve written two books about it (one / two); the second defending the Bible by means of various scientific fields. But the level of my knowledge is not relevant to the analogy that I made, anyway. Rather than respond to that, you give me a lecture and assume I know nothing whatever about quantum mechanics or relativity. What seems to be going on — I could be wrong here — is that you have done something very common: not understood analogical argument and my particular use of it in a specific way. Otherwise (assuming you actually want to constructively dialogue), you would have replied to my analogy.

It took a long time for knowledge of evolution to percolate through society and become the powerful challenge to Christianity that it is today.

It’s not a challenge to our beliefs whatsoever. I am a theistic evolutionist. Evolution would simply be the way and the mechanism that God chose to create. It was stated from the beginning by Darwin, who wrote Origin of Species while still fully a theist and close friends of his, notably the Christian botanist Asa Gray (1810-1888), that theistic evolution was a perfectly acceptable variant of evolution. In his autobiography written in 1876, Darwin recalled that at the time of writing Origin of Species:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic. (cited in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, edited by his son, Francis Darwin, New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1896, vol. 1 of 2, p. 282)

Evolution (of any sort) indeed challenges young-earth creationism, but not Christianity. That viewpoint is a small minority position now. I used to be an old-earth creationist but I have never at any time been a young-earther.

I had a priest admit to me that QFT was the greatest challenge facing the Vatican today, so trust me – there are people in theist religions trying to figure out how to deal with it.

It’s no more of a threat to Christianity than anything else in science. All it mans is that God chose t incorporate it within His creation. This is one of the bedrocks of matter and how it operates. It certainly never cold have come about without God. We have no reason to this day to believe so. I agree with Darwin, and also Albert Einstein, who wrote:

Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious. (Response to atheist, Alfred Kerr [Winter 1927] who, after deriding ideas of God and religion at a dinner party in the home of the publisher Samuel von Fischer, had queried him “I hear that you are supposed to be deeply religious” — as quoted in Diaries of a Cosmopolitan, 1918-1937, by H. G. Kessler, [Littlehampton Book Services Ltd, 1971 edition] )

I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. (From an interview, quoted in Glimpses of the Great by G. S. Viereck [Macauley, New York, 1930], cited in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion [Princeton University Press, 1999], p. 48; see much more along these lines from Einstein)

Fundagelicals simply attack and demean science, but that’s not the Catholic way, after significant missteps with folks like Galileo.

We agree there!

As for Dark Energy and Dark Matter, what we know for sure, is that they don’t interact with the stuff we are made of in any way that would be meaningful. They are probably something like neutrinos, trillions of which flow through us continually, without interacting with us.

That may or may not be the case, but you still are not comprehending — therefore, not interacting with, the analogy that I proposed.

You say none of this silly stuff should surprise us, but I would expect an all-knowing god to be intelligent and rational.

Yes, so do I, and this is the biblical position. You have “determined” that He isn’t rational, based on various tenets of theology that you find “ludicrous” etc. But you haven’t laid out your reasoning chain for why you believe this to be the case. Just because you personally don’t care for a particular view has no force. I care relatively little for Mozart’s music. That doesn’t prove that it is able to be dismissed without further discussion.

Perhaps this was a poor expectation on my part?

No. The expectation is perfectly proper. What you determine to be unrational is a different question, and you need to give us reasons for why you believe as you do. In a word, you need to do “atheist apologetics” in a rational manner, just as I do Christian and Catholic apologetics in a rational manner.

If God is a “spirit,” then HOW does he interact with us? What is the mechanism by which immaterial things outside space and time, interact with physical, material things inside space and time?

Thoughts, prayers, and various sorts of revelation, and through the creation that He has made. Paul wrote in Romans 1:20 (RSV): “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;”
*
Even David Hume, who was not an atheist, as I discovered 40 years ago, agrees:

The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion . . .

Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .

All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author. (Natural History of Religion, 1757, ed. H.E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26; see much more on Hume and theism)

FT confirms beyond reasonable doubt that this does not happen, or we would know it, and God’s “spirit” would no longer be supernatural. If there were god, devil, soul, etc. stuff interacting with us, we’d have unexplained interactions we’d have to continue to hunt down, but there aren’t any.

It does no such thing, and you haven’t presented any reason for why anyone should believe that it does. You’ve given us bald assertions. Materialistic science is your religion, as it is for most atheists. You worship matter. It can do no wrong. And it’s omnipotent. It can, on its own, create everything (out of nothing!) that we have in the universe. That’s blind faith beyond anything Christians believe.

The burden of proof is clearly on the apologist to explain exactly HOW their gods, devils and whatnot interact with us, in light of QFT. If apologists can’t do that, there’s no reason to take them seriously.

We can argue it by appealing to the nature of the Bible, which is claimed to be (and we believe is) revelation straight from God, passed through human authors. If we examine the Bible from a scientific perspective, we find that it is shown to be accurate and trustworthy over and over. I did this in my book on biblical archaeology.

Another approach is defending the Bible’s profound internal coherence and consistency, over against innumerable attacks by atheists and theologically liberal “higher critics.” I did this in my book, Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. That one is available for free. I’ll send you a PDF of my other book on Bible and science if you want one. These are two ways that I would defend the notion of God communicating to us. He did through the Bible.

But He also communicated by giving us solid historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, such as described by Protestant apologist Gary R. Habermas in his 1054-page book, On the Resurrection: Evidences (2024), that I have sitting on my bedside table right now. So we have logical, scientific, and historical arguments, and that’s not even getting to the many philosophical ones.

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, God set the kids up to fail. They could not possibly know that disobedience was wrong until AFTER they ate of the magical fruit.

They knew what every young child knows: that mommy and daddy know better than they do, and ought to be obeyed. If they can know it, then rational adults (Adam and Eve, as representatives of the entire human race, as the Bible holds) would know that God was higher than them, and ought not be disobeyed. They already knew that He was loving, by how He treated them. They had everything they needed. So it’s a variation of “you don’t bite the hand that feeds ya.”

Atheists have a bigger problem explaining the “problem of good” than we do with the problem of evil. I had a great debate on this topic with an atheist, way back in 2001, that I consider my most enjoyable debate ever, in over a thousand efforts. You’re always coking after us, but you have several huge difficulties in your own system: this factor being perhaps the biggest.

The talking serpent told the truth, saying they would not die on the day they ate of it, which is what God told them. They didn’t die on that day, did they?

They died spiritually. They became mortal and subject to physical death, whereas before death wasn’t present. That was the devil’s trick: using sophistry to twist spiritual death into a denial of instantaneous physical death. They didn’t physically die right away, but now they could and would inevitably die; that’s the point of the Christian view of original sin or the fall. And to this day, it’s still as good of an explanation of evil in the world as any.

Yahweh either did not know or he lied.

Nonsense, as just explained. He set up reasonable limits for His creatures, and they chose to deliberately transgress them and make themselves the “boss” rather than God. That’s what nonbelieving human beings have done ever since. It’s what you yourself do.

Also the serpent told them God did not want them to know good and evil (why not?) which is confirmed in Gen 3:22.

Because one doesn’t need to know what evil is in a world where it doesn’t exist. They were in a state of innocence, like young children, or dogs, across whose minds such things never cross, until something bad happens to them that was caused by a malevolent being.

Perhaps God did not want them to know that he was far from “good” as most of us understand that word, which the rest of the Bible goes on to demonstrate.

That’s your false assumption or premise. I relentlessly disagree with it in my apologetics. Atheists who bash Christianity and/or the Bible (anti-theists ,as I call them) always — I repeat, ALWAYS — don’t adequately understand what the Bible actually teaches, and distort it by creating numerous straw men and then tearing them down. I’ve never seen an exception among atheists who analyze and criticize the Bible in my 44 years of doing Christian apologetics. You won’t be the exception, believe me, should you agree to continue discussing things with me.

Free will? The Bible has precious little free will. God is always directing events, hardening hearts, making people do this and that. He sends both good and evil (Isaiah 45:7).

This is Calvinism, a small minority position in historical Christianity, and today. I’ve refuted it many times by the Bible itself.

Actually, the Bible might be right. Science is telling us that if we have free will, it is very limited. Everything we do flows from what came before it, and we are not responsible for our initial conditions. We didn’t freely choose to come here in the first place – I’d have taken a pass, if I was told that I had to believe unbelievable things or burn for eternity!!! We don’t choose our parents or the DNA they give us, the upbringing, the experiences, the education, the health care, etc. We don’t choose any of that, and everything we do, ultimately flows from all of that and more.

Well, of course, as a materialist, you must therefore, in the final analysis, be a fatalist and determinist, and that rules out free will. But that doesn’t give you any meaning of life, or hope in the long run. You can pretend everything is fine and dandy by dong cherished hobbies, loving other people,. playing sports, listening to music, watching the stars, etc. (i.e., the same things everyone else likes). But if you think about it long and deeply enough, it must lead to despair and nihilism.
*

If you don’t like the concept of the Immaculate Conception, take it up with the Catholic Church. I simply pointed out the history behind it. I think they painted themselves into a corner (as they have done with abortion and infant baptism).

I’m a Catholic, and defend it from the Bible and reason. The fact that you couldn’t figure that out by now, is, I confess, more than a little humorous. But you’ve been responding to arguments all along that had nothing whatsoever to do with my actual article, so why should this surprise me?

Again, I’m sorry if I missed one of your posts. I scrolled through, but for some reason, don’t see anything except your post threatening to delete my comments and the one I just responded to.

It happens. I take your word for it, and thanks again. I’ve been deliberately ignored so many times I perhaps rashly assumed it was happening again, but that wasn’t in fact the case. My apologies, too.

If I missed something, please bring it to my attention.

Well, my entire blog post, . . . which was linked in the first comment. But then why would you care about internal Catholic-Protestant squabbles, anyway?

Happy Holidays to you too! And a Festivus for the rest of us!

Thanks. All the best to you.
*

***

Do you oppose slavery? Do you oppose misogyny and sexism? Do you oppose homophobia (perhaps not), discrimination against the disabled, murder of innocents, genocide and child sex slavery? I do.

Yes to all. I even oppose the wanton torture and slaughter of innocent preborn children in their mothers’ wombs (which has now been legally done in numbers like half a billion or more), on the same basis that I oppose all these other evils (the golden rule and the royal commandment and simple ingrained human decency and conscience, even before we get to religious prescriptions for behavior). Do you?

Is it wrong to complain and “rant” about these things?

No; of course not.

If you’ve read the entire Bible, you know that its god commits, commands or condones these things,

I have, and I do not know that, and have written about all or almost these things, often many times. But some things have to be discussed at length and explained further. Slavery is one of them, because there were different kinds of slavery: some of which was basically identical to indentured servanthood. But here are my articles and links about that topic:

Seidensticker Folly #10: Slavery in the Old Testament [8-20-18]

Seidensticker Folly #11: Slavery & the New Testament [8-20-18]

The Bible, Church History, & Slavery (Resources) [2-11-11]

Catholic Encyclopedia: SLAVERY AND CHRISTIANITY

Catholic Encyclopedia: ETHICAL ASPECT OF SLAVERY

Did the Church Ever Support Slavery? (Steve Weidenkopf, Catholic Answers Magazine, 9-18-17)

What you call genocide are instances where God judged, and so we have to go back and examine that premise. If indeed there is a God, does He have the prerogative to judge individuals and even nations who have transgressed boundaries that He set for them, by the analogy of human judges and courts of law? We have laws, and those who violate them are punished; sometimes up to death (I oppose capital punishment, by the way). If one accepts the rightness of human laws and punishments for violating them, and things like police use of power to protect the innocent, and justified defensive wars, I fail to see how one can argue that God has no such right to enforce His laws on those whom He has created. I wrote along these lines:

Is God an Unjust Judge? Dialogue with an Atheist [10-30-17]

God’s Judgment of Sin: Analogies for an Atheist Inquirer [9-6-18]

God’s Judgment of Humans (Sometimes, Entire Nations) [2-16-07]

“How Can God Order the Massacre of Innocents?” (Amalekites, etc.) [11-10-07]

Israel as God’s Agent of Judgment [9-28-14]

Madison vs. Jesus #9: Clueless Re Rebellion & Judgment [8-7-19]

David Madison vs. Paul and Romans #11: Chapter 11 (“Scary” & “Vindictive” Yahweh? / Endless Stupefied Insults of God / Judgment Explained Yet Again) [8-30-19]

As for the Bible supposedly being against women, of course I’ve addressed that, too, among my 5,000+ articles:

Christian Sexual Views and Support from Sociology (Discussions About Christian Sexual Morality and Marriage with Atheists)[12-8-06]

Dialogue: Sexist, Misogynist Bible and Christianity? (Debate with Five Atheists. Are Christian Women Abused as “Sheep”?) [9-20-10; abridged a bit on 2-12-20]

Does the Bible condone hatred of homosexuals? No. We would say that it teaches a moral code regarding sexuality that prohibits certain activities as immoral (for various separately determined reasons). These don’t single out homosexuals. So, for example, in the OT heterosexual adulterers could be stoned as well. All sex before marriage, masturbation, etc. are considered to be sins, that affect far more heterosexuals than homosexuals, proportionately. Again, one must go back to the beginning of the discussion: what is the basis for these prohibitions? Are they loving or unloving? Do they make people happy or unhappy?

God sets rules and commands things for our own good; for our greatest happiness and fulfillment (just as all parents do with their children, wgho often don;t understand and rebel against such rules). It’s at this deeper level that fields such as sociology have a lot to offer. We have lots of polls that tell us what behaviors and life choices make people happy and fulfilled, and very often these secular polls strikingly conform what Christians, and Jews for 2000 years before that, and several other world religions have been saying all along. But when people disagree with reasonable restrictions of behavior, they tend to question the motives and ethics of the ones who suggest them: up to and including God.

and many Christians are ignorant of this, given that very few Christians ever read the entire Bible.

Very true. This is a big reason why I have devoted my life to teaching folks the Bible, Catholicism, and general Christianity, and equipping them with the rational tools of understanding why we believe whatever we believe, within the Christian and biblical worldview. There are certainly many misguided people like you out there who are trying to tear down people’s faith because you wrongly believe that it is harmful to them and others. So I’m out here critiquing the critiques, and defeating the defeaters, as Alvin Plantinga would say. People deserve to hear criticisms of relentless and wrongheaded, illogical, and often fact-challenged atheist hostility to the Bible and Christianity and Christians personally. Let them hear both sides and make up their own minds. Agree?

The Bible has been used to defend slavery, sexism, discrimination, etc. for centuries on end, and it still happens.

A lot of folks, including Christians, interpret the Bible wrongly and fight straw men of their own making, as you are doing. I and many others are here to try to correct those errors as well.

People ask me why I continue to read it (on my 5th reading now) and one reason, of course is so they can’t throw scripture at me that they’ve taken out of context, but also because someone has to tell them what it actually says.

Yes; I’ve dealt with atheists like you for years, and in hundreds of articles I have wrangled with them point-by-point, showing them exactly how they are wrongly interpreting what the Bible teaches. They virtually never reply back. You’re in the second round. Good for you. I commend you. You haven’t fled for the hills or ignored me altogether. It’s the same old same old: anti-theist atheists think they know more about the Bible and Christianity, so they say, than an apologist like myself who has studied and defended the Bible for 44 years. Ironically, most of the anti-theist atheists are former fundamentalists: a thing I never was. I grew up as a nominal Methodist, then became a practical atheist for some ten years (never went to church on Sunday, basically, from 1968-1980), then became an evangelical (of a thinking variety), at age 18 in 1977, and then Catholic at age 32 in 1990.

Just curious: what is your background? Many atheists think they are making these compelling arguments about the Bible, when in fact they are simply regurgitating the old dumbfounded hyper-literalism that they believed in as anti-intellectual fundamentalists (apparently not even being aware of it). I’ve seen it a hundred times. I hung around and interacted with atheists for over a year — in their own forums — a few years ago. But I’ve done a lot more than that. My book on the Bible and science and archaeology was a direct result of that.

I appreciate that you started by saying “if” there is a god, which I interpret to understand means that you realize that there is absolutely no compelling, objective evidence for any such gods.

You understand wrong. That’s a manner of speaking in argumentation, “if x, then y” etc. I’m recognizing that certain things follow only if there is a God held as a premise. It’s not implying in the slightest that I personally doubt that sufficient evidence exists to support His existence, or that this evidence is way more convincing that than for atheism.

People are not born believing in a god.

Actually, they are. It has to be unlearned. If you grow up in an atheist family, you will tend to become one. We are what we eat. People are born with a moral conscience, and that was put there by God. An they understand the rightness and goodness of the love of a good parent, and know it’s not right if they have an abusive parent.

This has to be taught, and of course, where you live determines for the most part, which god you will worship.

Very true. But that’s because most people don’t make the required effort to study on their own, and so they simply adapt whatever worldview they are immersed in. It has no bearing on the relative truthfulness of things. This was true in my life up to age 18. My family were fairly nominal Protestant Christians, and so I was, too. They stopped going to church, and so did I. I hardly had a choice, at ten years old. The church was a couple of miles away. Not that I would have gone by myself, anyway. It bored me to death, and no one made it unboring.

“If” there is a god, and “if” it’s your god, he did a poor job of making sure everyone around the world knew who he was.

He did fine. The problem is with Christians, who 1) don’t know what they believe, or 2) why they do, and very often 3) don’t exhibit the joy and love that they should have, and so 4) they have no motivation to share what they have learned with others, and others are not impressed enough by them or by their message, to come on board. God has done more than enough to make Himself known, But we have to be His messengers and witnesses. We blame God for lots of things that are our fault.

As for science, it has steadily reduced Yahweh/Jesus to a “god of the gaps.”

Nonsense. Polls have steadily shown that scientists are some 50% theists or Christians. See,. for example, a Pew Research poll from 2009: “51% believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” All of those people certainly don’t believe that science has disproven Christianity or all non-materialist religious views. It’s just a treasured myth that materialist idolaters of science like yourself promulgate. Science is your god and religion. But it’s just a variant of philosophy that necessarily starts with unproven and unprovable axioms, much as religion and theology do. Many great philosophers and scientists alike have always believed in God, and theists of some sort even originated 115 fields of scientific endeavor.

There was a time when your god was responsible for rain, storms, lightning, earthquakes, floods, diseases and so on.

He still is, in terms of having created the scientific laws or laws of nature by which they are governed.

Today we know how all that works and your god has been greatly diminished.

This is an extremely simplistic take on the Bible and science. I’ve written quite a bit about this:

Seidensticker Folly #21: Atheist “Bible Science” Absurdities [9-25-18]

Seidensticker Folly #23: Atheist “Bible Science” Inanities, Pt. 2 [10-2-18]

Loftus Atheist Error #9: Bible Espouses Mythical Animals? [9-10-19]

The Bible is Not “Anti-Scientific,” as Skeptics Claim [National Catholic Register, 10-23-19]

Vs. Atheist David Madison #37: Bible, Science, & Germs [12-10-19]

The Bible on Germs, Sanitation, & Infectious Diseases [3-16-20]

Seidensticker Folly #42: Creation “Ex Nihilo” [8-28-20]

“Quantum Entanglement” & the “Upholding” Power of God [10-20-20]

Seidensticker Folly #59: Medieval Hospitals & Medicine [11-3-20]

Seidensticker Folly #71: Spirit-God “Magic”; 68% Dark Energy Isn’t? [2-2-21]

There are really only a couple things we don’t know yet, that are attributed to your god, rather than simply accept that we don’t know yet. We don’t know exactly what kicked off the Big Bang, but there is gathering evidence thanks to ever more powerful telescopes, that the universe is eternal, and that it cycles on a regular basis, expanding, contracting, and then starting over with a new Big Bang.

So it’s supposedly eternal; yet the laws of thermodynamics won’t permit that, because the universe is running down. The Big Bang is too much in line with the Bible, so it has to be run down by atheists somehow. We still don’t know how either the universe or life began, from materialistic premises.

I can go into some of Nobel winner Roger Penrose’s explanation, but I’ll spare you for now.

Thanks!

At this point, we simply don’t know, but there is increasing reason to think we will eventually. There seem to be hints of previous universes within the CMB (cosmic microwave background).

You seem to greatly overestimate how much doubt exists about the Big Bang in scientific circles. In fact, it is overwhelming consensus view. I found this AI overview at Google:

Nearly all cosmologists and astrophysicists accept the Big Bang as the leading model for the universe’s origin, with acceptance rates often cited as over 90-95%, even approaching 99% among specialists, because overwhelming evidence like the cosmic microwave background and expansion of the universe supports it, though specific details (like inflation, dark matter/energy) remain areas of active research, not rejection of the core idea.

And on a related Quora page I found comments like this:

I’d be surprised if within active scientists within cosmology it is less then 99%. Across all sciences you’ll probably be able to boost that up to 95% and if you loosen the definition of scientist then you’ll get even higher numbers. But it is the mainstream theory. Main stream theories are mainstream for a reason. They are the current best explanation for the current observation.

As close to 100% as it’s possible for anything to be in science. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Steady state theories were taken seriously for a few decades, but the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background rendered them untenable. At this point, no alternative theory comes anywhere close in ability to explain numerous different lines of evidence. The details are continually being researched and revised, but the data is overwhelming . . .

Specific surveys of physicists/astronomers/cosmologists
- A 2013 survey of professional astrophysicists published in Research Notes/discipline outlets and conference polls (small-sample) report >90% acceptance of standard cosmological model features (Big Bang, cosmic expansion, cosmic microwave background as evidence).
- Informal polls among cosmology conference attendees and online professional forums repeatedly show >95% acceptance for the basic Big Bang framework (expanding universe from a hot dense early state), with active research focused on details (inflation, dark matter, dark energy).
Surveys of science faculty and graduate students
- University faculty surveys across physics and astronomy departments show very high acceptance rates (typically >90%) for the Big Bang in teaching and research contexts.

We don’t know how the first self-replicating cells appeared (leading to what we call “life” today). Once again, we are making progress in this field and there is no good reason to suggest that “God did it.”

Yeah, scientists have been saying it’s right around the corner for years now. I first started learning science (and loving it) in the 60s. I’m quite sure that if scientists had been asked back then whether we would have discovered how life began, and also discovered life elsewhere in the universe in 60 years, most would have answered affirmatively. Yet it hasn’t happened. You rule out God as the cause because you disbelieve in Him in the first place: not because it’s at all inconsistent with what we know from science alone. You simply assume that it is, but that doesn’t follow.

By definition, science can’t rule out God because its subject matter isn’t non-material things. DUH! Current-day science and basically science since Darwin, decided to adopt materialism, at least in terms of how it methodologically proceeds, But that wasn’t always the case. As I noted, virtually all scientific fields and major new discoveries in the first 300 years of science came from theists and Christians. There is simply no impossible divide or intrinsic contradiction between God and science.

That’s simply another way of saying “We don’t know,” but we teach children (under penalty of eternal torment) to believe that God did it.

Right. “God of the gaps” is a tired, dumb, “pseudo-argument.” Give it up, and read some of the many great Christian philosophers and scientists. Get out of your self-imposed bubble.

Finally, we don’t fully understand consciousness yet.

What a big surprise!

It certainly appears to be an emergent phenomenon, and when you start cutting pieces of a brain out, it goes away piece by piece, but there are still some scientists who think it may be “fundamental,” meaning everything is made of it, including quarks and electrons. How it organizes or interacts with stuff that does exit like quarks and electrons, has no hypothesis and certainly no theories, as there’s no evidence that it does so.

Are you a scientist yourself? Please tell me more about yourself, so I’m not arguing blindly. That’s part of dialogue: being transparent.

I think it would be cool to discover that consciousness is ubiquitous, but it wouldn’t change anything with regard to an afterlife since there is no way to retain “who we are” after we die.

According to you . . .

That brings us to our latest science, which is QFT or Quantum Field Theory. It was developed a century ago, by the best minds in the world, and about 30 years ago, we developed the technology (mostly particle accelerators) to fully test it, and it turns out to deliver the mot accurate results of any theory ever proposed in human history – far more decimal points of confidence than Relativity, for example. QFT tells us what we and our natural world are made of – mostly quarks and electrons, and everything that interacts with that stuff. If your god, a devil, a soul, ghost or spirit is going to have any agency, or usefulness, it must push around those quarks and electrons in order to make stuff happen.

There is no difficulty in doing that, if we are dealing with an omniscient, all -powerful God, Who created the system in the first place. You simply arbitrarily define God down, to be a much weaker Being than He really is. “God cant do this; He can’t do that.” Who says? That’s not an argument.

There’s no other way, though I encourage you to put forth a hypothesis if you have one. We know, thanks to the last 30 years of testing that there are no gods, devils, souls, ghosts or spirits interacting with us, and that makes them moot, even if there was some way for them to exist outside space and time.

We know no such thing. Who is the “we” that you refer to? I’ve already shown that 50% of scientists believe in God or some higher power (non-materialism). So half of scientists can’t be included in your roster of skepticism. So why don’t you say that, instead of pretending that “all of science” agrees with your atheistic tenets? I’m the one pointing out the actual reality on the ground. Granted, among philosophers, it’s much more bleak, from my perspective. According to a Philpapers survey, 78% said they accept or lean towards atheism. 14% accept or lean towards theism, and the rest went into ‘Other’ with 12.6%.” But that’s not scientists, who are vastly more religious.

Evolution took quite some time to work through society, and QFT is going to take time as well, but it’s far more devastating to Christianity and other theist religions than evolution.

It’s not in the slightest. It’s just wishful thinking on your part. You’ve deluded yourself into thinking that almost all of the “smart people” of the world have adopted your atheism. You keep appealing to science, but scientists only half-agree with you.

The Vatican has to know this, as do fundagelical Christian organizations. The Vatican is currently silent, mentioning only the “spooky” stuff of QM (or quantum mechanics) from which QFT is partially derived, but the two are very different, and the implications of QFT are devastating for the supernatural.

Again, this is wishful thinking. You merely state this conclusion. You haven’t given us a chain of reasoning, demonstrating that it necessarily rules out God.

You’ll be hearing more about this in the years and decades ahead. It’s just making its way into society.

Yeah, that’s what we always hear. What is true is that western society is rapidly secularizing, which I think is a great tragedy and will cause untold and unspeakable suffering, as it already manifestly is. But that has no bearing on the truth or falsity of any given thing. I don’t believe in things based on a head count. I do it through reasoning.

When we start teaching it in Middle School and High School, that will be horrible for theist religions, who won’t be able to answer the kid’s questions.

Christians and conservatives have long since realized that secularized, leftist, “woke” public schools are hopeless, and so we go to Christian / Catholic schools or homeschool (we did the latter with all four of our kids, who all turned out great, are sharp as a tack, and very hard workers). Meanwhile, Detroit public schools (where I attended) are turning out outrageous results, with alarming post-graduate illiteracy rates, and other indicators destined to doom those poor kids to a life a lot less comfortable and happy than they could have had with a proper education.

Fundagelicals approach the problem by attacking science, and saying stupid stuff like “it’s only a theory,” thereby advertising ignorance about what a scientific theory is.

I don’t care what people who are ignorant of the issues say. There will always be a fringe element in any major group in society. There are fringe atheists just as fanatical in other directions.

In the case of QFT, it’s a fact, for all intents and purposes, just like germ theory, information theory, the theory of gravity and of course evolution. So we can go round and round on what unknown authors living in a primitive time wrote about the superstitions of their time, but QFT really does away with the need to do so, because it does away with all the supernatural stuff.

You really are in an impenetrable bubble, constructed by self-delusion and wishful thinking. You’re a true believer. It’s very difficult to persuade folks like that of anything different. Too much blind faith is involved.

If Jesus is God, then he was born as himself, strictly speaking.

God the Son is different from God the Father, so it was different from what was before. God becoming a man was a new thing when it occurred, some 2000 years ago.

He’s simply taking on another form, right?

He went from spirit, to taking on a characteristic of human beings, whom He created.

And who says he is only spirit?

Biblical revelation.

Didn’t Moses see him?

God can appear to the senses. It’s called a “theophany.” He didn’t take on flesh in any permanent sense until the incarnation of Jesus (what that word literally means).

And while we’re on the subject of god and man, what of this so-called “sacrifice”? He lives for an eternity as all-god. He becomes god and man for about 30 years. He goes back to being all-god afterwards. What did he give up? What did he lose? What did he sacrifice? A little pain? He’s god – he can turn off the pain, and if he chooses not to, that’s on him. In the space of an eternity, it’s not even a pinprick.

Are you not in the least moved by the notion (whether you accept it as factual or not) of a God Who loved us so much that He chose to live in poverty, eschewing luxury, identifying with the poor and downtrodden, confronting religious and civil leaders who were oppressing His people, and then choosing to undergo some of the worst physical suffering known to man in order to save us? Why we believe this, and/or why God did it, or why it was required, are separate and most worthwhile discussions. But here I’m just talking about the Christian belief as to what happened in history. What is so terrible about it? Why do feel led to mock it and sneer at it? I think it’s incredibly beautiful: God Himself went through the worst things that human beings experience. You could say that the thing itself is beautiful, while not believing that it actually happened. But you go after the very idea, and I find that puzzling.

I have a large book called “The Other Bible” than has all sorts of early scripture, gospels and revelations that did not make it into the official Bible.

Yes; skeptics love those kinds of things.

In at least one of them, (perhaps the gospel of Judas?), Jesus, the spirit is hovering above Jesus the man, and laughing.

That’s a Gnostic work, from the people who thought that all matter was evil. Not your kind of folks . . .

Come on, we don’t even have objective compelling evidence of a historical Jesus (though I’d put the odds at perhaps 50/50 – most likely a combination of wanna-be messiahs, merged together by the author of Mark. We simply don’t know.

That’s nonsense. Denial of a historical Jesus is a fringe, laughable position held by an infinitesimal number of scholars or reputed “scholars.” It’s intellectual suicide and I always refuse to discuss it, just as I don’t waste time talking about a flat earth or young earth or geocentrism or far right and left ideologies.

And in any case, he’s a failed messiah. First, he didn’t do anything the Jews expected of their messiah,

The Jews had two different concepts of the Messiah: the suffering servant (seen in Isaiah, especially chapter 53) and the triumphant warrior-king. I studied this over forty years ago. It’s a fact. This was all held before Christianity came along. So we say that the suffering servant was Jesus. The triumphant conqueror will be Jesus when He returns.

and secondly he failed to perform. He promised he would return while some he spoke with still lived, and before a generation passed. FAIL. He’s not coming back.

That’s an incorrect understanding of what He said. I’ve addressed it. I’m trying to finish this reply today so I won’t link it right now.

“a condition he placed on us to begin with.”

This is untrue. We were created without sin and any problems. All we had to do was obey our Creator and we would be in a perpetual paradise with all that we need. But we decided that we know better and rebelled. THEN the problems began. That’s not God’s fault.

You seriously believe the talking serpent, magical fruit story?

I think that the story of Adam and Eve is an account of actual historical events, that contains some mythical or allegorical elements as well, as a type of literature. The “visual” elements were likely, I think, literary or poetic devices to illustrate principles (will you obey God or not). And so the devil was represented a a scary animal, just as he often is to this day.

That pretty much confirms that you don’t accept evolution because that does away with all this,

I’m a theistic evolutionist.

and leaves no reason to be saved by Jesus, whatever that means.

I see no reason for why you think that follows.

In the mythical tale, God set the kids up to fail. They could not possibly know that disobedience was wrong, until AFTER they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How could they know disobeying God was wrong?

They could, just as children know very early on that disobeying mommy and daddy is wrong and will bring bad consequences (going to their room, removal of a treasured toy, missing dessert, going to bed early, etc.). This ain’t rocket science. It’s not hard to envision or conceptualize.
*

And the talking serpent told the truth. Either God did not know or he lied when he told the kids they would die on the day they ate of the fruit. Then he kicks the kids to the curb and abandons them. Great role model, and he does all this because, per Gen 3:22 and confirming the serpent, he did not want humans to know what good and evil were. I suggest that it was because he was evil, as the pages that follow lay out in excruciating detail. I think the author of Gen 3:22 intended that passage as a warning!!!

Here’s an article on how Catholics view the fall.

*
I’m not going to debate evolution with you.

No need. We agree; though I do think that it’s not totally explainable by the laws of science, and requires God to make the whole thing work, as His method of creation.
*

It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. After you win, the pigeon knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies off declaring victory. Debating the science is futile with those who have decided not to accept it, despite accepting almost everything else based on science. The problem is FEAR.

I already told you I was a theistic evolutionist, so why are we doing this routine? I’m supposed to be scared of a person who thinks science has disproven God and who can’t even figure out that Jesus was a real person, who lived in space and time on the earth? Sure, some people who are ignorant and educated have fear, but perhaps You fear God or fear the demands He would make on your life, were you to believe in Him. You prefer your so-called “freedom.”

As children, most Christians were psychologically abused to think they must believe in Jesus and the need to be saved by him, or suffer eternal, conscious torment. That’s too big a leap. Evolution kills any need to be saved, so accepting it, and its implications means losing belief in Jesus, but that threat of Hell is so deeply ingrained, that it can’t be overcome by a great many. It’s very sad. When and if Christians come to understand that Hell is a lie, that it can’t exist, and that they aren’t going there, they will have no problem accepting evolution.

I can’t start arguing about hell here, nor get into your attempted psychoanalysis and heart- and mind-reading. I’m already at 9600 words. Suffice it to say that we follow Jesus because He is an absolutely unique, utterly admirable, beautiful human being, Who is what He claimed: God incarnate. Fear isn’t any sort of motivation; love is. desire to be fully ourselves, united to God, for Whom we were made, is the goal, and the reward. It’s a life of the deepest purpose and meaning. If someone is a supposed Christian mostly out of fear, I have serious doubts whether they really are a Christian, by any reasonable definition I know of.
*

We’ll continue, if you’re willing to. Thanks for the engagement! I admire your zeal, if not your beliefs regarding Christianity and the Bible and Jesus.

I’ve read the Bible numerous times, and you aren’t going to convince me [about the Immaculate Conception, or even the virgin birth]. It’s an invented story by the Matthew author.

Right. How convenient for anti-theists atheists like you. Whatever you disagree with in the Bible, you simply say it was added later — with no evidence for the claim — and presto! The task of interpretation and serious analysis ends!

It’s based on an incorrect translation of “almah” young maiden, not “betulah” or virgin In Isaiah 7:14 that has nothing to do with a messiah. Lots of pagan gods were born of virgins, so Matthew decided his did too.

*
I dealt with this charge here, eight years ago:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Mistranslation” of “Virgin”? (Isaiah 7:14) (with Glenn Miller) [7-26-17]

Mark, the first gospel written, according to practically all scholars, had no virgin birth. Clearly this was made up later.

Mark decided to begin with John the Baptist, and Jesus’ first appearance on the public scene. We have four Gospels. Any given one is not required to have what one or more of the others have. And if they don’t, it’s not a “contradiction.”

It’s hard to imagine the Mark author not mentioning it, given that he was the first to invent the historical Jesus.

It’s hard to imagine any intelligent man like yourself, being silly and foolish enough to accept the troglodyte quack theories that Jesus didn’t even exist.

(Paul, the first author knows nothing of a historical Jesus).

*
I dealt with that, too:
*

Seidensticker Folly #24: Paul’s Massive Ignorance of Jesus (?) [10-5-18]
*
Paul Knew the Gospels (vs. Richard Carrier) [1-30-22]

Ehrman Errors #4: Paul’s “Neglect” of the Life of Jesus [3-22-22]

Pearce’s Potshots #56: Paul & Jesus’ Resurrection [12-10-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #58: Paul & Jesus’ “Empty” Tomb [1-29-22]

Luke contradicts almost all aspects of the Mark story, and the author(s) of John who scholars believe may have known the original Hebrew and translation error, left it out. It’s one of the weakest stories in the Bible, right up there with the talking donkey, and talking serpent.

Yet more relentless and irrational atheist biblical skepticism, that I have refuted 150 or so times, point-by-point. See my atheism web page.
*

It’s another moot point, particularly if we go back to that “if” there’s a god thing. If there is no god, (or if, per QFT he has nothing to do with us), then sin, original or otherwise, is a moot point. And the Catholic Church decided the story led to “original sin.” Jews didn’t believe that, and the Bible doesn’t specifically say it. The words “original sin,” aren’t found in my Bible translations.

Really?:

Psalm 51:5 (RSV) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Romans 5:12-21 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned — [13] sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. [17] If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. [18] Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. [19] For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. [20] Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, [21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

The dominion of the devil is a result of original sin; it caused a catastrophic cosmic disorder (Gen 3:15, Jn 12:31, 14:30, 2 Cor 4:4, Heb 2:14, 2 Pet 2:19).

Sin isn’t a crime against other humans, which of course needs to be addressed.

Of course it is. If I murder you, that’s a sin, and against another human being: you.

The idea of dying to remove responsibility for a crime committed by another person (vicarious redemption) is vile and reprehensible.

Yeah, I can’t imagine anything more abominable than dying to save others: spiritually or physically. It doesn’t get any worse than that!

Let’s say I kill your loved one. I am arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. My son steps up and takes my place, and he is executed. I am released, and I walk happily, whistling in joy at my renewed freedom, past your house, but my innocent son is dead, your loved one is dead, and I am absolved of responsibility. Is that a desired outcome? Is that even moral or ethical?

That’s not analogous to Jesus’ death on the cross, which had to do with redeeming and saving the entire human race, because God loved us so much.

Even before I left Christianity, the idea of sin was nutty to me.

Yeah, I’m sure that played a big part in why you left. Now you’re free to sin as you wish, with allegedly no consequences.

How do you hurt an all-powerful god so badly that he wants to burn you for eternity?

He doesn’t. He doesn’t send anyone there, and wants no one to perish or go there. He offers the free gift of salvation to all who believe in Him and take up His cross. The only belief-system that is subject to this criticism is Calvinism.

How can an all-powerful god be hurt? If he’s that powerful, then it’s like punishing ants for not doing what I want them to do. And is he really all-powerful, given that in his book, he is portrayed as jealous, petty, vengeful and basically out-of-control crazy at times?

It’s called anthropomorphism and anthropopathism: poetic Hebrew literary devices. Go look up those terms and learn something.

I mean, sending bears to kill kids who tease an old bald [guy]…. come on.

It was a just judgment, once fully understood. The sins involved here were not merely the name-calling.

Hopefully this catches us up. . . . There are plenty of groups out there that give Christians the opportunity to threaten atheists with hell and to hurl personal insults when their intellect doesn’t support mature debate.

Right. Nitpicking, majoring on the minors, and making foolish complaints. This is typical of so many atheists online. You had a chance to engage in an intelligent discussion with an apologist well-familiar with atheism, atheists, and the arguments used. But you decided to flee for the hills [see below how he acted at the end].

I welcome the opportunity to discuss/debate with the original post authors of the groups I visit (or actually that show up on my feed – I don’t seek this stuff out, it seeks me out!).

Yet after a day and vigorous, direct responses from me to the 30 or so charges you have thrown my way, you decided to run as fast as you could to the hills, to hide and forget that I — and this discussion — ever existed. I’m not impressed.

Hold on a minute. You are dragging me off to an entirely different forum where the followers on this one, where the debate originated, are not included, unless they follow the thread. Screw that. I responded to you on FB. Keep the discussion on FB, not an entirely different forum. I’m not following you across the internet, where you set the stage, and set my “character” without knowing anything about me. Respond here, or I’m done with you. I don’t need to prove myself to you. You are the one lacking in any compelling, objective evidence for your god and your beliefs. I have overwhelming compelling objective evidence for the science that shoots down your beliefs. Unless you bring the discussion back here, we’re done. . . . I think we’re done here. . . . Goodbye.

Utterly predictable. Time to run when your sacred cows are being speared . . . I thought you were different for a minute or two there. But it wasn’t to be.

You are the coward. You are the one taking the discussion to another forum without discussing it first. You are the problem here. Apologist? Yeah, you should apologize. You certainly haven’t speared any sacred cows, nor have you countered any of my points in this forum. I am different. I know the Bible and Christianity far better than most people who call themselves Christians. I also know science much better than most Christians. I’m a major threat to folks like you, because I work in evidence, and you work in faith, and faith is an irrational leap over the need for evidence. Faith is not a virtue. It has no method, it solves no problems, it boils down to pretending to know things you don’t know (like Mary being born without original sin – you can’t even prove there ever was a Mary). Faith is all about lying to yourself and trying to convince others to believe what you believe to justify your self-deception.

Right. Keep dreamin’. I provide a point-by-point, 11,000-word response that I worked on most of the day. Not the slightest reply back from you, but instead, more juvenile asinine insults. I’m the coward; I have nothing. Yeah, makes perfect sense! You have this ridiculous aversion to a blog post, as if you will get cooties from it. I was simply trying to make it easy, since you couldn’t even manage to locate my initial response here [on Facebook], after two days.

I’ve seen a lot of things online, in my 29 years, believe me. But this takes the cake. I knew you would run pretty soon, but I’m surprised it was with zero replies.

And now you will be banned [on Facebook], having stunk up the place long enough. I have little patience with verbal diarrhea and pompous asses. But you’ll still be able to reply to my blog if you wish. Say whatever you like over there: the only exception being if you bring up this ludicrous bilge about me deleting posts, after I have explained it three times. That will get you blocked there as well. Your choice.

Wishing you all God’s blessings and the very best during this holy season and always.

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis, in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: Patrick Gannon’s Facebook profile photo, retrieved on 12-7-25.

Summary: Debate on various premises & tenets of Christianity with an atheist, Patrick Gannon, who popped up, oddly enough, in a thread about Catholic-Protestant differences on Mary.

Atheism & Agnosticism

Apologetics

Atheism

Catholic Apologetics

Debate on Christianity with an Atheist

defense of Christianity

defense of the Catholic faith

2025-11-25T19:47:36-04:00

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.

My “One-Stop” Catholic Blog Outlined in Detail

Last updated on: November 25, 2025 at 7:47 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism has been online since February 1997 and won the Catholic Website of the Year award from Patrick Madrid’s Envoy Magazine in 1998. [see how the front page looked on 2 December 1998). In these early years of the Internet my website was one of the relatively few extensive Catholic ones; especially ones run by one person (Jimmy Akin already had a very good one, as I recall). I was a “big fish in a little pond” so to speak. I had many pages that were later discontinued. My pages devoted to St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, G. K. Chesterton, and C. S. Lewis were either the best available or close to it.

Peter’s Net, run by Dr. Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler, reviewed Biblical Evidence on 8 July 1998, stating: “We highly recommend this site. In our opinion it is one of the best places to visit on the Internet.” Its more specific ratings were: “Fidelity: A / Resources: A / Implementation: A / (Purpose: A; Maintenance: A; Organization: A; Appearance: B).” At first it was hosted by a small company, then moved to Blogspot for a number of years (where I eventually had a very nice “classical” and professional design: see the image above), and finally, in August 2015, to Patheos.

By January 2023 Biblical Evidence for Catholicism had been viewed by more than four million people, over 7 1/2 years, which is an average of 1486 visitors a day over the entire period. It’s nothing like the astronomical numbers seen on YouTube today, but those were very big figures then for a theology site run by one person. In July 2024, my blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. It contains more than 5,000 free online articles and well over a thousand debates, and has always been absolutely free for the public, and easy to navigate, with drop-down menus, many listed sub-categories, and a sidebar search bar.

I believe my blog is the most extensive and comprehensive Catholic site, with a wider range of topics and sheer number of articles than any other I have ever seen from one person, as opposed to group efforts. It has 40 individual web pages: most of them quite extensive in scope and volume themselves. In January 2025 I also added 600 sub-topics to these individual web pages, for the purpose of easier word-search access to specific topics. Below, I list all of the web pages from my blog and all the sub-categories, and provide links. Heartfelt thanks to all who have read my writings through the years!

Catholic Answers apologist Tim Staples wrote:

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Mike Aquilina, well-known Catholic apologist and author, also proclaimed:

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I’m very grateful for all you’ve done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it’s going to be on your site.

*****

FORTY WEB PAGES

I. About (Dave Armstrong)

01 Personal Page

02 Dave Armstrong’s Literary Resume (Curriculum Vitae)

03 Dave Armstrong’s Apologetics Bookstore: 56 Books

II. Catholic Apologetics

04 Apologetics: Catholic & General Christian

05 Baptism and Sacramentalism

06 Bible, Tradition, Canon, & “Sola Scriptura”

07 The [Catholic] Church and Ecclesiology

08 Eucharist, Sacrifice of the Mass, & Liturgical Issues

09 Hell and the Devil / Last Things

10 Mary: The Blessed Virgin

11 The Papacy and Infallibility

12 Saints, Purgatory, & Penance

13 Salvation, Justification, & “Faith Alone”

14 Radical Catholic Reactionaries vs. Catholic Traditionalism

15 Trinitarianism and Christology

III. Church History

16 Conversion and Converts (Catholic)

17 Development of Doctrine

18 Fathers of the Church

19 Heresies & Comparative Religion

20 Inquisition, Crusades, & “Catholic Scandals”

21 Jews, Judaism, and the Old Testament

22 Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism

IV. Christian Worldview

23 Atheism, Agnosticism, & Secularism

24 Christmas

25 Ecumenism & Christian Unity

26 Liberal Theology & Modernism

27 Life Issues: Abortion, Contraception, War, Etc.

28 Philosophy, Science & Christianity

29 Political, Ethical, & Moral Issues

30 Romantic and Imaginative Theology: Inklings of Heaven

31 Sexuality, Gender, Feminism, & Divorce

V. Protestantism

32 Anti-Catholicism

33 John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal

34 Calvinism & General Protestantism: Catholic Critique

35 Martin Luther: a Catholic Critique & Appraisal

36 Lutheranism: Catholic Critique

37 Protestantism: Historic Persecution & Intolerance

38 Bishop “Dr.” [?] James White: Anti-Catholic Extraordinaire

VI. Miscellaneous

39 Apologética católica: Traducciones al español / tradução para português (Aussi, traductions en français)[Catholic Apologetics from Dave Armstrong: Spanish, Portugese, and French Translations of my articles and books]

40 My “Number Articles” (“150 Biblical . . .” Etc.)

I. About (Dave Armstrong)

01 Personal Page

I. QUALIFICATIONS / APOSTOLATE
II. MY BOOKS
III. MY ARTICLES, BLOG, AND WEB PAGES
IV. SPANISH, PORTUGESE, AND FRENCH LANGUAGE OUTREACH
V. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL / RECOMMENDATIONS / MY OWN LIBRARY
VI. INTERVIEWS AND TALKS / FEATURES
VII. YOUTUBE, RADIO, & WEBCAST DISCUSSIONS, INTERVIEWS, & DOCUMENTARIES
VIII. FEEDBACK
IX. FUN, HUMOROUS, INTERESTING, AND MISCELLANEOUS STUFF
X. HOLISTIC HEALTH / HERBALISM / HEALTH FOOD, ETC.
XI. WIFE JUDY
XII. FAMILY
XIII. OUTDOORS / TRAVEL
XIV. ANCESTRY RESEARCH
XV. MUSIC
XVI. A BIT MORE PERSONAL
XVII. MY CHILDHOOD / YOUNG ADULTHOOD / DETROIT
XVIII. SPORTS

02 Dave Armstrong’s Literary Resume (Curriculum Vitae)

I. BRIEF RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND INFORMATION
II. FORMAL AND INFORMAL EDUCATION / EMPLOYMENT
III. CATHOLIC ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS
IV. PUBLISHED WRITINGS (Articles / Cartoon Tracts / Books)
V. RADIO AND WEBCAST INTERVIEWS AND TALKS
VI. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VII. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

03 Dave Armstrong’s Apologetics Bookstore: 56 Books

II. Catholic Apologetics

04 Apologetics: Catholic & General Christian

I. APPROVAL FROM THE CHURCH
II. GENERAL APOLOGETICS
III. MY RADIO AND WEBCAST INTERVIEWS / VIDEOS AND YOUTUBE CHANNEL
IV. MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AS AN APOLOGIST
V. METHODOLOGY
VI. HUMOR, SARCASM, AND SATIRE
VII. “TOUGH LOVE”
VIII. CALLING PEOPLE “FOOLS” / BIBLICAL RATIONALE FOR STRONG LANGUAGE AND REBUKES
IX. DISCUSSION AND DIALOGUE DISPUTES AND ISSUES
X. REMUNERATION / “FILTHY LUCRE” / BUSINESS ISSUES
XI. SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION / SECULARIZATION
XII. ANTI-APOLOGETICS (PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC) / AD HOMINEM AND CALUMNY / RAGE POSTS

05 Baptism and Sacramentalism

I. BAPTISM

II. HOLY EUCHARIST

III. RECONCILIATION / PENANCE / CONFESSION / ABSOLUTION

IV. CONFIRMATION

V. HOLY ORDERS / ORDINATION

VI. MATRIMONY

VII. ANOINTING / EXTREME UNCTION

VIII. SACRAMENTS (GENERAL), SACRAMENTALISM, AND SACRAMENTALS

06 Bible, Tradition, Canon, & “Sola Scriptura”

I. Relationship of the Bible to the Church

II. Tradition (Apostolic)

III. Oral Tradition / Oral Torah

IV. Sola Scriptura (Scripture as the Only Infallible Authority)

V. Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture

VI. Material and Formal Sufficiency of Scripture / Rule of Faith

VII. The Canon of Scripture

VIII. Deuterocanonical Books (So-Called “Apocrypha”)

IX. Biblical Accuracy / Alleged Biblical Contradictions and Difficulties

07 The [Catholic] Church and Ecclesiology

I. GENERAL ECCLESIOLOGY

II. THE INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH

III. APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

IV. CLERGY AND ORDINATION / HOLY ORDERS / BISHOPS

V. WOMEN’S ORDINATION / CATHOLIC VIEW OF WOMEN

VI. ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY / HIERARCHICAL AND EPISCOPAL ECCLESIOLOGY

VII. RULE OF FAITH (BIBLE + CHURCH + TRADITION)

VIII. CONSCIENCE AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT / DISSENT

IX. ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY: THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

X. ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY: THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL

XI. ECCLESIAL INFALLIBILITY AND INFALLIBLE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

XII. HERETICAL CONCILIARISM

XIII. THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL (ACTS 15)

XIV. REASONS WHY PEOPLE LEAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

XV. THE “INFALLIBILITY REGRESS” (PROTESTANT POLEMICAL ARGUMENT)

XVI. THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

XVII. CLERICAL CELIBACY

XVIII. TITLE OF CATHOLIC

XIX. GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

XX. ST. TERESA OF CALCUTTA (MOTHER TERESA)

08 Eucharist, Sacrifice of the Mass, & Liturgical Issues

The Holy Eucharist

I. GENERAL / TRANSUBSTANTIATION

II. JOHN, CHAPTER 6 IN PARTICULAR

III. WINE AND GRAPE JUICE

IV. DIALOGUES WITH PROTESTANTS

The Sacrifice of the Mass

V. CHURCH FATHERS AND PROTESTANT SCHOLARS

VI. GENERAL / EUCHARISTIC ADORATION

VII. EUCHARISTIC ADORATION

VIII. PRIESTHOOD AND PRIESTS

IX. THE IDOLATRY CHARGE

Liturgical Issues

X. TRIDENTINE MASS / “NEW” / PAULINE MASS

XI. COMMUNION IN THE HAND / REVERENCE AND SOLEMNITY / POSTURE

XII. ABUSES OF THE RUBRICS / ORANS AND HAND-HOLDING DURING THE OUR FATHER

XIII. ALTAR GIRLS

XIV. EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS OF HOLY COMMUNION

XV. “VAIN REPETITION” AND “DEAD” FORMAL WORSHIP CHARGES / THE ROSARY

XVI. MASS OBLIGATION, SUNDAY WORSHIP, AND HOLY DAYS

XVII. COMMUNION IN ONE KIND OR SPECIES

XVIII. CLOSED / RESTRICTED COMMUNION

XIX. MUSIC AT MASS

XX. MISCELLANEOUS

09 Hell and the Devil / Last Things

I. Hell and Sheol (Hades) / Damnation & Reprobation / Heretical Annihilationism

II. Universalism / “Hoping All Will be Saved”

III. The Devil (Satan) and Demons

IV. Judgment / Second Coming

V. Last Things (Eschatology) / Prophecies

VI. Heaven / Souls (Theological Anthropology) / “Soul Sleep” / Resurrection

VII. Limbo

10 Mary: The Blessed Virgin

I. GENERAL

II. SINLESSNESS, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, NEW EVE, AND THE ANNUNCIATION

III. A SUPPOSED “SINFUL MARY” AND ALLEGED INSTANCES OF JESUS “REBUKING” OR “DISRESPECTING” HER

IV. BODILY ASSUMPTION

V. MOTHER OF GOD (THEOTOKOS) / SPOUSE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

VI. PERPETUAL VIRGINITY / VIRGIN BIRTH

VII. EARLY PROTESTANTS’ BELIEF IN MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

VIII. MARY’S IN PARTU VIRGINITY (MIRACULOUS, NON-NATURAL CHILDBIRTH)

IX. VENERATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY / [“EXCESSIVE”?] MARIAN DEVOTIONS

X. THE ROSARY

XI. QUEEN OF HEAVEN / QUEEN MOTHER / REVELATION 12

XII. INTERCESSOR AND SPIRITUAL MOTHER

XIII. MARY’S MEDIATION

XIV. MARIAN APPARITIONS

11 The Papacy and Infallibility

I. PETRINE PRIMACY / ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL

II. GENERAL PAPAL ECCLESIOLOGY

III. PAPAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUCCESSION

IV. PETER THE “ROCK” / “KEYS OF THE KINGDOM”

V. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, SUPREMACY, AND ROMAN PRIMACY

VI. PAPAL INDEFECTIBILITY

VII. POPES, COUNCILS, CONCILIARISM, AND COLLEGIALITY

VIII. DISAGREEING WITH OR TRYING TO PERSUADE POPES / HONOR AND RESPECT FOR POPES / POPE-BASHING

IX. PAPAL SCANDALS / “BAD POPES”

X. DID POPES CLAIM TO BE GOD? / POPES AS ANTICHRIST?

XI. VEN. POPE PIUS XII AND THE NAZI HOLOCAUST

XII. POPE ST. JOHN PAUL II

XIII. POPE BENEDICT XVI

XIV. POPE FRANCIS

XV. POPE FRANCIS: PHIL LAWLER’S HIT-PIECE, LOST SHEPHERD

XVI. POPE FRANCIS: ROSS DOUTHAT’S HIT-PIECE, TO CHANGE THE CHURCH

XVII. POPE FRANCIS: HENRY SIRE’S HIT-PIECE, THE DICTATOR POPE

XVIII. POPE FRANCIS: KARL KEATING’S TOME, THE FRANCIS FEUD

XIX. POPE FRANCIS: ARCHBISHOP VIGANO’S RANTINGS

XX. POPE LEO XIV

12 Saints, Purgatory, & Penance

Communion of Saints

I. GENERAL

II. INVOCATION AND INTERCESSION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS

III. VENERATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS

IV. VENERATION OF ICONS AND IMAGES (INCLUDING OF GOD) / STATUES / HOLY OBJECTS / HOLY DAYS

V. RELICS

Purgatory and Penance

VI. PURGATORY AND SHEOL (HADES)

VII. PRAYER AND PENANCE FOR THE DEAD

VIII. PRAYER FOR THE DEAD: ST. PAUL AND ONESIPHORUS

IX. SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: CONTRITION, CONFESSION, ABSOLUTION, AND SATISFACTION

X. INDULGENCES

XI. MORTIFICATION, FASTING, ABSTINENCE, ASCETICISM, MONASTICISM, SUFFERING, & REDEMPTIVE SUFFERING

XII. LENT

13 Salvation, Justification, & “Faith Alone”

I. GENERAL (CATHOLIC SOTERIOLOGY) / INFUSED JUSTIFICATION

II. “FAITH ALONE” / FAITH AND WORKS

III. SANCTIFICATION

IV. THEOSIS / DIVINIZATION / DEIFICATION

V. PRAYER

VI. SIN / MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

VII. ASSURANCE OF SALVATION / ETERNAL SECURITY / FALLING AWAY / APOSTASY / EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

VIII. PREDESTINATION / GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY / PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

IX. LIMITED VS. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT

X. ERROR OF UNIVERSALISM

XI. THE GOSPEL, DISCIPLESHIP, REVIVAL, “RELIGION”, “PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS”

XII. GRACE, IRRESISTIBLE GRACE, CATHOLIC ANTI-PELAGIANISM, AND SYNERGISM

XIII. MERIT AND REWARDS / HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE

XIV. ORIGINAL SIN AND TOTAL DEPRAVITY

14 Radical Catholic Reactionaries vs. Catholic Traditionalism

I. LEGITIMATE CATHOLIC TRADITIONALISM

II. CORDIAL, CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUES WITH ONE PETER FIVE EDITOR TIMOTHY FLANDERS

III. RADICAL CATHOLIC REACTIONARIES

IV. THE REMNANT / CHRIS FERRARA / MICHAEL MATT

V. STEVE SKOJEC (FORMER ONE PETER FIVE EDITOR)

VI. ONE PETER FIVE SITE

VII. DR. PETER KWASNIEWSKI

VIII. FRANK PAVONE LAICIZATION

IX. HILARY WHITE (LIFESITE NEWS / THE REMNANT)

X. LOUIE VERRECCHIO (AKA CATHOLIC)

XI. TERMINOLOGY ISSUES: RADICAL CATHOLIC REACTIONARIES AND THE DISCARDED RADTRAD

XII. TERMINOLOGY ISSUES: NEO-CATHOLIC

XIII. TRIDENTINE MASS AND “NEW” (PAULINE) MASS / LITURGICAL DISPUTES

XIV. TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

XV. VATICAN II

XVI. POPE-BASHING

XVII. AMORIS LAETITIA

XVIII. ECUMENISM AND SALVATION “OUTSIDE” THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

XIX. TAYLOR MARSHALL AND HIS BOOK, INFILTRATION: THE PLOT TO DESTROY THE CHURCH FROM WITHIN

XX. MICHAEL VORIS (CHURCH MILITANT)

XXI. ERRORS OF ROBERT SUNGENIS

XXII. SEDEVACANTISM

XXIII. THE EXCOMMUNICATED ARCHBISHOP CARLO MARIA VIGANO

15 Trinitarianism and Christology

I. CHRISTOLOGY / DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST

II. EVENTS IN JESUS’ LIFE / JESUS’ TEACHING

III. DIALOGUES WITH JEWISH APOLOGIST MICHAEL J. ALTER ON JESUS’ RESURRECTION AND ALLEGED NT “CONTRADICTIONS”

IV. JESUS AND MARY

V. YOUNG MESSIAH FILM (2016) / KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS

VI. TRINITARIANISM / THE HOLY TRINITY / THE HOLY SPIRIT

VII. THEOLOGY PROPER (THEOLOGY OF GOD) / GOD’S ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE

VIII. GOD AS JUDGE

IX. THEISTIC ARGUMENTS

III. Church History

16 Conversion and Converts (Catholic)

I. INDIVIDUAL CONVERSIONS

II. MY METHODIST AND PAGAN YEARS / EVANGELICAL CONVERSION (1977)

III. MY CATHOLIC CONVERSION (1990)

IV. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND INFORMATION

V. C. S LEWIS AND CATHOLICISM

VI. PROTESTANT ANALYSES OF CATHOLIC CONVERSION (AND MY COUNTER-REPLIES)

17 Development of Doctrine

I. General, Introductory, & Miscellaneous

II. Baptism

III. Bible and Tradition / Canon of the Bible

IV. Ecclesiology

V. Ecumenism

VI. Eschatology (Last Things and Afterlife)

VII. Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass

VIII. God, Theology and Doctrine of

IX. Inquisition, Capital Punishment, and Religious Liberty

X. Liturgy / The Mass

XI. Mary: The Blessed Virgin

XII. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman: Doctor of the Church

XIII. Orthodoxy, Eastern

XIV. The Papacy

XV. Protestantism

XVI. Purgatory

XVII. Saints, Communion of

XVIII. Soteriology (Theology of Salvation)

XIX. Usury

18 Fathers of the Church

I. MY THREE BOOKS ON THE CHURCH FATHERS

II. GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

III. PROTESTANTISM AND THE FATHERS

IV. ST. ATHANASIUS

V. ST. AUGUSTINE

VI. BAPTISM AND BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

VII. BIBLE / TRADITION / SOLA SCRIPTURA / PERSPICUITY / RULE OF FAITH

VIII. CANON OF SCRIPTURE / DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS

IX. CHRISTMAS

X. CHRISTOLOGY / HOLY TRINITY / GOD THE FATHER

XI. CHURCH / ECCLESIOLOGY / APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

XII. CONTRACEPTION

XIII. DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

XIV. ESCHATOLOGY / LAST THINGS

XV. EUCHARIST / TRANSUBSTANTIATION / SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

XVI. IMAGES, RELIGIOUS: USE AND VENERATION OF

XVII. LITURGY

XVIII. MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND ANNULMENTS

XIX. MARY, THE BLESSED VIRGIN

XX. PAPACY AND INFALLIBILITY

XXI. PURGATORY

XXII. SACRAMENTS AND SACRAMENTALISM

XXIII. SAINTS AND ANGELS: INVOCATION, INTERCESSION, AND VENERATION OF

XXIV. SALVATION / JUSTIFICATION / “FAITH ALONE” / SOTERIOLOGY

XXV. SCIENCE

19 Heresies & Comparative Religion

I. Jehovah’s Witnesses (Arianism)

II. Mormonism

III. Orthodox Trinitarianism

IV. General / Miscellaneous Non-Christian Heresies and “Cults”

V. Islam

VI. Eastern Religion and the Occult / Comparative Religion

20 Inquisition, Crusades, & “Catholic Scandals”

I. Inquisition, Crusades, and “Dark Ages”

II. The Sexual Scandal in the Catholic Church

III. Sinners in the Church

IV. Paganism, Slavery, & Other Real or Imagined Scandals (like Halloween)

V. The Galileo Controversy

VI. Pope Pius XII and the Nazi Holocaust / Persecution of Jews / Anti-Semitism

21 Jews, Judaism, and the Old Testament

I. DIALOGUES WITH JEWISH APOLOGIST MICHAEL J. ALTER ON JESUS’ RESURRECTION AND ALLEGED NEW TESTAMENT “CONTRADICTIONS”

II. THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

III. RELATIONSHIP OF OLD AND NEW COVENANTS / JEWS AND CHRISTIANS / DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE: JUDAISM TO CHRISTIANITY

IV. MY PILGRIMAGE TO ISRAEL (2014)

V. GENESIS

VI. ADAM AND EVE AND CAIN / GARDEN OF EDEN

VII. NOAH AND THE FLOOD

VIII. ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH (PATRIARCHS) / HEBREW BONDAGE IN EGYPT

IX. MOSES AND THE EXODUS

X. JOSHUA AND THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN / SAMSON / ERA OF THE JUDGES

XI. SAUL, DAVID, AND SOLOMON / KINGDOMS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL

XII. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND JOB

XIII. ANCIENT ISRAEL’S ENEMIES

XIV. THE PROPHETS

XV. OLD TESTAMENT: DOCTRINE OF GOD / YHWH

XVI. OLD TESTAMENT: GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

XVII. ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS

22 Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism

I. GENERAL / MISCELLANEOUS

II. MYSTERY AND REASON

III. FILIOQUE / HOLY TRINITY

IV. THE PAPACY

V. DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT

VI. CONTRACEPTION

VII. ORIGINAL SIN

VIII. BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

IX. PRIESTLY CELIBACY

X. HOLY EUCHARIST

XI. ECUMENISM / ECCLESIOLOGY

XII. THEOSIS

XIII. PURGATORY AND LIMBO

IV. Christian Worldview

23 Atheism, Agnosticism, & Secularism

I. GENERAL

II. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

III. THE “PROBLEM OF GOOD”

IV. AARON ADAIR

V. LIBBY ANNE

VI. “ANTHROTHEIST”

VII. “AXELBEINGCIVIL”

VIII. ED BABINSKI

IX. RICHARD CARRIER

X. NEIL CARTER

XI. STEVE CONIFER

XII. VEXEN CRABTREE

XIII. JON CURRY

XIV. “DAGOODS”

XV. RICHARD DAWKINS [THE GOD DELUSION]

XVI. TED DRANGE

XVII. BART EHRMAN

XVIII. “EPRONOVOST”

XIX. “ERIC”

XX. JD EVELAND

XXI. STEWART JAMES FELKER

XXII. “GRIMLOCK”

XXIII. “GUSBOVONA”

XXIV. “HELENINEDINBURGH”

XXV. ADAM LEE

XXVI. LEX LATA

XXVII. JOHN LOFTUS [DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY BLOG]

XXVIII. DR. DAVID MADISON

XXIX. JONATHAN M. S. PEARCE

XXX. “PROF MTH” (MITCH)

XXXI. WARD RICKER

XXXII. DR. JAN SCHREURS

XXXIII. BOB SEIDENSTICKER [CROSS EXAMINED BLOG]

XXXIV. SUSAN STRANDBERG

XXXV. EXTENSIVE COLLECTIONS OF SCHOLARLY LINKS DEALING WITH THE QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES OF ATHEISTS

XXXVI. CHRISTIANITY, ATHEISM, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY

XXXVII. ANTI-THEISM AND THE SUB-GROUP OF “ANGRY ATHEISTS”

XXXVIII. MIRACLES

XXXIX. COMMON GROUND / CONCILIATORY APPROACHES

XL. GOD (ATHEIST OBSESSION WITH THE SUPPOSEDLY NONEXISTENT)

XLI. ABORTION / ANIMAL RIGHTS

XLII. SEX, MARRIAGE, AND WOMEN

XLIII. SECULARISM AND SOCIETY

XLIV. “THE BUTCHER AND THE HOG”: THE ATHEIST APPROACH TO THE BIBLE

XLV. ATHEIST “DECONVERSIONS”

XLVI. FAMOUS ATHEISTS (REAL AND IMAGINED)

24 Christmas

I. MY 14 CHRISTMAS POEMS

II. CHRISTMAS CAROLS

III. MY CHRISTMAS CARDS AND FAMILY PHOTOS / OLD CHRISTMAS WEB PAGE

IV. CHRISTMAS CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS, AND HISTORY

V. MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES

VI. ST. NICHOLAS / SANTA CLAUS

VII. CHRISTMAS TREES

VIII. NATIVITY / BETHLEHEM AND NAZARETH / CENSUS IN JESUS’ TIME

IX. HEROD: DEATH AND TIME OF JESUS’ BIRTH / SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS / MISC.

X. VIRGIN BIRTH AND ISAIAH 7:14 / MARY’S KNOWLEDGE

XI. GENEALOGIES OF JESUS

XII. DECEMBER 25TH BIRTHDATE OF JESUS / SATURNALIA AND SOL INVICTUS

XIII. NATIVITY SCENES

XIV. ANTI-CHRISTMAS MENTALITY / “MAKING MERRY”

XV. STAR OF BETHLEHEM

XVI. THE WISE MEN (“MAGI”)

25 Ecumenism & Christian Unity

I. CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS

II. EASTERN CATHOLICISM

III. ANTI-PROTESTANTISM

IV. INTER-RELIGIOUS / INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE

V. SALVATION “OUTSIDE” THE CHURCH / RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

VI. JEWS AND JUDAISM

VII. ISLAM

VIII. ATHEISM AND CHRISTIAN RELATIONS

26 Liberal Theology & Modernism

I. General

II. Deconversions

III. Pope Francis: Liberal?

IV. Christological Heresy

V. Trashing or Questioning the Bible / Theologically Liberal or Skeptical Exegesis / Torah / Documentary Hypothesis

VI. Sexual Issues

VII. Implications for Ecclesiology?

VIII. Modernist Skeptical Historiography

27 Life Issues: Abortion, Contraception, War, Etc.

I. ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE: GENERAL

II. THE BIBLE AND ABORTION

III. ABORTION: THE TERMINOLOGY DEBATE

IV. ABORTION AND AMERICAN POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT

V. PRO-LIFERS WHO VOTE FOR PRO-ABORTIONISTS / “NEW [CENTER-LEFT] PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT”

VI. EUTHANASIA

VII. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

VIII. CONTRACEPTION AND NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING (NFP): ONAN

IX. CONTRACEPTION, PROCREATION, AND NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING (NFP): GENERAL

X. WAR AND PEACE (GENERAL)

XI. ISIS / IRAN / TERRORISM / MASSACRES / GUN CONTROL

XII. NUCLEAR ETHICS

28 Philosophy, Science & Christianity

Philosophy

I. GENERAL / EPISTEMOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

II. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL / SUFFERING

III. THE “PROBLEM OF GOOD”

IV. EDUCATION / HOMESCHOOLING

Theistic Arguments

V. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (BIG BANG, ETC.)

VI. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (DESIGN)

VII. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS

Science

IX. GALILEO

X. EARLY MODERN SCIENCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO RELIGION

XI. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE / SCIENTIFIC METHOD

XII. BIBLE, CHRISTIANITY, AND SCIENCE ISSUES

XIII. NOAH AND THE FLOOD

XIV. CLIMATE CHANGE / GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE

XV. THE KOOKY FUNDAMENTALIST REVIVAL OF GEOCENTRISM

XVI. MIRACLES

XVII. CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC

29 Political, Ethical, & Moral Issues

I. AMERICAN POLITICAL ISSUES: GENERAL

II. AMERICAN POLITICAL ISSUES: SPECIFIC ISSUES

III. BIBLICAL DATA ON HONORING POLITICAL LEADERS (KINGS, EMPERORS, AND BY EXTENSION, PRESIDENTS)

IV. 2016 AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

V. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS VOTERS AND SUPPORTERS

VI. THE FRAUDULENT 2020 ELECTION

VII. DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY ANTICS OF MARK SHEA

VIII. LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS / FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION / FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

IX. CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF AMERICA

X. SLAVERY AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR / WAR BETWEEN THE STATES

XI. CIVIL RIGHTS / RACE RELATIONS / PREJUDICE / BIGOTRY / DISCRIMINATION

XII. BLACK LIVES MATTER / ANTIFA / RIOTING IN AMERICAN CITIES / POLICE REFORM

XIII. CAPITALISM, DISTRIBUTISM, WEALTH, POVERTY, HOMELESSNESS, AND CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING

XIV. TERRORISM / MASSACRES / GUN CONTROL / CRIME ISSUES

XV. TORTURE” / INTERROGATION DISPUTE

XVI. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

XVII. VEGETARIANISM AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

XVIII. SUICIDE

XIX. DRUGS, ALCOHOL, SMOKING, GAMBLING, DANCING

XX. FREE SPEECH AND BIG TECH (FACEBOOK / TWITTER) CENSORSHIP ISSUES / “WOKE” / “CANCEL CULTURE”

XXI. “BAD” LANGUAGE / CUSSING / SWEARING / PROFANITY / OBSCENITY / GOSSIP AND SLANDER

XXII. MISCELLANEOUS MORAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES

XXIII. WORLD AFFAIRS / ISRAEL AND PALESTINIANS

XXIV. CORONAVIRUS / COVID PANDEMIC

XXV. CHILD TRAFFICKING AND SEX SLAVERY

30 Romantic and Imaginative Theology: Inklings of Heaven

Christian Fantasy, Folklore, Mythology, Imagination, and Romanticism

I. C. S. LEWIS / SEHNSUCHT / MY OWN ROMANTICISM

II. GENERAL

III. KING ARTHUR

The Inklings and Other Friends and Influences on C. S. Lewis

IV. GENERAL / VARIOUS

V. GEORGE MACDONALD

VI. J. R. R. TOLKIEN

VII. CHARLES WILLIAMS

VIII. OWEN BARFIELD

The Harry Potter Controversy

IX. PRO

X. CON

XI. BOTH SIDES / AMBIGUOUS OR UNCERTAIN OPINION / NEUTRAL

31 Sexuality, Gender, Feminism, & Divorce

I. SEXUALITY (GENERAL)

II. PREMARITAL / EXTRAMARITAL SEX / COHABITATION

III. RADICAL FEMINISM AND FEMALE “PRIESTS”

IV. DEACONESSES

V. MEN, WOMEN, MASCULINITY, FEMININITY, SEXISM, GENDER, MARRIAGE, FAMILY, PARENTING

VI. DIVORCE

VII. ANNULMENT

VIII. HOMOSEXUALITY: GENERAL

IX. HOMOSEXUALITY: DEBATES

X. HOMOSEXUALITY: TEACHING OF THE BIBLE

XI. HOMOSEXUALITY: HEALTH RISKS

XII. HOMOSEXUALITY: SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE”

XIII. TRANS IDEOLOGY / BATHROOM CONTROVERSIES

XIV. MASTURBATION

XV. CHILD TRAFFICKING AND SEX SLAVERY

V. Protestantism

32 Anti-Catholicism

I. JIM ANDERSON

II. VICTOR ANDRADE

III. DR. JOHN ANKERBERG AND DR. JOHN WELDON (BAPTIST)

IV. DR. GREG BAHNSEN

V. TODD BAKER

VI. LUCAS BANZOLI

VII. CHRIS BAYACK

VIII. RICHARD BENNETT

IX. BIBLE AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

X. GABRIEL BRASILEIRO

XI. BART BREWER

XII. JOHN BUGAY

XIII. KEVIN CAULEY (CHURCH OF CHRIST)

XIV. CHAT ROOM DEBATE CHALLENGE

XV. JACK CHICK

XVI. JASON ENGWER

XVII. “EXCATHOLIC4CHRIST” (TOM)

XVIII. FOXE’S BOOK OF MARTYRS

XIX. DR. ROBERT GAGNON

XX. PEDRO FRANCA GAIAO

XXI. STEVE HAYS (REFORMED)

XXII. MATT HEDGES

XXIII. TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN

XXIV. DAVID T. KING

XXV. BRUNO LIMA

XXVI. LEN LISENBEE

XXVII. LUTHERANISM

XXVIII. DOUGLAS MABRY (aka “GOJIRA”)

XXIX. DR. JOHN MACARTHUR

XXX. YAGO MARTINS

XXXI. JAMES McCARTHY

XXXII. JUAN ROBERTO DE OLIVEIRA

XXXIII. ORTHODOX ANTI-CATHOLICISM

XXXIV. POPE AS “GOD” OR “ANTICHRIST”

XXXV. AUSTIN REED

XXXVI. “SAINT AND SINNER”

XXXVII. GEORGE SALMON (19TH CENTURY ANGLICAN)

XXXVIII. MATT SLICK (PRESBYTERIAN; FOUNDER OF CARM)

XXXIX. DR. ERIC SVENDSEN

XL. JAMES SWAN (REFORMED)

XLI. KEN TEMPLE (REFORMED BAPTIST)

XLII. EDGAR TREVIÑO

XLIII. FRANK TURK (AKA “CENTURION”) (BAPTIST)

XLIV. FRANCOIS TURRETIN (1623-1687)

XLV. “TURRETINFAN” (AKA “THE ANONYMOUS ONE” OR “TAO”) (REFORMED)

XLVI. JERRY WALLS (+ KENNETH COLLINS)

XLVII. WILLIAM WEBSTER

XLVIII. WILLIAM WHITAKER

XLIX. BISHOP JAMES WHITE (REFORMED BAPTIST)

L. MIKE WINGER

LI. CATHOLIC INQUISITION

LII. MISCELLANEOUS REFUTATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS

LIII. “ANTI-CATHOLIC” / “ROMANISM”: DEFINITIONAL AND TERMINOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES

LIV. IDOLATRY CHARGE (THE MASS, IMAGES, AND MISC.)

LV. IDOLATRY CHARGE (MARIAN VENERATION)

33 John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal

I. CALVIN’S VIEW OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HEADED BY THE POPE (AND OF LUTHERANISM) / ECCLESIOLOGY

II. SECTARIANISM, CALVINISTS OF HIS DAY, TRADITION, RULE OF FAITH, AND SOLA SCRIPTURA

III. PREDESTINATION / SUPRALAPSARIANISM / SOVEREIGNTY / ELECT / PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS / TOTAL DEPRAVITY

IV. SOTERIOLOGY / SALVATION / GRACE / FAITH AND WORKS / SIN

V. SACRAMENTS (ESP. BAPTISM AND THE EUCHARIST) AND SACRAMENTALS

VI. MARIOLOGY

VII. CHRISTOLOGY

VIII. DEUTEROCANON

IX. SCIENCE

X. INTOLERANCE, PERSECUTION, AND DOUBLE STANDARDS

XI. CALVIN VS. THE CHURCH FATHERS

XII. CELIBACY

XIII. CONTRACEPTION

XIV. ICONOCLASM, ART, AND MUSIC

XV. COMMUNION OF THE SAINTS / INTERCESSION OF SAINTS / PENANCE / ABSTINENCE / LENT

XVI. PURGATORY AND PRAYER FOR THE DEAD

XVII. ORDINATION / PRIESTS / MONKS AND NUNS / MONASTICISM

XVIII. MIRACLES / EXORCISM

XIX. FALSE ACCUSATIONS

XX. MISCELLANEOUS

34 Calvinism & General Protestantism: Catholic Critique

Calvinism

I. REPLIES TO REFORMED BAPTIST GAVIN ORTLUND

II. REPLIES TO STEVE HAYS

III. CALVINISM AND ST. AUGUSTINE

IV. SACRAMENTS: ESPECIALLY BAPTISM AND THE EUCHARIST

V. PREDESTINATION, SUPRALAPSARIANISM, SOVEREIGNTY, JUDGMENT, UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

VI. “TULIP”: TOTAL DEPRAVITY / LIMITED ATONEMENT / IRRESISTIBLE GRACE / PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

VII. REPLIES TO FRANCOIS TURRETIN (1623-1687)

VIII. ZWINGLI AND OTHER CALVINISTIC “REFORMERS” / MARIOLOGY IN PARTICULAR

IX. ECUMENISM

X. ICONOCLASM AND INTOLERANCE

XI. APOLOGETIC METHOD (PRESUPPOSITIONALISM)

XII. GENERAL / MISCELLANEOUS

Protestantism (General)

XIII. THE PROTESTANT WORLDVIEW AND THE SO-CALLED “PROTESTANT REFORMATION” SCRUTINIZED

XIV. THE PROTESTANT “QUEST FOR UNCERTAINTY” / THE SO-CALLED CATHOLIC “PROBLEM” OF THE “INFALLIBILITY REGRESS”

XV. PROTESTANTISM: LOGICALLY SELF-DEFEATING / REDUCTION TO SELF-CONTRADICTION

XVI. DENOMINATIONALISM AND SECTARIANISM

XVII. CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS

XVIII. ANGLICANISM

XIX. JOHN WESLEY

XX. C. S. LEWIS

35 Martin Luther: a Catholic Critique & Appraisal

I. WHY LUTHER SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH / CAUSES OF THE PROTESTANT REVOLT (aka “REFORMATION”)

II. LUTHER’S VIEWS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HEADED BY THE POPE, TRADITION, AND THE CHURCH FATHERS

III. LUTHER’S ARBITRARY CLAIMS TO ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY / ECCLESIOLOGY

IV. LUTHER’S DISGUST AND AGONY OVER PROTESTANT SECTARIANISM AND MORAL LAXITY

V. ERASMUS-LUTHER CONTROVERSY (REASON VS. RELENTLESS RHETORIC AND INSULTS)

VI. SOTERIOLOGY (THEOLOGY OF SALVATION, JUSTIFICATION, & SANCTIFICATION) / SOLA FIDE

VII. CHRISTOLOGY

VIII. BAPTISM AND OTHER SACRAMENTS

IX. THE EUCHARIST

X. PURGATORY, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, AND THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS

XI. SOLA SCRIPTURA , THE BIBLE, AND THE RULE OF FAITH

XII. THE BIBLICAL CANON / DEUTEROCANON / “APOCRYPHA”

XIII. LUTHER AND THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

XIV. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT / TOLERATION ISSUES AND THE PEASANTS’ REVOLT

XV. LUTHER’S COARSE AND “VIOLENT” LANGUAGE AND SANCTION OF VULGAR ART

XVI. LUTHER ON MARRIAGE, POLYGAMY, CONCUBINAGE, BIGAMY, CELIBACY, SEXUALITY, AND WOMEN

XVII. LUTHER’S CLINICAL DEPRESSION AND NEUROSES (?)

XVIII. SUPERSTITIONS, SILLINESS, AND SCIENCE

XIX. MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL

XX. DEFENSES OF MARTIN LUTHER AGAINST “ANTI-LUTHER” BUM RAPS

XXI. AGREEMENTS WITH, AND COMMENDATIONS OF LUTHER / FAIRLY NEUTRAL STANCE TOWARDS HIM

XXII. CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING MY LUTHER RESEARCH

XXIII. MARTIN LUTHER: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY WORKS AND BIOGRAPHIES ONLINE

36 Lutheranism: Catholic Critique

I. REPLIES TO LUTHERAN THEOLOGIAN / APOLOGIST JORDAN COOPER

II. REPLIES TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON’S LOCI COMMUNES

III. PHILIP MELANCHTHON (1497-1560)

IV. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION (1530) & CATHOLIC REPLIES (THEN AND NOW)

V. REPLIES TO JOHANN HULSEMANN (1602-1661)

VI. LUTHERANISM AND THE FATHERS

VII. SOTERIOLOGY (SALVATION, JUSTIFICATION, & SANCTIFICATION) / “FAITH ALONE”

VIII. LUTHERANISM AND MARY

IX. THE DEATH PENALTY FOR HERETICS / THEFT OF CATHOLIC CHURCH PROPERTY

X. ECCLESIOLOGY / THE “REFORMATION” / RULE OF FAITH / SECTARIANISM

XI. THE EUCHARIST, SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, AND THE SACRAMENTS

XII. COMMUNION OF SAINTS / INVOCATION AND INTERCESSION OF THE SAINTS

XIII. GENERAL / MISCELLANEOUS

XIV. EARLY LUTHERAN “ECUMENISM” AND TOLERANCE (?)

XV. PRAYER AND PENANCE FOR THE DEAD / PURGATORY / HADES

37 Protestantism: Historic Persecution & Intolerance

I. INTRODUCTORY / OVERVIEW

II. CATHOLIC MARTYRS OF THE ENGLISH “REFORMATION”

III. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ON THE CONTINENT) FOR HAVING DIFFERENT BELIEFS

IV. PLUNDERING AND THEFT OF CATHOLIC CHURCH PROPERTIES

V. OPPOSITION TO CO-EXISTENCE WITH CATHOLICS AND THE MASS (“ANTI-ECUMENISM”)

VI. ANTI-CATHOLIC PENAL LAWS

VII. ICONOCLASM (DESTRUCTION OF ART AS “IDOLATRY”) / EDUCATION

VIII. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE AND PERSECUTIONS

IX. GERMAN PEASANTS’ REVOLT (1524-1525)

38 Bishop “Dr.” [?] James White: Anti-Catholic Extraordinaire

I. BASIC ISSUES / ANTI-CATHOLICISM / THE GREAT DEBATE

II. BIBLE AND TRADITION / SOLA SCRIPTURA / RULE OF FAITH / CRITIQUE OF MY BOOK, THE CATHOLIC VERSES

III. CHRISTOLOGY

IV. DEBATE CHALLENGES (WHITE’S PERSISTENT REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN WRITTEN OR “LIVE CHAT” DEBATE)

V. EUCHARIST / SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

VI. THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

VII. THE PAPACY / COUNCIL OF NICAEA / ECCLESIOLOGY / DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

VIII. PURGATORY AND TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT / PENANCE

IX. APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGY / PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

X. SOTERIOLOGY / SALVATION / TULIP / JUSTIFICATION / FAITH AND WORKS

XI. CRITIQUE OF MY BOOK, THE ONE-MINUTE APOLOGIST

XII. COMMUNION OF SAINTS / INVOCATION OF SAINTS

XIII. FAKE “DOCTORATE” / TEACHING CREDENTIALS

XIV. INSULTS AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS

XV. ANALYSES OF CONVERSION TO CATHOLICISM

XVI. MISCELLANEOUS

XVII. BAPTISM AND SACRAMENTALISM

VI. Miscellaneous

39 Apologética católica: Traducciones al español / tradução para português (Aussi, traductions en français)[Catholic Apologetics from Dave Armstrong: Spanish, Portugese, and French Translations of my articles and books]

40 My “Number Articles” (“150 Biblical . . .” Etc.)

Examples:

St. Peter & the Papal Office: 130 One-Sentence Proofs [10-31-25]

Eternal Hell: 125 Biblical Evidences [12-2-24]

The Holy Spirit is a Person: 125 Bible Passages [12-26-24]

St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs [10-22-25]

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields [8-20-10]

Purgatory: 110 Related Biblical Themes [10-31-24]

Minor Prophets: Their Theology of Salvation [107 passages] [8-2-23]

41 My Videos Page (Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis)

42 My Radio & Webcast Interviews (Free Audio Files)

***

Summary: Complete listing of 42 individual web pages & 600 sub-topics on Dave Armstrong’s blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: a well-known site that’s been online since Feb. 1997.

Catholic Apologetics

Personal Page

biblical evidence for Catholicism

Catholic Apologetics

Catholic apologetics blogs

Dave Armstrong's blog

Dave Armstrong's online writings

Dave Armstrong's website

2025-03-20T10:37:32-04:00

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.

Worshiping God Through Images (vs. Anglican Stearns #4)

Last updated on: March 20, 2025 at 10:37 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Including the Biblical Case for Icons

Photo credit: The Ark and the Mercy Seat, illustration in Treasures of the Bible by Henry Davenport Northrop, published by International Publishing Company, 1894 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Edward Josiah Stearns (1810-1890) was an Episcopal clergyman from Maryland and author of several books. His volume, The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1879), was a reply to The Faith of Our Fathers (1876), by James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921), one of the best and most well-known Catholic apologetics works, with an emphasis on scriptural arguments and replies to Protestant critiques of Catholicism. It had sold over 1.4 million copies by the time of its 83rd edition in 1917 and was the most popular book in the United States until Gone With the Wind was published in 1939. This volume highly influenced my own development as a soon-to-be Catholic apologist in the early 1990s: especially with regard to my usual modus operandi of focusing on “biblical evidence” for Catholicism.

The words of Rev. Stearns will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

***

It is noteworthy that the Archbishop does not cite a single passage of Scripture in proof of image-worship. (p. 213)

He’s clearly asserting that there is no such passage. I can think of at least three:

Exodus 33:9-10 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door. [worship of God through a cloud]

2 Chronicles 7:3-4 When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD. [worship of God through fire]

1 Chronicles 16:4 Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel.

One might retort that the ark of the covenant didn’t represent God, so how could this passage refer to image-worship? It’s because God was present above the ark in a visible cloud between the carved cherubim on its lid: what was called the “mercy seat”:

Leviticus 16:2 and the LORD said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the mercy seat which is upon the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

Numbers 16:42 (“the cloud covered it, and the glory of the LORD appeared“) and Deuteronomy 31:15 (“And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud“), prove, in their use of “appear” in relation to a cloud that this is also the case in Leviticus 16:2. God doesn’t just say that He will be “present”, but that He will “appear” in this cloud. Therefore, it’s a third instance of God being worshiped through an image.

1 Samuel 4:4 . . . the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim . . .

Exodus 25:22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony . . . (cf. 30:6)

Numbers 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him

The burning bush proves that God Himself was there in the bush that Moses saw. In other words, worshiping it was the same as worshiping God (which is the fundamental idea involved in icons, though they are venerated — not worshiped or adored — when creatures are involved):

Exodus 3:4-6 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here am I.” [5] Then he said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” [6] And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

The same idea is reiterated in references to “face to face” and the pillars:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire . . .

Exodus 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. . . .

Numbers 12:5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. (cf. Ps 99:7)

Numbers 14:14 . . . thou, O LORD, art seen face to face, and thy cloud stands over them and thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. (cf. Neh 9:12)

Deuteronomy 5:4 The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,

Deuteronomy 31:15 And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud . . .

Deuteronomy 34:10 And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Sirach 24:4 I dwelt in high places, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.

Rev. Stearns cites — in disagreement — Catholics explaining these teachings:

St. Thomas Aquinas . . . says, “The same reverence is to be given unto the image of Christ and to Christ himself: and by consequence, seeing Christ is adored with the adoration of latria (the highest kind of worship), his image is to be adored with the adoration of latria also,” . . . — Summ. part 3, q. 25, art. 3. And Azorius says, ”It is the constant judgment of theologians that the image is to be honored and worshipped with the same honor and worship wherewith that is worshipped whereof it is an image.” . . . Jo. Azor. Institut. Moral,, t. i. 1. 9, c. 6 . . .

Such is the image-worship taught and practised in the Roman Church. (p. 206)

Image-worship is a superstition of the heart, not of the head; hence its danger. (p. 211)

I have just provided the biblical rationale: none of which Rev. Stearns seems to be familiar with. Live and learn . . . As usual, the Protestant contra-Catholic argument is insufficiently biblical to an alarming extent.

I didn’t even get in to highly related topics such as the fascinating biblical data regarding the angel of the Lord and theophanies or christophanies.

*
***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Summary: Anglican apologist Edward Josiah Stearns claimed that image-worship of God is unbiblical. I produce three biblical passages / passage-clusters that prove otherwise.

Saints & Purgatory & Penance

Edward Josiah Stearns

iconoclasm

icons

James Cardinal Gibbons

religious images

worshiping God through images

2026-10-23T20:56:16-04:00

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.

My “Number Articles” (“150 Biblical . . .” Etc.)

Last updated on: October 23, 2026 at 8:56 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: cover of my 2013 book.

See also, My “Number Articles”: Alphabetized by Topic [12-12-25]

*****

Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths [over 2,000 biblical passages] [book, August 2009]

Catholic Salvation: 2043 Bible Passages [12-27-24; expanded on 11-17-25]

Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics [book: October 2013]

601+ Bible Passages Disprove Sola Scriptura (Featuring an Emphasis on the Scriptural Data Regarding the Strong Influence of Jewish Tradition in Early Christianity) [1-6-25]

Faith Alone: The “Theological Novum”: Disproofs from 525 Bible Passages & 30 Church Fathers [book, May 2026]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [380 passages] [1-21-10]

Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” [book, Oct. 2010; featuring 379 biblical passages]

350 Bible Passages vs. Sola Scriptura [4-11-26]

Jesus is God: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (300 Biblical Proofs + Many Additional Related Cross-References) (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012 and 11-26-24]

150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) a Catholic (Featuring 300 Biblical Evidences Favoring Catholicism) [1992; revised 9-28-05]

Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]

Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter (4 Parts) [5-30-22]

Banzoli’s 45 “Faith Alone” Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs [6-16-22]

Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved [book: June 2023]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (8 Parts) [4-11-22]

Unregenerate Good Works in the Old Testament . . . Over Against the Calvinist Notion of Total Depravity [175 passages] [2-2-26]

Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 120 NT & 30 OT Proofs [from 26 out of the 27 NT Books] [8-26-24; revised and expanded on 1-18-26]

Falling Away (Apostasy): 150 Biblical Passages (+ Catalogue of Sixty Traits That Apostates Formerly Possessed When They Were in God’s Good Graces) [11-19-24]

Transformation of Believers in the NT: 150 Passages (Regeneration is Only the Beginning . . .) [12-16-24]

St. Augustine: Thoroughly Catholic: 135 Proofs [8-30-12]

Christmas Carols and Songs: An Alphabetical, Chronological, and Geographical Catalogue [135 carols] [December 2005]

St. Peter & the Papal Office: 130 One-Sentence Proofs [10-31-25]

Eternal Hell: 125 Biblical Evidences [12-2-24]

The Holy Spirit is a Person: 125 Bible Passages [12-26-24]

St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs [10-22-25]

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields [8-20-10]

Purgatory: 110 Related Biblical Themes [10-31-24]

Minor Prophets: Their Theology of Salvation [107 passages] [8-2-23]

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura [book: Nov. 2011]

Invocation of Dead Saints: 100 Biblical Arguments [5-20-26]

Doctrinal Development: 80 Bible Passages [12-10-24]

Salvation Caused by Actions: 80 Bible Passages (. . . Proving That “Faith Alone” is a False Doctrine) [10-5-24]

Faith Alone? 80 Bible Verses Say Otherwise [National Catholic Register, 10-31-24]

Exegesis of 75 NT Faith [Alone?] & Works Passages . . . With an Emphasis on Immediate Context [8-27-26]

Salvation as a Process: 75 NT Passages [11-16-24]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [72 passages] [2013]

NT: 70 Specific Good Works Contribute to Salvation [3-6-26]

Venerating Mary with Heart & Soul, Etc.: Bible Analogies [70 Passages] [3-16-26]

67 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References in the Gospels [7-13-05]

Characteristics of Saints in Heaven (65 Passages) [11-3-25]

60 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References (Philippians to Revelation) [8-10-05]

Refutation of Atheist Paul Carlson’s 51 Bible “Contradictions” [4-6-21]

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

Meritorious Works: 50 Biblical Proofs [10-4-24]

Jesus Had No Siblings: 50 Biblical Arguments [7-1-25]

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

50 New Testament Proofs for Peter’s Primacy & the Papacy [1994]

Reply to Critique of “50 NT Proofs for the Papacy” [3-14-02]

50 Biblical Indications of Petrine Primacy and the Papacy [National Catholic Register, 11-20-16]

Jason Engwer, Trent Horn, & My 50 NT Petrine Proofs [7-28-22]

Jerusalem Council & Ecclesial Infallibility: 50 Proofs [12-12-25]

Honoring Jesus Thru Mary: 50 Biblical Reasons [4-21-15]

50 Biblical Reasons to Honor Jesus Through Mary [National Catholic Register, 7-24-19]

50 Bible Passages on Purgatory & Analogous Processes [2009]

50 Biblical Indications That Purgatory is Real [National Catholic Register, 10-24-16]

50 OT Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus [initial research from 1982; slightly revised in 1997; revised and reformatted for RSV edition in 2012; separated from the larger article on 11-26-24]

50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated) [3-29-06]

50 Reasons Why Martin Luther Was Excommunicated [National Catholic Register, 11-23-16]

50 “Catholic” John Calvin Views [3-18-10]

50 Biblical Proofs That Jesus is God [National Catholic Register, 2-12-17]

50 Biblical Evidences for the Holy Trinity [National Catholic Register, 11-14-16]

Moses Wrote the Torah: 50 External Evidences [12-14-22]

Evangelist Luke & Archaeology & History (50 Separate Extrabiblical Verifications of Luke’s Historical Accuracy) [2-4-22]

Reply to Seidensticker’s 50 “2-Minute” Anti-Christian Arguments [12-15-22]

God’s “Valentine”: His Love, Mercy, & Compassion [50 passages] [2-13-11]

50 Unanswerable NT Passages Against “Faith Alone” [2-21-26]

Defense of 50 Bible Passages Against “Faith Alone” (+ Part II) [2-24-26]

Inspired Prophets: An Analogy to Infallible Popes [50 passages] [3-27-26]

50 Biblical Disproofs of “Evident Clearness” of the Bible: One of the Key Tenets of Sola Scriptura, and the Protestant Rule of Faith [7-16-26]

Isaiah’s Catholic & UnProtestant Soteriology [45 passages] [8-1-23]

Jeremiah’s Catholic & Very UnProtestant Soteriology [44 passages] [7-31-23]

44 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References (Acts to Ephesians) [7-27-05]

Bible on the Power of Prayers of the Righteous [42 passages] [11-16-22]

“Blameless” & “Pure” in the Bible (Sinless?): 40 Passages [12-12-24]

“Do” in the NT vs. “Faith Alone” (40 Passages) [11-16-25]

Early Protestant Leaders Damning Each Other: 40 Examples [12-17-25]

Apostolic Succession: 40 Biblical Arguments [5-25-26]

Gospel: Defined by the Earliest Christian Preaching [35 passages] [January 1988; rev. 7-8-02]

Bible vs. Double Predestination (No Reprobate Parallels) [35 passages] [4-22-10]

Works & Sanctification Partly Cause Salvation: 34 Passages [1-30-25]

Salvation is a Process & Not Instantaneously Assured [33 passages] [2009]

33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD [8-5-10]

Limited Atonement Biblical Arguments Refuted (33 NT Passages Against Limited Atonement and in Favor of Universal Atonement) [11-21-24]

Bible On Mortal & Venial Sin (vs. Anglican Stearns #5) [31 passages] [3-20-25]

Church Fathers vs. “Faith Alone”: Handy Capsule Proofs [30 Church Fathers] [4-9-24]

“Faith Alone” Disproven by 30 Church Fathers [4-24-25]

Apostolic Tradition: 28 Passages in Paul’s Epistles (Including Incisive Commentary from the Anglican Tractarian John Keble: 1792-1866) [1-29-25]

Pearce’s Potshots #11: 28 Defenses of Jesus’ Nativity (Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great) [1-9-21]

The Deuterocanon: 27-Point Catholic Summary [3-19-02]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [26 passages] [8-31-19]

25 Bible Passages on Purgatory [1996]

25 Descriptive and Clear Bible Passages About Purgatory [National Catholic Register, 5-7-17]

The “Catholic-Sounding” Luther: 25 Examples [6-16-08]

25 Arguments Regarding Binding Church Authority [1-13-09]

25 Brief Arguments for Binding Catholic Tradition [2009]

25 Brief Arguments Regarding Biblical “Clearness” [2009]

25 Brief Arguments on the Biblical Canon & Protestantism [2009]

OT & Archaeology: 25 Fascinating Confirmations [9-21-21]

Pearce Pablum #72: Flood: 25 Criticisms & Non Sequiturs [3-8-22]

The Sacrifice of the Mass in Hebrews & Revelation [25 passages] [3-6-25]

God’s Presence, the Ark, the Eucharist, & Death [25 Passages] [2-27-26]

Salvation by Grace Alone: 25 Passages, Contra Works-Salvation, or Pelagianism, or Semi-Pelagianism [4-30-26]

Eternal Hell: Biblical? 25 Verses Say So [9-18-26]

24 Biblical Passages on Meritorious Works [National Catholic Register, 9-30-24]

23 Catholic Medieval Proto-Scientists: 12th-13th Centuries [2010]

22 Reminders That St. Augustine Was 100% Catholic [National Catholic Register, 4-23-20]

Salvation and Justification in the Gospels and Acts [21 passages] [1996]

Invocation of Saints: 20 Biblical Proofs [1-15-24]

Top 20 Biblical Proofs of the Papacy [12-12-15]

Top 20 Biblical Evidences for the Primacy of St. Peter [National Catholic Register, 1-8-18]

Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli) (two parts) [2-13-23]

Star of Bethlehem & Magi: 20 Fascinating Aspects [1-22-21]

Eucharistic Real Presence & François Turretin (Calvinist Hyper-Rationalism vs. the Biblical Teaching of Twenty Kinds of God’s Presence) [5-23-25]

Venerating Men & Angels: Worship? 20 Bible Passages [4-4-26]

Worshiping God Through Images: Seven Bible Proofs [20 Bible Passages] [6-12-26]

Can You Be Saved by Faith Alone? 20 Verses Say No. [8-21-26]

St. Paul’s Use of the Term “Gift” & Infused Justification [19 passages] [2013]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [19 passages] [2013]

Unconditional Reprobation: Calvinist Biblical Prooftexts [19 passages] [1-26-26]

Gospel of John & Archaeology & History (17 Extrabiblical Verifications of the Gospel of John’s Historical Accuracy) [2-8-22]

Worshiping God Through Images (vs. Anglican Stearns #4): Including the Biblical Case for Icons [17 passages] [3-20-25]

17 Church Fathers on Purgatory (Esp. 1 Cor 3:10-15) [8-11-26]

16 Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-23-24]

Should We Forgive Charlie Kirk’s Murderer? (15 Biblical Passages on Forgiveness & Willingness to Forgive / Also, Biblical Teaching on Civil Justice) [9-24-25]

15 Theistic Arguments (Copious Resources) [11-3-15]

15 Times Martin Luther Sounded Surprisingly Catholic When Talking About Suffering [National Catholic Register, 2-25-21]

Top 15 “Catholic” Beliefs of John Calvin [8-22-15]

Defending John Calvin’s “Top 15 ‘Catholic’ Beliefs” [9-2-15]

John Calvin’s 15 Surprisingly Catholic Views [National Catholic Register, 10-10-17]

15 “Roman Catholic” Views of C. S. Lewis [5-20-25]

15 Archaeological Proofs of Old Testament Accuracy (National Catholic Register, short summary points from my book, The Word Set in Stone) [3-23-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of New Testament Accuracy (National Catholic Register, short summary points from my book, The Word Set in Stone) [3-30-23]

Perfectly Keeping the Law: 15 Bible Passages [12-12-24]

Salvation as a Process: Top 15 Bible Passages [1-6-26]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [15 passages] [8-30-23]

Biblically Permissible Contact Between Heaven & Earth: Fifteen Examples [2-27-26]

Salvation by Grace Alone: Fifteen Bible Proofs [6-6-26]

Biblical Evidence: Personal Relationship with Jesus [14 passages] [2013; expanded on 1-18-19]

14 More Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-30-24]

14 Bible Verses That Show We’re Saved Through Baptism [National Catholic Register, 11-30-21]

14 Proofs That St. Athanasius Was 100% Catholic [National Catholic Register, 6-4-20]

“The Harvest is Ready”: 14 Tips for Catholic Evangelism [National Catholic Register, 7-12-17]

Star of Bethlehem & Wise Men: 14 Fascinating Considerations [Catholic365, 12-11-23]
*

13 Church Fathers Defend the Catholic Teaching on Baptism [National Catholic Register, 8-26-24]

Martin Luther’s Excommunication: 13 (of 50) Reasons [4-7-26]
*

Biblical “Power”: Proof of Infused (Catholic) Justification [12 passages] [3-14-11]

12 Alleged Resurrection “Contradictions” That Aren’t Really Contradictions [National Catholic Register, 4-7-21]

Filioque & Twelve Eastern Church Fathers [10-23-26]

11 More Resurrection “Contradictions” That Aren’t Really Contradictions [National Catholic Register, 5-8-21]

Veneration in the Bible (“Roman Creature-Worship”?) [11 passages] [4-1-25]
*

11 Protestant Objections to Papal Authority Debunked [7-17-26]

Ten New Testament Archaeological Confirmations [5-11-23]

Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked [OSV pamphlet, July 2002]

James White’s Top Ten Questions for “Romanist” Converts Answered [9-4-07]

Top Ten Remarkable “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [1-19-15]

10 Remarkably “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [National Catholic Register, 10-6-17]

Martin Luther’s Ten Important “Catholic” Views [2-2-25]

John Calvin’s Ten Striking “Catholic” Views [2-11-25]

Critique of Ten Exaggerated Claims of the “Reformation” [10-31-17]

Archaeology & Ten (More) Kings of Judah & Israel [4-20-23]

Ten Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura: Reply to anti-Catholic Protestant apologist Jason Engwer’s Catholic But Not Roman Catholic Series on the Church Fathers [8-1-03]

Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura [10-10-03]

10-Point Biblical Refutation of Sola Scriptura [National Catholic Register, 12-11-16]

Nutshell Biblical Intercession of the Saints & Angels [10 Points] [2-3-24]

“New” Mass: Ten Proofs of its Early Origins [9-23-25]

Perfectly Keeping the Law: Top Ten Bible Proofs [1-6-26]

Degrees of Grace in the Bible (vs. Jordan Cooper) [10 passages] [1-9-26]

Top Ten Explicit Biblical Proofs for Indulgences [1-9-26]

Eternal Hell: Ten Undeniable Bible Proofs [1-14-26]

Justification by Faith: Ten Bible Proofs [1-15-26]

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: Ten Biblical Evidences [1-19-26]

Ten Purgatory Proofs: “Fiery Cleansing” in the Bible [1-23-26]

Saved by Love (vs. Faith Alone): Ten Bible Proofs [1-27-26]

Ten Terrifying, Shocking, “Un-Protestant” Bible Passages [vs. Faith Alone] [2-16-26]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Ten Biblical Arguments [3-17-26]

Luther: Extreme “Faith Alone” Antinomian? [Ten Disproofs] [4-7-26]

Was Peter “Any Old” Apostle? 10 Anti-Papal Arguments [9-11-26]

Top Ten Anti-Catholic Lies About Catholicism (+ Part 2 / Part 3) [10-16-26]

9 More Church Fathers Explain the Catholic Belief About Baptism [National Catholic Register, 8-30-24]

9 Ways Jesus Tells Us He is God in the Synoptic Gospels [National Catholic Register, 10-28-20]

Svendsen’s Dissertation on Mary: 2. “Brothers” of Jesus (Including a Handy, Nine-Point Summary of Solid Exegetical Arguments for the “Cousins” Theory of Jesus’ “Brothers”) [2-2-23]

Patristic Eucharistic Doctrine: Nine Protestant Scholars [12-1-96]

Did St. Augustine Accept All Seven Sacraments? [National Catholic Register, 11-15-17]

St. Augustine Accepted All Seven Catholic Sacraments [9-25-10]

7 Takes on Satan’s Persecutions and the Balanced Christian Life [National Catholic Register, 11-24-18]

Calvinist Irresistible Grace: Biblical? [7 passages] [2013]

Papal Participation in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils [4-22-09]

Seven Replies Re Interceding Saints (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [5-25-22]

Veneration of Human Beings: Seven Biblical Examples (Apostles Paul and Silas, Kings David and Saul, Prophets Daniel and Samuel, Patriarch Joseph) [3-4-19]

Worshiping God Through Images: Seven Bible Proofs [6-13-26]

Prayers to Saints & for the Dead: Six Biblical Proofs [6-8-18]

My First Six Christmas Poems [1996-2003]

What is the Gospel? Catholic-Protestant Agreement [6 passages] [12-3-96 and 1-4-97]

Jesus Proved He Was God in Six Ways in Matthew [6-6-26]

5 Replies to Questions About Catholic (and Biblical) Prayer [National Catholic Register, 11-30-22]

CARM Forum Wrong About Biblical Prayer to Creatures (Five Biblical Examples Provided) [11-21-24]

Archaeology Confirms Dates of Five Biblical Battles: Battles at Beth She’an (c. 926 BC), Beth Shemesh (c. 790 BC), Bethsaida & Kinneret (732 BC), and Lachish (701 BC) [2-6-23]

4 Biblical Proofs for Prayers to Saints and for the Dead [National Catholic Register, 6-16-18]

The Three Most UnProtestant Bible Verses [6-13-26]

*****

See also, My “Number Articles”: Alphabetized by Topic [12-12-25]

*****

*
***
*

***

Photo credit: cover of my 2013 book (self-published) [see book and purchase information].

Summary: Compilation of my articles that feature a large number of arguments (e.g., “Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 120 NT & 30 OT Proofs”), including a few books and one bestselling pamphlet.

Updated on 23 October 2026

Catholic Apologetics

Personal Page

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

articles by Dave Armstrong

Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 100 Proofs

Catholic Apologetics

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong

Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics

2024-09-17T23:46:38-04:00

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.

Jesus Rebuked Mary at Cana? (vs. Dr. Robert Gagnon)

Last updated on: September 17, 2024 at 11:46 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: Saint Raphael Catholic Church (Springfield, Ohio) – stained glass, Wedding at Cana – detail (Nheyob: 11-22-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon (see his Facebook page; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Christian University and Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, magna cum laude, from Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Gagnon grew up Catholic, and he wrote on 8-17-24:

I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.

After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”

His words will be in blue. His article is cited in its entirety. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

I’m responding to a public post on his Facebook page, dated 8-17-24.

Another text that Catholics and Orthodox persons cite to elevate Mary in Scripture is the wedding in Cana in John 2:1-11. Yet they don’t realize that in this passage Jesus rebukes his mother.
*

The argument is that Mary “becomes the only person ever to tell Jesus what to do and he (somewhat grudgingly) does it” (as a respected Catholic FB friend put it). Actually, many people requested healings from Jesus with polite imperatives. Mary merely hinted to Jesus that something should be done about the depletion of wine: “They do not have wine” (v. 3).

*
Jesus then responds with a curt “What to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come” (v. 4). There are 3 parts to this response, the question (“What to me and to you?”), the address of his mother (“woman”), and the disclaiming assertion. We will now look at each element in turn.

*
First, the question “What to me and to you?” (Gk. ti emoi kai soi) is a Semitic idiom (Heb. mah-lî ve-lak) found in the OT in Judg 11:12; 2 Sam 16:10; 19:22; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chron 35:21. In the NT the phrase appears elsewhere as a word by demoniacs to Jesus (Mark 1:24; 5:7). Minimally the phrase refers to a complete disjunction of interests. Mostly the phrase is used in situations of opposition and hostility as an adversarial formula. One can paraphrase as: “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?”

*
The phrase functions in John 2:4 as the Johannine equivalent of the rebuke uttered by Jesus in Mark’s Gospel to Simon (Peter) for expressing opposition to his divine fate to suffer and die for the sins of the world: “Get behind me, Satan (adversary)!”
*

Second, Jesus follows this adversarial formula with the distancing address of “woman” rather than “mother.” This address is reminiscent of the Jesus saying in Mark 3:33-35, where Jesus responds to his mother and brothers coming to “restrain him” as a result of hearing that Jesus was out of his mind (3:21 31): “Who is my mother…? … Whoever does the will of God, this is … my mother.” In that saying Jesus discounts any privileged place to Mary, who appears to be doing the bidding of the scribes and Pharisees.

This is an inaccurate (and I dare say, even cynical) exegesis, as I have written about many times:

Jesus’ Interactions with Mary in Relation to Marian Veneration [10-29-08]

“Who is My Mother?”: Beginning of “Familial Church” [8-26-19]

Did Jesus Deny That Mary Was “Blessed” (Lk 11:27-28)? [11-19-19]

Did Jesus Denigrate Calling Mary “Blessed?” [National Catholic Register, 12-24-19]
*

“Who is My Mother?” — Jesus and the “Familial Church” [National Catholic Register, 1-21-20]

Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers”? (Jason also claims that “Mary believed in Jesus,” but wavered, and had a “sort of inconsistent faith”) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-27-20]

Dialogue on Whether Jesus’ Kinfolk Were “Unbelievers” (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [5-28-20]

On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [National Catholic Register, 6-11-20]

Did the Blessed Virgin Mary Think Jesus Was Nuts? [7-2-20]

Seidensticker Folly #50: Mary Thought Jesus Was Crazy? (And Does the Gospel of Mark Radically Differ from the Other Gospels in the “Family vs. Following Jesus” Aspect?) [9-8-20]

Did Mary Sin By Thinking Jesus was Crazy? (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-8-22]

Was Our Lady Among Those Who Accused Our Lord of Being ‘Beside Himself?’ [National Catholic Register, 9-28-22]

Mary and “Crazy” Jesus, Pt. II (vs. Lucas Banzoli): In Which Our Quixotic Anti-Catholic Warrior Desperately Savages Several Highly Reputable English Bible Translations in Order to “Prove” That Mary Thought Jesus was Out of His Mind [2-9-23]

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Here in John 2:4, the address “woman” rejects any special position of his mother because at this moment her mind is set on earthly things rather than heavenly things, thinking in the realm of flesh rather than Spirit, and operating “from below” rather than “from above” (see John 3:31). She is at this moment to Jesus no more than any other “woman.”
*

Third, Jesus adds a disclaiming assertion: “My hour has not yet come,” meaning that Jesus did not come into the world for the trivial task of resupplying a wedding with wine, but rather (given the larger context of the Fourth Gospel) to make amends for the sins of the world at the cross. Jesus’ word to Mary is a rebuke.

*
Many (including yours truly) think that this response by Jesus to his mother represents redaction (editing) by the Fourth Evangelist into a preexisting “signs source” story. The abrupt redaction (remove the saying and the preceding and following texts flow more smoothly) underscores the deficiency of sign faith that does not tie Jesus’ activity to his being “lifted up” or “exalted” on the cross, and that does not arrive at a larger identity of Jesus as the Life and Light of the world.

*
Mary does not interact with Jesus’ sharp rebuke (again, suggesting that it was added by the Fourth Evangelist into a pre-existing story). Instead, “his mother says to the servants (attending table), ‘Whatever he says to you, do'” (v. 5). In a sense, it is to her credit that she instructs others to obey her son. But she is still thinking in earthly, fleshly terms “from below,” still more concerned with the literal wine shortage at the wedding in Cana.

*
In the end Jesus does turn the water into wine, but for a deeper purpose, to “reveal his glory” (v. 10, much as Yahweh “revealed his glory” to Israel in the Mount Sinai light show). Jesus perhaps does this particular “sign” to illustrate that he is the Best Wine at the wedding banquet of the Lamb and his church.

In this story, Mary doesn’t come out looking so good. Her remark to Jesus, “They do not have wine,” remains on a literal level, whereas Jesus is thinking of the symbolic absence of messianic wine in an Israel that is hostile to the sending of God’s Son into the world. Her remark, far from being praised, is rebuked.

*
Addendum:

*
Those who read Jesus’ address to his mother “woman” as a mark of treating Mary as a New Eve are reading out of context.

“What to me and to you” preceding “woman” is clearly a rebuke, not a praise. It is similar to Jesus’ rebuke of Peter, calling him “adversary” (Satan). “Woman” designates that by virtue of her worldly misunderstanding of his mission she has become for him like any other woman who is not his mother.

*
The interpretation that I offer of “woman” also fits Jesus’ disregard of Mary’s special status as mother of the Messiah when she gives into worldly thinking and behavior in Mark 3:31-35. When she with her other sons goes to “restrain” Jesus because of reports that he is out of his mind, Jesus gives his famous “Who is my mother?” Biological family kinship is meaningless when one deviates from the will of God, especially as regards Jesus’ mission.

*
The most natural reading is the one that I put forward. When a son addresses his mother as “woman,” one doesn’t think: Oh, he is thinking of her as a new Eve! One thinks rather: My goodness, he is treating his own mother as if she were not his mother, as if she were a woman like any other woman to him.

Here again we observe the old, tired, fundamentally silly argument that Jesus was supposedly disrespectful of His mother. This silly trifle was disposed of by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, citing three Protestant commentators:

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:

Jesus’ reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. ‘Woman’ (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15)” (vol. 9, p. 42).

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, “In his reply, the use of ‘Woman’ does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)” (p. 1076).

Akin concludes:

The fact it is not a title of disrespect should be obvious from the fact that Jesus, as an obedient Son who fulfilled the Torah perfectly, would never have spoken irreverently to his mother. His perfect fulfillment of the Torah includes a perfect fulfillment of the command, “Honor your father and mother,” which in the literal Hebrew is “Glorify your father and mother.” . . . To publicly speak irreverently of his mother is something that Jesus would never have been able to countenance. Actually, the way Jesus is using the term — at the two key junctures in John’s Gospel where Mary appears — is symbolic and emblematic of her role in redemptive history. Whereas Eve was the First Woman, Mary is the Second Woman, just as Adam was the First Man and Jesus was the Second Man (1 Cor. 15:47).

Did Jesus “rebuke” His mother at this wedding? No: . . . The Navarre Bible explains the passage:

The sentence rendered “What have you to do with me?” (RSV) is the subject of a note in RSVCE which says “while this expression always implies a divergence of view, the precise meaning is to be determined by the context, which here shows that it is not an unqualified rebuttal, still less a rebuke.” The Navarre Spanish is the equivalent of “What has it to do with you and me?”] The sentence “What has it to do with you and me?” is an oriental way of speaking which can have different nuances. Jesus’ reply seems to indicate that although in principle it was not part of God’s plan for him to use his power to solve the problem the wedding-feast had run into, our Lady’s request moves him to do precisely that. Also, one could surmise that God’s plan envisaged that Jesus should work the miracle at his Mother’s request. In any event, God willed that the Revelation of the New Testament should include this important teaching: so influential is our Lady’s intercession that God will listen to all petitions made through her; which is why Christian piety, with theological accuracy, has called our Lady “supplicant omnipotence.”

Dom Bernard Orchard’s 1953 Catholic Commentary adds more insightful interpretation:

Concerning the second: the Master’s question which literally reads: ‘What to me and to thee?’ has to be understood from biblical and not modern usage. Therefore it does not mean: ‘What concern is it of ours?’ or ‘There is no need for you to tell me’. In all the biblical passages where it occurs, Jg 11:12; 2 Kg 16:10, 19:22; 4 Kg 3:13; 2 Par 35:21; Mt 8:29; Mk 1:24, the phrase signifies, according to circumstances, a great or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the two parties concerned. In 2 Kg 16:10 it means total dissent; in Jg 11:12 it voices a complaint against an invader. In our passage, also, divergence must be admitted. In a sense our Lord’s answer is a refusal, but not an absolute refusal, rather, a refusal ad mentem, as a Roman Congregation would say, and the Blessed Virgin understood her Son’s mind from the tone of his voice. His first public miracle belonged to the divine programme of his Messianic mission into which flesh and blood could not enter. His answer is therefore an assertion of independence of his Mother, similar to the word he spoke in the temple about his Father’s business. The Blessed Virgin’s subsequent action shows that the tone of our Lord’s protest on this occasion was neither a curt nor an unqualified refusal.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible also dissents from Dr. Gagnon’s harsh take (though suggesting a “mild reproof”):

What have I to do with thee? – See the notes at Matthew 8:29. This expression is sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel 16:10; 1 Kings 17:18. But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed: “My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply, and in the meantime neither you nor I should be solicitous.” Thus understood, it is so far from being a “harsh reproof,” that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to put proper trust in him.

It all comes down to language, culture, idiom, context. But doesn’t Jesus’ fulfillment of His mother’s request for more wine (by performing a miracle — His first recorded one — to provide more) suggest that He didn’t intend to rebuke her in the first place? He did what she requested. One would think so, it seems to me. Much ado about nothing . . .

***
*

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: Saint Raphael Catholic Church (Springfield, Ohio) – stained glass, Wedding at Cana – detail (Nheyob: 11-22-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

Summary: Protestant NT scholar Robert Gagnon insists that Jesus rebuked His mother Mary several times in Scripture. I reply regarding the wedding at Cana incident & His use of “Woman.”

Blessed Virgin Mary

Did Jesus rebuke Mary at Cana?

2026-07-14T23:13:12-04:00

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.

The Word Set in Stone: “Volume Two”

Last updated on: July 14, 2026 at 11:13 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible

FREE BOOK: Links to chapters below

This is my sequel or “Volume 2” to my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023, 271 pages). These articles / would-be chapters continue the goal laid out in the Introduction of The Word Set in Stone:

I deal with specific objective matters in relation to the text of the Bible that can be addressed by archaeology or other forms of science, starting with premises (for the most part) that Christians and non-Christians accept in common. What I’m doing is “defeating the defeaters” offered up by biblical skeptics, anti-theist atheists (who specialize in and constantly focus on criticizing the Bible, Christians, Christianity), and archaeological minimalists.

If skeptics argue, for example, that a particular city wasn’t in existence when the Bible says it was, then, in response, I seek archaeological data to prove or at least offer strong evidential support for the biblical view. This approach defends the Bible’s accuracy. Skeptical arguments against biblical accuracy are often incorrect and fallacious.

This book deals with objective, historical issues that we can analyze through the means of scientific (mostly archaeological) analysis. It’s what Christians are often asked to do: give solid evidence for what we believe. [slightly modified excerpt]

We have a huge task in defending Holy Scripture in light of a rapidly growing, militant and condescending anti-theist brand of atheism and an aggressive anti-traditional secularism in general. They’re demanding (not always sincerely!) “evidence” and those who would or do believe want to see reason and science harmonized with faith, and I believe apologists can provide both things, and solidly so, in terms of arguments that can withstand scrutiny.

I’ve devoted years of my life and career to providing plausible answers to these sorts of questions. The answers theists and Christians can provide are, I believe (perhaps surprisingly), solid and strong, very exciting, faith- and confidence-building, and informative. I’ve never enjoyed apologetics more than I have in researching, engaging in dialogues, and writing about these issues. And I am learning (tons of things!), too, as I pass on what I have learned to others.

I’m not the “expert” here; I’m simply a lay Christian apologist discovering wonderful things about the Bible, archaeology, and history, and I’m thrilled and privileged to be able to share them with you: 160 sections of immersion in “Bible paradise” for those who love Holy Scripture, as I do, or those (believers or nonbelievers) who read out of curiosity and openness to being persuaded by the scientific and historical evidence presented. Enjoy! And please consider making a donation to my work if you have received benefit, “apologetics aid,” or blessing from this labor of love. “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Creation of the Universe

1) Eternal Universe vs. an Eternal God [4-16-20]

2) Philosophy & “Who Created God?” [7-12-21]

3) “God of the Gaps” [6-24-18]

4) Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

5) Creation “Ex Nihilo” [8-28-20]

6) Why a Universe at All? [11-5-21]

7) God, Empiricism, & Atheist Demands for “Evidence” [10-9-15]

8) Atheist Demands for “Empirical” Proofs of God [10-27-15]

9) Empiricism: Only Valid & Objective Knowledge? [7-18-17]

10) Science, Logic, & Math Start with Unfalsifiable Axioms [1-6-18]

11) Cause of the Big Bang: Atheist Geologist Challenged [4-21-17]

12) Argument from Design [8-25-20]

13) God the Designer? [8-27-20]

14) Albert Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”: In His Own Words [2-17-03; greatly expanded on 8-26-10]

15) Theistic Argument from Longing or Beauty, & Einstein [3-27-08; rev. 3-14-19]

16) “Quantum Entanglement” & the “Upholding” Power of God [10-20-20]

17) Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” [8-19-15]

18) Clarifications of “Atomism” for Offended Atheists [8-20-15]

II. Creation of the Earth, Life, and Adam & Eve

19) Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time [5-11-17]

20) Genesis 1 vs. 2 (Creation) [5-17-20]

21) Biblical Flat Earth & Cosmology [9-11-06]

22) Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? [9-17-06]

23) Bible Teaches a Flat Earth? [3-31-22]

24) Old Earth, Flood Geology, & Uniformitarianism [5-25-04; rev. 5-10-17]

25) Catholicism and Evolution / Charles Darwin’s Religious Beliefs [8-19-09]

26) Catholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution?

27) Why I Believe in “Non-Miraculous” Intelligent Design

28) “Non-Interventionist” Intelligent Design [6-21-19]

29) The Borders of Science & Theology

30) Mutations & Evolutionary Change [1-16-23]

31) Bible Espouses Mythical Animals? [9-10-19]

32) Dragons in the Bible? [3-4-22]

33) Physics Has Disproven Souls? [8-16-18]

34) Spirit-God “Magic”; 68% Dark Energy Isn’t? [2-2-21]

35) Defending the Literal, Historical Adam of the Genesis Account [9-25-11]

36) Adam & Eve of Genesis: Historical & the Primal Human Pair [11-28-13]

37) Adam & Eve & Original Sin: Disproven by Science? [9-7-15]

38) “Where Did Cain Get His Wife?” [3-7-13]

39) How Cain Found a Wife [6-22-18]

III. Noah’s Flood / Abraham & Other Patriarchs

40) 969-Year-Old Methuselah (?) & Genesis Numbers [7-12-21]

41) Biblical Size of Noah’s Ark: Literal or Symbolic? [3-16-22]

42) Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals [9-7-20]

43) Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity? [9-10-15]

44) Flood: 25 Criticisms & Non Sequiturs [3-8-22]

45) Straw Man Global Flood [8-30-22]

46) Noah’s Ark: Josephus, Earlier Historians, & Church Fathers (Early Witnesses of the Ark Resting on Jabel [Mt.] Judi) [3-16-22]

47) Genesis 10 “Table of Nations”: Authentic History [8-25-21]

48) Table of Nations, Interpretation, & History [11-27-21]

49) The Tower of Babel, Archaeology, & Linguistics [4-13-23]

50) Sodom & Gomorrah & Archaeology: North of the Dead Sea? [10-9-14]

51) Archaeology & a Proto-Hebrew Language in 1800 BC [1-31-23]

52) Abraham, Warring Kings of Genesis 14, & History [7-31-21]

53) Philistines, Beersheba, Bible Accuracy [3-18-22]

54) Egyptian Proof of Hebrew Slaves During Jacob’s Time [2-17-23]

55) Evidence for Hebrews / Semites in Egypt: 2000-1200 B.C. [5-3-23]

56) Biblical Hebrew Names with an Egyptian Etymology [5-9-23]

57) Pharaoh Didn’t Know Joseph?! [5-26-21]

58) 13th c. BC Canaanite Iron Chariots [7-16-21]

IV. Moses & the Exodus

59) Did Moses Exist? No Absolute Proof, But Strong Evidence [6-14-21]

60) Moses Wrote the Torah: 50 External Evidences [12-14-22]

61) Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (+ a Plausible Scenario for Moses Gaining Knowledge of Hittite Legal Treaties in His Egyptian Official Duties) [7-31-21]

62) Does the Pentateuch Claim to be Inspired Revelation? + Do the Several Third-Person References to Moses in the Pentateuch Prove That He Didn’t Write It? [12-14-22]

63) A Pharaoh’s Death (Ex 2:23) & Exodus Chronology [7-27-22]

64) When Was the Exodus: 15th or 13th Century B.C.? [4-15-23]

65) Did the Hebrews Cross the Red Sea or the “Reed Sea”?: And Which Specific Body of Water Did They Cross, According to the Combined Deductions and Determinations of the Bible and Archaeology? [5-9-23]

66) Manna: Possibly a Natural Phenomenon? [5-5-23]

67) In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai (Fascinating Topographical and Biblical Factors Closely Examined) [8-16-21]

68) Acacia, Ark of the Covenant, & Biblical Accuracy [8-24-21]

69) The Tabernacle: Egyptian & Near Eastern Precursors [9-8-21]

70) No Philistines in Moses’ Time? [6-3-21]

71) Moses, Kadesh, Negev, Bronze Age, & Archaeology [6-10-21]

160) Moses & Water From Rocks: A Closer Look [1-7-24]

164) Parting of the Red Sea & Lake Erie Seiches [11-28-25]

V. Joshua’s “Conquest”, Israel’s Enemies, & the Judges

72) Jericho: Did the Walls Collapse Due to Resonance? [5-1-23]

73) Joshua’s Conquest: Rapid, Always Violent, & Total? [5-1-23]

74) Hazor Battles “Contradictions”? (Including Possible Archaeological Evidence for the Battle of Deborah in Judges 4) [3-23-22]

75) “The Sun Stood Still” (Joshua) [4-16-20]

76) Arameans, Amorites, and Archaeological Accuracy [6-8-21]

77) Edomites: Archaeology Confirms the Bible (As Always) [6-10-21]

78) 12th c. BC Moabite & Ammonite Kings [7-19-21]

79) “Higher” Hapless Haranguing of Hypothetical Hittites (19th C.) [10-21-11; abridged 7-7-20]

80) Archaeology & Judges-Era Lead & Tin Trade [1-26-23]

81) Samson’s Death-Scene: Archaeological Confirmation [3-27-23]

82) Anachronistic “Israelites”? [5-25-21]

83) Jericho & Archaeology: Replies To Atheists [12-30-23]

VI. Kings Saul, David, & Solomon & Subsequent Kings of Judah & Israel

84) How Did David Kill Goliath? [5-19-20]

85) Goliath’s Height: Six Feet 9 Inches, 7 Feet 8, or 9 Feet 9? [7-4-21]

86) Ziklag (David’s Refuge from Saul) & Archaeology [3-29-23]

87) King Solomon’s “Mines” & Archaeological Evidence [3-24-23]

88) Archaeology & Solomon’s Temple-Period Ivory [1-28-23]

89) Solomon’s “Impossible” (?) Wealth & Archaeology [4-25-23]

90) Solomon’s Temple and its Archaeological Analogies (Also, Parallels to Solomon’s Palace) [4-25-23]

91) The Queen of Sheba, Solomon, & Archaeology [4-27-23]

92) Archaeology & King Rehoboam’s Wall in Lachish [1-31-23]

93) King Ahab, Queen Jezebel, & Archaeology [4-7-23]

94) King Hezekiah: Exciting New Archaeological Findings [12-13-22]

95) Archaeology & Ten (More) Kings of Judah & Israel [4-20-23]

96) Archaeology & First-Temple Period Bethlehem [4-6-23]

97) Archaeology Confirms Dates of Five Biblical Battles: Battles at Beth She’an (c. 926 BC), Beth Shemesh (c. 790 BC), Bethsaida & Kinneret (732 BC), and Lachish (701 BC) [2-6-23]

98) Assyrian King Sennacherib, the Bible, & Archaeology [4-17-23]

161) Solomon’s Rebuilding Of Gezer & Archaeology [4-24-24]

162) Hazael’s Sack of Gath (2 Kgs 12:17) & Archaeology (+ Scientific Corroboration of the Biblical Data Regarding Kiln-Baked Bricks) [4-24-24]

VII. The Prophets, Job, the Fall of Jerusalem (586 BC), and the Return to Israel

99) Prophet Elijah and Archaeology [4-13-22]

100) Prophet Elisha and Archaeology [4-4-22]

101) Was Jonah in the Belly of a Whale? Yes, But . . . [3-27-23]

102) Book of Job, Archaeology, History, & Geography [4-1-23]

103) Fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), Archaeology, & Biblical Accuracy [4-10-23]

104) Ezra: Archaeological & Historical Corroboration [3-31-23]

105) Nehemiah: Archaeological & Historical Corroboration [3-31-23]

106) Nebuchadnezzar As A Cow: Curable Or Not? [12-31-23]

VIII. Old Testament Messianic Prophecies

107) Psalm 110: Examples of Jewish Commentators Who Regard it as Messianic / Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s Charges of Christian “Tampering” with the Text [9-14-01]

108) “Fabricated” OT Messianic Prophecies? [7-1-10]

109) Isaiah 53 & “Dishonest”(?) Christians [7-2-10]

110) Isaiah 53: Ancient & Medieval Jewish Messianic Interpretation [1982; revised 9-14-01]

111) Isaiah 53: Is the “Servant” the Messiah (Jesus) or Collective Israel? [9-14-01, with incorporation of much research from 1982]

112) Discussion of Micah 5:2 (The Prophecy of Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem) [12-19-22]

113) Messianic Prophecies (Zech 13:6, Ps 22) [7-3-10]

IX. Jesus’ Birth & Childhood

114) Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” [7-25-17]

115) Jesus Never Existed, Huh? [8-14-18]

116) December 25th Birth of Jesus?: Interesting Considerations [12-11-17]

117) Christmas & Dec. 25th: Not Derived from Saturnalia (Nor from Sol Invictus . . .) [12-8-21]

118) 28 Defenses of Jesus’ Nativity (Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great) [1-9-21]

119) Straw-Man, Mythical “Nativity” [3-2-22]

120) Jesus’ December Birth & Grazing Sheep in Bethlehem (Is a December 25th Birthdate of Jesus Impossible or Unlikely Because Sheep Can’t Take the Cold?) [12-26-20]

121) Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents: Myth & Fiction? [2-10-21]

122) The Census, Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem, & History [2-3-11]

123) Bethlehem Joseph / Census Issues [2-28-22]

124) Archaeology & 1st Century Nazareth [2-25-22]

125) Jesus the “Nazarene” [12-19-20]

X. Jesus’ Life & Ministry

126) “’Bethany Beyond the Jordan’: History, Archaeology and the Location of Jesus’ Baptism on the East Side of the Jordan” [8-11-14]

127) Cana: Archaeological Comparison of “Rival” Sites [3-29-23]

128) Archaeology & St. Peter’s House in Capernaum [9-23-14]

129) Jesus’ Alleged Mustard Seed Error [10-8-18]

130) Discipleship & Jewish Burial Customs [8-8-19]

131) Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Swine, & Atheist Skeptics [7-25-17]

132) Demons, Gadara, & Biblical Numbers [12-18-20]

133) Gadarenes & Gerasenes #3 [2-17-22]

134) NT Texts & the Next Town Over [2-18-22]

163) “Upper Room” (Last Supper & Pentecost) & Archaeology [9-30-24]

XI. Jesus’ Passion, Death, & Resurrection

135) Judas’ “Thirty Coins of Silver”: Archaeology & History [6-18-23]

136) No “Leafy Branches” on Palm Sunday? [4-19-21]

137) Archaeology: Jesus’ Crucifixion, Tomb, & the Via Dolorosa [9-18-14]

138) Date of Jesus’ Death . . . Including the Analogy of Historical Skepticism Against Many Renowned Persons from the Hebrew Bible [4-17-21]

139) Homer & the Gospels (Is the Story of Priam in the Iliad the Model for a Fictional Joseph of Arimathea?) [10-15-21]

140) Obsession w NT Imitation (?) of Homer [10-18-21]

141) Crucifixion Eclipse? [3-30-22]

142) “Blood & Water” & Medical Science [4-25-21]

143) Jesus’ Burial Spices Contradiction? [4-20-19]

144) No Tomb for Jesus? (Skeptical Fairy Tales and Fables vs. the Physical Corroborating Evidence of Archaeology in Jerusalem) [11-10-21]

145) Who Buried Jesus? [4-26-21]

146) Guards at the Tomb & Historiography [4-27-21]

147) Matthew & the Tomb Guards (Including the Analogy of Xenophon and Plato as Biographers of Socrates) [1-28-22]

XII. General Biblical Considerations

148) Why We Should Fully Expect Many “Bible Difficulties” [7-17-17]

149) “Difficulty” in Understanding the Bible: Hebrew Cultural Factors [2-5-21]

150) Atheist “Bible Science” Absurdities [9-25-18]

151) Atheist “Bible Science” Inanities, Pt. 2 [10-2-18]

152) Bible & Disease & Medicine (3-31-22)

153) Demonic Possession or Epilepsy? (Bible & Science) [2015]

154) Disease, Jesus, Paul, Miracles, & Demons [1-13-20]

155) Are the Gospels & Acts “Propaganda”? (Unpacking a Statement from Historian A. N. Sherwin-White) [2-16-22]

156) NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? [5-4-21]

157) Manuscript Evidence: New Testament vs. Plato, Etc. [10-10-15]

158) Ten New Testament Archaeological Confirmations [5-11-23]

159) Atheist Double Standards Regarding the Miraculous in Historical Accounts [Facebook, 1-1-24]

Additional Sections Added Later

#160: in section IV

#161-162: in section VI

#163: in section X

#164: in section IV

***

Practical Matters: This is the most comprehensive and multi-faceted Catholic apologetics blog: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT. I offer more than 5,000 free online articles, fifty-eight books, and many scores of videos at the Catholic Bible Highlights YouTube channel (please subscribe!). If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider financially supporting it. PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Dave Armstrong Bookstore”. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million!

***

Summary: A sequel for my book, The Word Set in Stone is not in the cards, but (good news!), folks can read for free the material that would have made up the second volume.

Latest Update: 14 July 2026

Atheism & Agnosticism

Bible and Tradition

Jews & Judaism & Old Testament

Personal Page

Philosophy & Science

Trinitarianism & Christology

Bible & archaeology

Bible & Science

Books by apologist Dave Armstrong

Christian apologetics

The Word Set in Stone

The Word Set in Stone Vol. 2

2026-06-06T00:48:21-04:00

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.

Joshua’s Conquest: Rapid, Always Violent, & Total?

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:48 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

This is a reply to a guest article on Jonathan MS Pearce’s atheist blog, by “Lex Lata”: a sharp and civil atheist commentator (a professor?), with whom I have had some stimulating dialogue now and then. It’s entitled, “Canaan begat Israel: What the Bible gets wrong about Hebrew origins” (4-16-23). His words will be in blue; those of others whom he cites in green.

*****

Per the title, the article is primarily a series of contentions based on (from where I sit) one false premise: that the Bible supposedly teaches a rapid, altogether violent, and total destruction of Canaanite cities and culture by the conquering Israelites, with no gradualism of either a cultural or military / “taking over” nature. Here is a collection of those sorts of statements (bear in mind that mere repetition of a falsehood makes it no less of a falsehood):

1) [R]egiments of Hebrews did not swoop in under Joshua’s command and take or destroy city after city in the space of a generation. Rather, the evidence converges on a more gradual and less violent process.

2) [T]his planned eradication unfolds more-or-less resoundingly and swiftly in the book of Joshua . . . City after city falls to Joshua’s forces.

3) The preponderance of the evidence points to a process not of familial/tribal segregation followed by wholesale, bloody conquest, but of demographic evolution and differentiation, of continuity with change . . .

4) As for the traditional Conquest narrative, on the whole, it does not fare well in the light of modern fieldwork and analysis. Archaeologist William Dever (a careful and caustic academic moderate after my own heart) not long ago surveyed the material alignments and misalignments between the biblical account and the archaeological record at Ai, Arad, Dibon, Hazor, Heshbon, Jericho, and other key sites in his magnum opus about what the Bible gets right and what it gets wrong, Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah. [2017]

5) [I]n the light of the overwhelming archaeological evidence, there was no large-scale warfare on the thirteenth- and twelfth-century horizon, except that initiated by the Philistines along the coast . . . . The inevitable conclusion is that the book of Joshua is nearly all fictitious, of little or no value to the historian. It is largely a legend celebrating the supposed exploits of a local folk hero. [Dever, ibid., 185-186]

6) [T]here is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archaeological evidence is indisputable. . . . there simply was no Israelite conquest of most of Canaan . . . . There was no wholesale conquest, no need for it. [Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (2003), 227-228]

This motif sounds fine and dandy and all wrapped up in a neat little bow, that is, until we discover that the Bible and “maximalist” archaeologists who take the Bible seriously as a profoundly trustworthy historical document, do not actually believe in this myth, as constructed by anti-theist atheists and biblical minimalists. Did you notice how Lex Lata didn’t cite even one individual Bible verse in its entirety? He never got down to Bible specifics and serious analysis of the actual texts involved. I shall correct this serious deficiency presently.

Now, it must be granted that there is a kernel of truth in what Lex states (as in all good grand falsehoods). There are indeed biblical statements that, prima facie, sound as if a sweeping, quick, violent conquest of Canaan took place. For example:

Joshua 10:40-42 (RSV) So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua defeated them from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, as far as Gibeon. And Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. [Joshua’s “southern campaign”]

Joshua 11:16-18, 23 So Joshua took all that land, the hill country and all the Negeb and all the land of Goshen and the lowland and the Arabah and the hill country of Israel and its lowland from Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir, as far as Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. And he took all their kings, and smote them, and put them to death. Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. [Joshua’s “northern campaign”]

Joshua 21:43-44 Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands.

Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? But it’s not so simple — and it isn’t because it’s a question of how to interpret biblical language and rhetoric in context. The Bible can be literal and it can be non-literal and poetic, including rhetorical exaggeration. Maximalist Egyptologist and archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen explains:

It is the careless reading of such verses as these, without a careful and close reading of the narratives proper, that has encouraged Old Testament scholars to read into the entire book a whole myth of their own making, to the effect that the book of Joshua presents a sweeping, total conquest and occupation of Canaan by Joshua . . . based on the failure to recognize and understand ancient use of rhetorical summations. The “alls” are qualified in the Hebrew narrative itself. In 10:20 we learn that Joshua and his forces massively slew their foes “until they were finished off” . . ., but in the same breath the text states that “the remnant that survived got away into the defended towns.” . . .

Then we have a series of notices which indicate that, already under Joshua, the tribesfolk could not easily take possession of the territories raided; cf. such as 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13, 18; Joshua’s still later critique, 18:3, before the second allotment; 19:47 . . . So there is no total occupation shown to be achieved under Joshua himself . . .

The type of rhetoric in question is a regular feature of military reports in the second and first millennia, as others have made very clear. . . . It is in this frame of reference that the Joshua rhetoric must also be understood. (1)

The text of Joshua does not imply huge and massive fiery destructions of every site visited (only Jericho, Ai, and Hazor were burned).” (2)

Prominent maximalist archaeologist James K. Hoffmeier concurs:

Joshua does not describe a widespread destruction of the land. Rather, as Joshua admits (13:1), there was still much land not in Israelite hands, and the book proceeds to outline those areas (vv. 2–8). . . . Contrary to a blitzkrieg and “whirlwind annihilation” conquest . . . as understood by some critical readers of Joshua, quite the opposite is reported. . . .

A careful reading of the text of Joshua suggests a far more modest military outcome than those advanced by twentieth-century biblical scholars either supporting or critiquing the conquest model. (3)

The idea of a group of tribes coming to Canaan, using some military force, partially taking a number of cities and areas over a period of some years, destroying (burning) just three cities, and coexisting alongside the Canaanites and other ethnic groups for a period of
time before the beginnings of monarchy does not require blind faith. (4)

A close look at the terms dealing with warfare in Joshua 10 reveals that they do not support the interpretation that the land of Canaan and its principal cities were demolished and devastated by the Israelites. (5)

Since hyperbole . . . was a regular feature of Near Eastern military reporting, the failure of Miller, Dever, Redford, and others to recognize the hyperbolic nature of such statements in Joshua is ironic because the charge usually leveled at maximalist historians is that they take the text too literally. As a consequence of this failure, these historical minimalists have committed “the fallacy of misplaced literalism” that Fischer defines as “the misconstruction of a statement-in-evidence so that it carries a literal meaning when a symbolic or hyperbolic or figurative meaning was intended.” (6) (7)

The idea that the Israelites would have destroyed and leveled cities indiscriminately, makes little sense for they intended to live in this land. A scorched-earth policy is only logical for a conqueror who has no thought of occupying the devastated land. (8)

The Bible portrays a limited conquest of key sites in strategic areas . . . there are regions that the Bible clearly claims were not conquered. These include the territory later taken by the philistines along the southern coast of Canaan, and north to Phoenicia and the Mount Hermon region (Joshua 13:1). Furthermore, there are pockets within north an central Canaan that were not seized. These city-states include Jerusalem (Joshua 15:63), Gezer (Joshua 16:10), Dor, Megiddo, Taanach, Beth Shan and the fertile Jezreel Valley (Joshua 17:11, 16). . . . Clearly the Bible does not claim a maximal conquest and demolition of Canaan as Albright and others believed. (9)

But Lex Lata goes far beyond this error at the level of premise. He cites minimalist archaeologist Dever, absurdly maintaining that “the book of Joshua is nearly all fictitious, of little or no value to the historian. It is largely a legend . . .” I am the author of the book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023). It’s doing quite well on Amazon as I write (4-29-23), with Kindle ratings of #9 in Religious Antiquities & Archaeology, #12 in Christian History, and #81 in Christian Historical Theology.

In this book, I massively cite factual archaeological data, with regard to (among many other things) Joshua’s “conquest,” which was quite real and historically substantiated; just not as rapid and total as Lex wrongly believes Christian scholars and maximalist archaeologists think. I devote a 14-page chapter to the topic and an additional related 12-page Appendix.

I painstakingly go over many many individual cities mentioned in the Bible in conjunction with Joshua and warfare or “cultural domination,” that have now been excavated, showing how archaeology is — despite Dever’s false presupposition-driven mythmaking — in more or less complete accord with the biblical accounts. But the maximalists and believers in biblical inspiration such as myself, and the Bible, as shown, do not characterize the entire “conquest” as Lex claims they do. He’s caricaturing and warring with straw men.

Secondly, a sub-theme of this motif of gradualism and process rather than swift and total change is Lex’s contention that Hebrew evolved in large part from Canaanite precursors:

1) . . . continuity with change—not only in material culture (such as pottery), but also in language, . . .

2) [T]he Canaanite origins of Israelite language, . . . remain clearly evident in the literary and archaeological remains of ancient Israel and Judah. [Lester L. Grabbe, The Dawn of Israel: A History of Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE (2022), 281]

3) Scholars of ancient Semitic languages tell us archaic Hebrew began as a dialect that branched out from the Northwest Semitic Canaanite tongue. . . . (In fact, the shared linguistic pedigree allowed the Hebrews and other Northwest Semitic ethnolinguistic groups to readily adopt the Phoenician alphabet for their own writings.) Notably, Semitic philologists see no evidence of the sort of abrupt linguistic domination, displacement, or disruption that external conquerors generally precipitate . . .

But I’m unaware of any important Christian linguistic scholar or expert on the Ancient Near East or “biblical maximalist” archaeologist who would deny this. Nor am I aware of anything in the Bible (maybe I missed something) that would imply such a thing. Certainly there is no claim along the lines of “Hebrew developed completely separately from Canaanite languages!” So it’s a clear straw man in the article: regarding both biblical claims and supposed beliefs of the relevant Christian scholars. In sum, then, Lex contends that there is strong disagreement here when in fact there is little or none.

For example, as just one of numerous statements of this sort made by Kitchen, here is one I cite in my book (page 86). It clearly shows that this area is not one of disagreement among minimalist and maximalist archaeologists (and Kitchen is widely considered the greatest of the latter class of scholars):

From the fourteenth/thirteenth century onward, the [Canaanite] alphabet could be freely used for any form of communication. The contemporary north Semitic texts found at Ugarit in north Phoenicia illustrate this to perfection. . . . The Amarna evidence [c. 1360–1332 B.C.] and handful of pottery finds prove clearly that Canaanite was the dominant local tongue and could be readily expressed in alphabetic writing. . . . During the two centuries that followed, circa 1200–1000, standard Hebrew evolved out of this form of Canaanite, probably being fully formed by David’s time. Copies of older works such as Deuteronomy or Joshua would be recopied, modernizing outdated grammatical forms and spellings. (10)

Thirdly, Lex claims that early Israelite religion was polytheistic, in line with that of most of the surrounding nations:

1) The preponderance of the evidence points to . . . demographic evolution and differentiation, of continuity with change . . . in . . . religious beliefs and practices.

2) [T]he Canaanite origins of Israelite . . . religion remain clearly evident in the literary and archaeological remains of ancient Israel and Judah. [Grabbe, ibid.]

3) [T]he early henotheistic or monolatrous form of Israelite religion was, in many respects, “essentially the Northwest Semitic religion shared by Canaanites and others in the region.” [Grabbe, ibid., 232; Grabbe, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know it? (2017), 127; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities of Ancient Israel (2nd ed., 2002), 28-31]. The Bible itself retains vestiges of the polytheistic Divine Council common to cultures of the Ancient Near East in Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, and elsewhere. Relatedly, the God of Abraham is sometimes called “El,” the name of the chief deity in the older Canaanite pantheon, and scholars of the period are in general agreement that a number of Israelites practiced a folk religion involving both Yahweh and Asherah (El’s Canaanite queen/consort goddess) prior to the ascendancy of monotheistic Yahwism.

4) In short, the “religion of the Canaanites . . . constituted the background from which Israelite religion largely emerged.” [Smith, ibid., 13]

This is false. Indeed, there is a stark differentiation from early on (from Abraham or even earlier). As I’ve addressed this claim five times now, there is no need to do it again. See:

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? (God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, & Omnipresence in Early Bible Books & Ancient Jewish Understanding) [9-18-18]

Loftus Atheist Error #8: Ancient Jews, “Body” of God, & Polytheism [9-10-19]

Do the OT & NT Teach Polytheism or Henotheism? [7-1-20]

Seidensticker Folly #70: Biblical “Henotheism” [?] Redux [1-31-21]

Atheists who write about these sorts of topics cite — almost exclusively — both archaeological “minimalists” and theological liberals, who no longer — or never did — adhere to traditional Christian beliefs, and who (generalizing) don’t take into account the Bible’s cultural milieu and the particularities of Hebrew and Greek idiom and style in their interpretation of the Bible.

Lex writes, “current scholarship in archaeology, philology, and history reveals a substantially different account”: as if the only legitimate scholarship is minimalist, as if there are no respectable maximalist scholars, too, and as if one monolithic opinion exists in these fields. Later he similarly refers to “a few exceptions among researchers committed in some way to scriptural inerrancy, . . .”

Convenient, isn’t it? It’s either radical skepticism or intellectually challenged and stunted blind faith. There is no happy medium or “center” of a “orthodoxy.” But such minimalism has its own set of arbitrary dogmatic presuppositions that are altogether challengeable. Kitchen observes about this school of thought:

What had been merely bold theory became fixed dogma, as though set in concrete. A purely theoretical minimalism (lacking any factual verification) was enshrined as dogma in theology and divinity schools and faculties, while the vast worlds of ancient Near Eastern studies slowly began to be unveiled, offering huge additions to factual knowledge. And almost none of it agrees with the dogmas so uncritically perpetuated into the present. Early, middle, and late minimalists alike face the need for some very drastic changes in their fantasy worlds. And that, not from rival brands of philosophy or theology, but in factual terms from the firmly secular disciplines of Assyriology, Egyptology, parallel studies for the rest of the Near East, and the whole of its regional archaeologies (Syro-Palestinian archaeology included). (11)

Dr. Kitchen certainly can speak with authority on the topic, as one of the leading Egyptologists in the world, and co-author of Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, Part 1-3 (Harrassowitz Verlag: 2012). Volume 1 alone is 1641 pages. The description at Amazon reveals the enormous amount of extraordinary research involved:

This work presents a far-reaching social profile of life in the Ancient Near East, based on its wealth of law-collections, treaties and covenants through three millennia. Volume 1 (The Texts) sets out a uniquely comprehensive corpus of over 100 such documents in 10 languages, mostly displayed in facing-page transliterations and English translations with individual bibliographies. Volume 2 (Text, Notes, and Chromograms) provides essential philological and background commentary to the texts, fully indexes their subject-matter, and concludes with a revolutionary and innovative series of full-colour diagrams of every text, vividly highlighting variations through the centuries. Finally, Volume 3 (Overall Historical Survey) outlines the flowing interplay of political history, changing social norms and varying documentary formats throughout the whole period. Taken together, this tryptich offers a striking and indispensable new overview of its multifaceted world for Ancient Near-Eastern and biblical studies.

Kitchen also authored the “magisterial” Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical (8 Volumes, Oxford: B. H. Blackwell Ltd., 1969-1975). See the table of contents of Volume 1 and Volume 8 at Internet Archive. That is firsthand familiarity with the “facts on the ground” of Near Eastern history and archaeology. So he is utterly qualified to make the critiques he does of minimalist archaeologists and armchair theorists and “fantasy” writers.

As far as I know, Lex Lata never responded to my previous lengthy critique of another article of his: Moses Wrote the Torah: 50 External Evidences [12-14-22]. And he was informed of it; or at least I let webmaster Jonathan M. S. Pearce know. If he did reply somewhere, I was never told. Maybe this time it will be different. How nice it would be to have an intelligent debate, and to compare the competing views, point-by-point. Lex is a sharp guy and fun to talk to (what little I have done that). I hope he is willing to engage in a full dialogue. I think it would be challenging and fun, but it takes two . . .

FOOTNOTES

1) Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), 173-174.

2) Ibid., 183.

3) James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 36.

4) Ibid., 43.

5) Ibid., 34.

6) David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 58.

7) Hoffmeier, 42

8) Ibid., 43-44.

9) James K. Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Oxford: Lion Book / Lion Hudson, 2008), 67-68.

10) Kitchen, 304-305.

11) Kitchen, 497.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Moses Blesses Joshua Before the High Priest (Numbers 27:22), by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I reply to an atheist regarding Joshua’s conquest, and show how in two areas, Bible proponents agree with skeptics, while profoundly disagreeing on a third aspect.

Jews & Judaism & Old Testament

Israel & Canaan

Israel's military conquest of Canaan

Joshua & archaeology

Joshua's Conquest

the promised land

The Word Set in Stone

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many times does Jesus perform a miracle in the Gospel of John?

Select your answer to see how you score.

7 12 10 5

Books by This Author Books by Dave Armstrong

See All Titles »

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

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic