Sociology: Undeniably, Religion Makes Us Better Human Beings

Catholic Apologetics

God makes us better human beings

cosmological argument

religion makes us better human beings

sufficient evidence for theism

teleological argument

unfair God

Unfair meanie God

2026-06-06T00:44:18-04:00

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.

Resurrection Debate #2: Date of Jesus’ Death

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:44 am By Dave Armstrong

. . . Including the Analogy of Historical Skepticism Against Many Renowned Persons from the Hebrew Bible

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered 59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review, and has committed himself to counter-response as well: a very rare trait these days. All of this is, I think, mightily impressive.

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and eagerly enjoy the dialogue and debate. This is a rare opportunity these days and I am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

His words will be in blue.

*****

Michael Alter devotes 18 pages (pp. 31-48) to the date that Jesus was killed. I contend that it’s all to no avail in the end because the New Testament (like the Hebrew Bible) exhibits virtually no concern for actual dates and precise, exact chronology. That sort of thinking is largely inherited from Roman culture. On page 34, Alter announces “CONTRADICTION #1: The Year Jesus Was Crucified.” But it’s not a biblical contradiction at all because the date is never asserted. Therefore, what he is describing as a “contradiction” is only the usual, inevitable differences and disputes among historians, archaeologists, and various sorts of Bible scholars. That can hardly even be called a “contradiction” since it’s one of thousands of disagreements that scholars have amongst themselves. Alter states precisely that:

Theologians, New Testament scholars, historians, standard reference sources, evangelicals, and even evangelical organizations are divided regarding the exact “year” Jesus was crucified and resurrected. (p. 34)

To which I say: “ho hum” and “so what?”

Alter — in his usual excruciating and impressive detail (he read about 5,000 books and articles in the course of his research) — goes through all the various theories for different dates, summarizing their rationales. Most of the “eleven selected years” (p. 34) have one or only a few advocates: at least judging by the ones he references in his book. Three dates have quite a few more listed proponents: AD 29, 30, and 33. But Alter opines about the year 29:

The year 29 can absolutely be eliminated because in that year the Passover occurred at the beginning of the week. In addition, the date assumes a one year ministry. Consequently, this cannot be reconciled with any of the other evidence. The Passover cannot occur that early. (p. 40)

Prima facie, this sounds good enough for me. So that leaves two likely years, according to Alter’s survey of many scholars. He cites (on p. 41) a bunch of scholars who opt for AD 30. Finally, he concludes about AD 33: “Perhaps AD 33 is one of the most often cited years for Jesus’s death” (p. 43). Then he states in the objections section: “Others argue that year 33, with a Friday crucifixion does not provide for a literal seventy-two hours in the tomb” (p. 44). But 72 hours aren’t required to fulfill the saying, “three days and three nights”: according to how the ancient Jews construed time and these sorts of statements (as I have written about). In other words, it’ not a literal 72 hours being referred to. That’s our modern, precise Greek- and Roman- influenced thinking about time and sequence: not Hebraic thought.

In his Conclusion for the chapter he observes:

It must be remembered that Christian apologists . . . maintain that the year Jesus died and was resurrected is the most important and significant event in the history of mankind. (p. 47)

Sure; but again we must remember that it is not the exact year that is important; it’s the event. The above sentence ought to read (I submit): “Christian apologists maintain that Jesus’ death and Resurrection are the most important and significant events in the history of mankind.”

Alter then contrasts (on p. 47) this uncertainty with several events of known dates, such as the deaths of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Herod the Great, Caesar Augustus, and Caligula, and the birth dates of Julius Caesar, Tiberias, etc. Most of the people and events mentioned were Roman. They kept precise dates. And this is my point. They thought like the Greeks, because they emulated them in many respects. But the Hebrews did not follow Greek thought. They had been Hellenized, it’s true, but they maintained key aspects of their culture and ways of thinking through the New Testament period.

Since Alter provided us with this chart of 16 precise dates, I’d like to share a lot of imprecise dates (even among the Greeks themselves), in order to show that this particular aspect of the debate is quite a mixed bag:

Strabo, Greek geographer and historian, died at some unknown date after AD 20.

Herodotus, the Greek “father of history” died around 408 BC.

Xenophon, Greek historian, died around 359 BC.

Aristophanes, Greek comic poet, died around 380 BC.

Thales, Greek philosopher, died around 546 BC.

Pythagoras, Greek philosopher and Mathematician, died around 495 BC.

When it comes to founders of some other religions, it gets far more inaccurate:

Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), according to Wikipedia, is said to have been born in “c. 563 BCE or 480 BCE” and died “c. 483 BCE or 400 BCE.”

About Lao-Tze or Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism, it is stated in Wikipedia: “A semi-legendary figure, Lao Tzu was usually portrayed as a 6th-century BC contemporary of Confucius, but some modern historians consider him to have lived during the Warring States period of the 4th century BC.”

As for Zoroaster or Zarathustra: founder of Zoroastrianism, Wikipedia pitifully declares:

There is no scholarly consensus on when he lived. Some scholars, using linguistic and socio-cultural evidence, suggest a dating to somewhere in the second millennium BCE. Other scholars date him in the 7th and 6th century BCE . . . By any modern standard of historiography, no evidence can place him into a fixed period and the historicization surrounding him may be a part of a trend from before the 10th century CE that historicizes legends and myths.

How about the famous and influential figures in the Hebrew Bible and Judaism? How much do historians agree about them?:

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: if Jonathan wants to rely on historians for his arguments, and regard them as the “last word” when it comes to Christianity, let’s see how these three patriarchs of Judaism fare. Wikipedia (“Abraham”) summarizes:

In the early and middle 20th century, leading archaeologists such as William F. Albright and biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who lived in the “patriarchal age“, the 2nd millennium BCE. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel’s past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson‘s The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters‘ Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts. His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations. By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.

There we go. If modern scholarship is the “hill we want to die on” then we have to die on it across the board. I don’t accept the research of the more skeptical historians and archaeologists (Albright being the quintessential “non-skeptical” example), because it’s based on erroneous premises. I stood in Israel in the place where Abraham is said to have met Melchizedek (according to our guide). I stood as close as I could get to the rock where Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac: where the first temple (and perhaps the later temples) stood. I’ve also written about possible archaeological evidences for Sodom and Gomorrah.

Moses: it’s the same as with Abraham: so declares Wikipedia (maybe even worse):

The modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is a mythical figure while also holding that “a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C.” and that archeology is unable to confirm either way. Even though his name is Egyptian, no references to Moses appear in any Egyptian sources prior to the fourth century BCE, long after he is believed to have lived. No contemporary Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus–Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure.

I have argued that archaeology has not disproven the Exodus, as part of my apologetics replies to atheists, and I have also presented stunning archaeological evidence for Joshua’s altar on Mt. Ebal.

Joseph: let’s follow the scholars and “higher critics” to see what they think of this great biblical figure. Wikipedia summarizes:

The historicity of the Joseph narrative cannot be demonstrated. [footnote: “The majority of current scholars believe that the historicity of the Egyptian sojourn, exodus, and wilderness wandering that the Bible remembers cannot be demonstrated by historical methods.”] . . .

Hermann Gunkel, Hugo Gressmann and Gerhard von Rad identified the story of Joseph as a literary composition, in the genre of romance, or the novella. As a novella, it is read as reworking legends and myths, in particular the motifs of his reburial in Canaan, associated with the Egyptian god Osiris. Others compare the burial of his bones at Shechem, with the disposal of Dionysus‘s bones at Delphi. For Schenke, the tradition of Joseph’s burial at Shechem is understood as a secondary, Israelitic historical interpretation woven around a more ancient Canaanite shrine in that area.

King David is barely considered as historical, and even when he is, for most of these “skeptical” / ultra-“critical” scholars neither he nor events related to him are anything like what the Bible describes; that is, if we are “gullible” enough to believe that they ever happened at all (see Wikipedia for the gory details).

Christians like myself, on the other hand, fully believe that he reigned over a significant kingdom starting around 1000 BC. I visited my namesake’s original city in 2014 when I visited Jerusalem. I walked beside the hill where ancient Jerusalem was and kept looking up at it in awe. I saw where David battled Goliath and collected stones from where he would have gotten them (souvenirs for my kids). I visited Khirbet Qeiyafa: a town from his time, and collected pottery there that may be 3,000 years old. So I believe it, because I believe the Bible, which has been shown to be historically accurate times without number. But the bulk of scholars apparently don’t (so we are now told).

Mr. Alter (here’s the thing) can’t have it both ways: accept the Hebrew Bible and Judaism in some semblance of traditional fashion, and at the same time the “word” of a head count of scholars, which he recruits for the purpose of skepticism towards the New Testament accounts of Jesus. The two don’t mix very well. If he wants to enlist them to question events in Jesus’ life, then all the more will they also take “down and out” pivotal events and people in Judaism.

Daniel: Wikipedia: “The consensus of modern scholars is that Daniel never existed, . . .”

All of this is going on with these skeptical, anti-biblical scholars and Michael Alter thinks it is significant and a “contradiction” that the bulk of scholars have basically concluded that Jesus died in either 30 or 33 AD? Seriously?

The uncertain dates extend well into the current era also. For example, I have compiled three books of quotations from the Church fathers: eminent men and teachers from the first to the eighth centuries. Oftentimes, the dates of their deaths and/or births are not known with certainty. I list 52 in one of my books. Out of those, 45 (an astonishing 87%) have dates of death or birth that are uncertain. Here they are:

Pope Clement of Rome (d. c. 101)

Ignatius of Antioch (50 – c. 110)

Theophilus (fl. 185-191)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215)

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225)

Hippolytus (d.c. 236)

Origen (c. 185-c. 254)

Dionysius of Alexandria (d.c. 264)

Lactantius (c. 240-c. 320)

Eusebius of Caesaria [Church historian] (c. 265-c. 340)

Aphraates (c. 280-c. 345)

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-368)

Athanasius (c. 297-373)

Ephraem (c. 306-373)

Basil the Great (c. 330-379)

Optatus of Milevis (c. 320-c. 385)

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-387)

Gregory Nazianzen (c. 330-c. 390)

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-c. 394)

Ambrose (c. 336-397)

Epiphanius (c. 315-403)

John Chrysostom (c. 345-407)

Jerome (c. 343-420)

Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428)

John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444)

Theodotus (d.c. 445)

Sozomen [Church historian] (c. 375-c. 447)

Socrates Scholasticus [Church historian] (c. 379-c. 450)

Vincent of Lerins (d.c. 450)

Peter Chrysologus (c. 405-450)

Prosper of Aquitane (d.c. 455)

Patrick (c. 390-c. 460)

Pope Leo the Great (c. 400-461)

Theodoret of Cyr (c. 393-c. 466)

Caesar of Arles (c. 470-542)

Gregory of Tours (538-c. 594)

Pope Gregory the Great (c. 540-604)

Augustine of Canterbury (d. c. 605)

Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560-638)

Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662)

Germanus of Constantinople (c. 634-c. 733)

Venerable Bede (c. 673-735)

Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740)

John Damascene (c. 645-c. 749)

Nor does it stop there. I wrote in one of my articles about 23 Catholic “proto-scientists” of the 12th and 13th centuries. Again, we find the same lack of precision: with uncertain birth or death dates or both for 17 of the 23 (74% ): including many men who are quite famous (e.g., St. Albert the Great and Roger Bacon). I could find many more historical examples, but I trust that my point is adequately made by now.

Alter states:

In fact, the precise year that Jesus died as well as the date or day of his birth is not known. Obviously the date of these occurrences should be
the most knowable events of the history of mankind, yet how is it possible that the dates of . . . the supreme events in the history of our world are totally unknown? . . .

From this issue it is clear that nobody has the faintest idea when Jesus died! The year of Jesus’s crucifixion is unknown, . . . (p. 48)

Not the “faintest” idea? Is this not quite a bit of rhetorical exaggeration? Good ol’ Wikipedia informs us, after all, that, regarding the date of Jesus’ birth, “a majority of scholars assume a date between 6 BC and 4 BC.” So we have (even among our blessed scholars) a range of three years and two likely and plausible dates for His death (30 or 33) and a range of three years for His birth. In light of everything else we have seen above, that’s very good.

And since the Bible never asserted either date as such, and doesn’t “care” about such things generally speaking, I contend that it is a non-issue altogether. We know enough. Yes, Christians indeed regard the events of His life as “supreme events in the history of our world” but it doesn’t follow at all (not in the slightest) that we must know the exact dates when they occurred in order to rationally believe them. We know more than enough, and according to biblical thinking the things themselves are far more important than exactly when they happened.

The analogy of Judaism is again instructive. Observant Jews for over 3,000 years have devoutly celebrated Passover every year. It commemorates an actual event (and a supernatural one at that), that occurred about the time of the Exodus. Yet the “consensus” of historians is that we have no evidence of the Exodus or that (even more strongly) it never happened at all, and they (and we) don’t know exactly when Moses was born or died.

Needless to say, these same historians would mock and deny the notion of Moses going up to a holy mountain, talking to God and receiving tablets with the Ten Commandments written by God Himself; as well as receiving also a great deal of oral tradition from God, to be passed down for thousands of years, as it has turned out. They would laugh about and deride what they consider foolish notions such as a parting of the Red Sea, the several plague miracles in Egypt, pillars of smoke and fire leading the Hebrews through the desert, manna falling from the sky, and Moses going up to Mt. Nebo and being buried by God. Nor would they believe that God was specially present above the ark of the covenant, between the wings of the golden cherubim. It’s all nonsense and mythology to them.

Does this historical skepticism stop Jews from observing Passover and the more traditional ones from continuing to painstakingly keep all 613 commandments of the Law of Moses: assuming all the while that both things are based on real history and a real person: Moses, who had a unique relationship with God? No. Why, then, is a date discrepancy (in opinions) of two or three years for Jesus’ birth and death supposedly an “issue” or a “contradiction”? I confess that I cannot for the life of me comprehend such an argument.

I believe all these things recorded in the Hebrew Bible, and it matters not a whit to me whether a bunch of hyper-critical, anti-supernaturalist, sometimes secular or atheist historians (and even less traditional adherents of Judaism), operating on a host of false and unsubstantiated (and often downright hostile) premises disbelieve all of them or not. There are also historians and archaeologists who do not deny these things, or at least take a neutral / non-hostile approach. It all depends on the premises that one chooses to accept and assume, in doing historiographical research.

Likewise, Jews celebrate Hannukah, or Chanuka every year, which commemorates a miracle when the temple was rededicated: most likely in 164 BC. It’s precisely the miraculous [historical] event that occurred, which is recalled and celebrated. The Talmud states:

For when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the kohen gadol (high priest), but which contained sufficient [oil] for one day’s lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein, and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving. (Shabbat 21b)

Yet the Wikipedia article on this Jewish holy day informs us that “The miracle of the oil is widely regarded as a legend and its authenticity has been questioned since the Middle Ages.” Once again, then, Judaism finds itself clashing with the all-knowing, unquestionable skeptical historians. Which is to be believed? I go with the reported miracle and Jewish religious belief and practice.

But back to Jesus: the view that He never existed is still considered fringe and extreme and is held by very few historians, though (oblivious to such trifles) atheists are currently becoming increasingly enthralled with this ultra-ludicrous mythology. It’s also obvious to one and all that we basically know when Jesus was born, too, because our entire system of determining what year it is (the “BC” and “AD” system) is derived from His life (specifically, the approximate year of His birth). The very terminology of “CVE” and “BCE” was designed to extricate itself from the historical connection to Jesus. As Wikipedia explains:

The term “Common Era” . . . became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish religious scholars. Since the later 20th century, CE and BCE are popular in academic and scientific publications as culturally neutral terms. They are used by others who wish to be sensitive to non-Christians by not explicitly referring to Jesus as “Christ” nor as Dominus (“Lord”) through use of the other abbreviations.

I say that monotheists need to stick together and defend the Hebrew Bible against the atheists and radical secularists who only wish to tear it (along with the faith of traditional religious people) down. Abraham is regarded as a “father” by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. Are they all supposed to believe (because a bunch of pointy-headed historians “concluded”) that Abraham (along with many other notable biblical figures) was a mere mythical or legendary figure: akin to Odysseus, Hercules, Thor, Odin, or King Arthur? Do we really want to go down that road? The whole point of him being a father and patriarch is that he actually existed.

This is what Michael Alter is left with (by logical reduction and consistent logic across the board) if he insists on the “magisterium of the head count of scholars.” Given all of the massive skepticism outlined above, dates of Jesus’ birth and death within a range of just three or four years for both are almost literally “nothing” in comparison. I’ve scarcely given it a moment’s thought and I dare say that is probably true of 99.999% of all Christians who have ever lived.

In the same manner, every devout Jew observes Passover, without knowing what date the Exodus occurred, or the dates of Moses’ birth and death. All they care about is that the Passover miracle and the glorious Exodus actually happened in history, and were wrought by the hand of God. The lack of knowledge of exact dates are neither essentially important, nor any kind of “contradiction” against or disproof of Jewish religious belief in the actuality of this person and these events.

This is why I have no plans to write a book called, The Passover [or, Abraham or Moses, etc.]: A Critical Inquiry. But if I were, hypothetically, to write such a book, then I could use precisely the same “counting the heads of scholars” method that Mr. Alter uses to critique Christianity. And that ought to give him great pause, because it also demolishes any of his own Jewish beliefs (whatever the particulars of those may be) that claim to be based on historical events.

I would strongly contend that the historical component is altogether essential to Judaism — in any of its variant forms — and can’t possibly be removed from it, anymore than it can be removed from Christianity. Judaism minus the traditionally believed history is no longer Judaism at all, just as the New Testament ceased to be itself when Thomas Jefferson (a Unitarian) ridiculously took the scissors to it and removed all the miracles. A non-miraculous Christianity is no longer Christianity at all because (above all) if Jesus’ Resurrection is removed (as Michael Alter agrees), it is deprived of its essence. The same is true of a hollowed-out “Judaism” without the historical Exodus, God’s giving of the law specifically to the ancient Hebrews (in time and history), and historical persons Abraham and Moses.

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: In “Resurrection Debate #2” Michael Alter makes an issue out of the inexact date of Jesus’ death. I retort that the Bible is indifferent and do a reductio ad absurdum of skeptical scholars and what they think of the historicity of figures from the Hebrew Bible.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry

***

Jews & Judaism & Old Testament

Trinitarianism & Christology

alleged Resurrection contradictions

Jewish anti-Christian polemics

Jewish apologetics

Jewish critique of Christianity

Jewish-Christian discussion

Michael J. Alter

New Testament

New Testament critics

New Testament skepticism

Resurrection "Contradictions"

Resurrection of Jesus

The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry

2021-04-09T14:34:24-04:00

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.

Problem of Good: Childkilling & Genocide (Logical End of Atheism)

Last updated on: April 9, 2021 at 2:34 pm By Dave Armstrong

This (socratic) dialogue came about on my blog. Words of agnostic DC Kurtz will be in blue.

*****

What is your own definition of “good” and how do you (philosophically and logically) arrive at it?

Secondly, I propose a test case, in order to challenge your view of ethics and right and wrong. I will state it, ask your opinion, and then follow up with (equally important and necessary ) socratic questioning, in order to bolster my point of view (or modify it, as the case may be).

Do you think that partial-birth abortion is moral and should be protected by law? If so, why? If not, why?

For those who may not know what this is: it is the extraction of a full-term baby up to its neck, out of the womb, for the purpose of sticking scissors into the back of his or her neck, removing the brain, so as to kill [murder] an otherwise perfectly healthy would-be newborn child.

Some may be unaware of the legality of this. Full-term abortion was legal in America (one of very few — less than ten — countries to allow it) since January 22, 1973, based on the second case handed down the same day: Doe v. Bolton.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibited this diabolical procedure. In 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart: a 5-4 decision (Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia). The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Stevens, and Breyer.

Somehow, despite this decision (I don’t understand how it is legally possible), blue states (such as New York) are still enacting laws upholding the “right” to kill full-term babies, whether or not through this method (there are others as well). Probably at least 80% of the American people oppose such a ghastly, brutal, heartless procedure. But the Supreme Court upheld it from 1973 to 2007, and now many state laws do.

Moreover, many liberals are in favor of the legality of killing a baby that was intended to be aborted, but survived. Such a baby would be struggling to live on a table in some “clinic” and can be killed at will, if the mother assents. This was, in fact, the on-the-record position of all the Democrat nominees for the Presidency (which includes Biden) in the 2020 election, excepting Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Do you agree with that? If so, why? If not, why?

My daughter-in-law gave birth to our second granddaughter early on Easter morning. Her picture was posted above in this combox. If I lived in certain states today, my daughter-in-law could have decided she didn’t want this child, and could have opted for the above procedure. Even the child’s father (our son) would have no say in it at all, Of course we wouldn’t, either, even if we (or anyone whatsoever) agreed to accept the child and raise her. The child would be killed under those laws.

Do you agree with that? If so, why? If not, why?

After you answer, I will assuredly have more questions. And (be forewarned) it’ll be a long process to illustrate why I think Christian morality is the only rational, sensible, and moral course, and why atheist / agnostic moral systems are inevitably relativistic and arbitrary, leading to many moral outrages enshrined in law, including this monstrosity of partial-birth infanticide. These are not simple discussions, They are very complex. So they take time.

We have long since surpassed the Nazis in terms of sheer numbers of murders and heartless, merciless brutality of the most savage kind. We have no business looking down our noses and feeling superior to them, seeing what we allow to take place with the sanction of law at the highest levels.

***

I also wrote on another thread:

Modern, supposedly “enlightened” humanity has the toughest time figuring out the self-evident truth that slaughtering a helpless, defenseless child and ripping him or her from limb to limb or burning him or her to death or removing his or her brain right before delivery (that’s partial-birth “abortion”) is self-evidently wrong and savage and inhumane and barbaric.

Every age has its glaring, incomprehensible moral blind spots. It was slavery in the 19th century in America, racism and anti-Semitism in 20th century America and Germany, genocide in Germany, Russia, China, Turkey, Cambodia, and other places, and abortion in our own time.

***

I believe partial-birth abortion is good because the autonomy of the individual to exercise their will in search of satisfaction of desire is paramount. Abortion, in my view, is an act of self-defense against an unwanted intruder. All romantic notions aside, a fetus is a parasitic organism that only takes from the host mother without giving anything back and with no regard to her consent. It’s existence becomes an assault on the body of the host mother the moment she no longer consents to it. Personhood is irrelevant here- a fetus has no more of a right to a woman’s body than a fully-formed and developed adult human. Indeed, the only justifiable reason for banning abortion is because a non-lethal procedure for removing unwanted fetuses exist. The father and his family do not get to take the physical burden of the fetus and its parasitism, as willing as they may be. The burden lays on the host-mother, so the choice lays with her.

1. You act as if there is no responsibility whatever towards a human being that might be created by engaging in sexual acts: as if people are so ignorant and “animalistic” that they either don’t know that a new life could be created, or if they do know, simply don’t care: up to and including killing this new person that has come about. That’s not ethical. It’s as selfish and non-loving as anything I can imagine. It’s the law of the jungle. It’s on the level — indeed on a lower level — than, say, a mother bear eating her own cub or a male bear stealing another bears’ cubs and eating them. But they are just acting on instinct. Human beings know much better than that. We have to learn to commit and rationalize away such evil as you describe.

2. How do you define a person?

3. How do you define a human being?

4. At what point does a person acquire the right to life? And on what non-arbitrary basis does this right exist?

5. At what point does a human being acquire the right to life? And on what non-arbitrary basis does this right exist?

6. Newborn babies are even more “parasitic” (to use your chilling term) than babies in the womb. He or she “only takes from the host mother without giving anything back and with no regard to her consent.” And he or she does so to the father as well. They are more or less completely helpless and dependent on parents or other caretakers to survive at all. By your reasoning, parents ought to be able to murder their newborn child, too, on the same basis: it only takes and takes and demands. All the more so for a sick child.

7. If sexuality entails no regard or responsibility whatsoever for a new person created by engaging in it and their inherent rights as a human being: up to and including murder of such a child, then on the same “ethical” basis, you have justified all sorts of similar exploitation of other human beings, for the sake of your own demand for absolutely unlimited sexuality and pleasure (in your words: the “paramount” nature of “satisfaction of desire”) without consequence.

Therefore, on the same basis, sexual trafficking and sexual slavery is justified, so is pedophilia, rape, continued sexual abuse of a minor or anyone else. The other person is only good for being exploited for our own selfish ends. And why stop at sexual exploitation? Other human beings can be used for any number of evil ends, up to and including killing them. This is the justification of every genocide that has ever occurred.

8. Such reasoning also utterly obliterates the golden rule (“do to others as you would wish them to do unto you”), which is a bedrock principle of ethics that is held in common by virtually every society and belief-system in the world and the history of the world.

9. Not only does a person who can believe such ghastly, evil things believe she “owns” her child (like a slaveholder owns a slave), but such ownership extends right to the process of being born. The child must be killed, in this “reasoning”. It’s utterly unacceptable for he or she to be born and have a normal human life. He or she cannot and will not be given up for adoption: to the millions of couples who would love to cherish and take care of him or her. That’s unacceptable. Instead, she has to be tortured and murdered, and this is even called “good.” This is as evil and wicked of an act as can be imagined. I can’t think of anything more evil and morally revolting.

10. To top it off, in the atheist worldview, this earthly existence is all a human being has. There is no afterlife. It’s this life and then obliteration and annihilation. So in killing one’s own child, one deprives him or her of their entire earthly life and existence. The child was conceived due to sexual pleasure; the parents take no responsibility for that, and murder their own child and deprive him or her of their entire independent existence. This is using and exploiting another human being to the maximum degree imaginable.

11. How you explain why a full-term baby ought to be murdered (and your calling such a brutal and inhumane, barbaric act “good”) is as illustrative of the logical end-results of atheist ethical reasoning as can be imagined. How you answer these probing questions (that all arise because of the stand you have taken) will be even more so.

1. Before the main crux can be discussed, a distinction first has to be made that a mother bear eating her cubs is unprovoked, but a woman terminating a fetus is in response to the fetus’s unwanted presence in the body.

The woman had sexual intercourse. Anyone with the IQ above that of a pencil eraser knows that the possible result of that is the procreation of another human being (that’s why we refer to “the reproductive system”. What are we reproducing? Human beings . . .). If such a woman doesn’t want a child, then she ought to refrain from doing the thing that is the only way that brings it about.

A bear acts on instinct: having no higher moral compass. A human being knows better than to do such a barbaric, inhumane thing, based on the golden rule. That’s why human beings can potentially be far more good and saintly than the animals, but also far more wicked, as in the present case, because the higher a being is on the moral scale, the lower it can fall and be corrupted.

And I think that issue of parasitism is worth revisiting, because it creates a contradiction: there is nothing conventionally ethical about the existence of a fetus. It exists parasitically, only taking from the host mother and never giving back.

It exists because the mother chose to engage in the act that by its nature and fundamental purpose, brings about the existence of another person in the first place. Once the person exists, quite obviously, he or she is now the responsibility of those who procreated him or her. As I stated, a newborn is even more parasitic than a preborn baby. But you have ignored that: as you have most of my direct questions.

It is by all accounts a thief, taking her vitality without her consent. It is an inherently selfish being.

By all immoral and amoral accounts it is. The selfish being is the mother (with or without the father’s consent) who could torture and murder the person she helped create. You have it exactly backwards. The preborn baby is utterly innocent: having had no say in its own creation. You argue (I must say this) exactly as the Nazis did about the Jews: they were “vermin” and a parasite on superior Aryan society. Therefore, they could be exterminated at will. If one could be, then so could six million. Likewise, if one child can be murdered, so can 60 million plus be murdered, by the acceptance of the ghastly notion of “a life unworthy to be lived” and the utter rejection of any level of sexual responsibility whatsoever.

And so from there, we spiral into what I and others such as Thomas Hobbes feel is the natural state of existence- the stereotypical “law of the jungle”, a state of all against all. But unlike Hobbes, I don’t think authority can cure this condition, nor do I think a cure exists. The state as Hobbes describes it does not alleviate all-against-all, but merely privileges one or more actors over everyone else.

Precisely. This is what atheist / agnostic “morality” boils down to every time. Thanks for making my case for me. You couldn’t be doing a better job at it than you are doing.

2. Personhood I think is defined by a current or former conscious mind, the ability to experience consciousness and actively respond to it.

We don’t apply this criterion when we determine that a person has died. It’s simply heartbeat and brain waves. Your definition would deny the personhood of comatose people. But seeing how you have argued about babies, it’s likely that you would have no problem knocking off comatose people as “selfish” and “parasites” as well. On what objective basis is even your woefully inadequate definition established?

3. Humanity is simply being an organism that is a past, present, or future member of homo sapiens.

This includes preborn children, who possess every essential attribute of born people, and only require nutrition and time to become what you and I are.

4-5. At no point does an inherent right to life actually exist. The state can, will, and does kill on a whim.

Yes they do. This was the mentality of Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and every other tyranny and oppressive state that ever existed. It’s easy for you to sit there and casually say such bone-chilling things, since you’re not residing in a Gulag or a concentration camp, or sitting under a guillotine, waiting for the “reasoned” and godless almighty state to do you in.

Even in scripture, God has no hesitation at deploying lethal force if he desires to.

God as Creator has the prerogative to judge (and He judges justly and fairly). He’s not in the same category as we are, and we’re not perfectly good, like He is.

There is no fundamental, inherent guarantee against a premature end.

Based on what?

6. The mother has an option not to feed a fully-formed and birthed child. She has non- directly lethal alternatives to acquiescing to the child’s desires.

Yes. She can enlist a liberal blue state to kill her child after it has been born, so she is free from the outrageous burden of taking care of it. Or she can be a moral, compassionate human being and give her child to one of millions of couples who would be all too happy to care for him or her.

In the case of abortion, there is no non-lethal method of terminating a fetus. We cannot safely extract a fetus from the womb and allow it to grow to term externally of its host mother. There are non-lethal options to end parenthood, but no “clean” way out exists for pregnancy itself.

No choice but murder. What a wonderfully “enlightened” and progressive moral system . . .

7. Correct, this is the unsettling reality as unearthed by Gilles Deluze and Felix Guattari with their conception of desiring-production, and taken to the horrifying conclusions by Nick Land and subconsciously explored by Cormac Mccarthy in Blood Meridian. We are irrational creatures primarily governed by a complex system of desires which in turn produce more desires, compiling onto each other. Human existence is inherently disordered because existence itself is disordered. This is the overarching problem I posed then- how do people with two diametrically different views of the way of the world debate ethics?

I can’t sensibly debate ethics with a person who thinks exactly like a Nazi or Stalin or an ISIS terrorist does (as you do). All I can do is expose the self-evident wickedness of such thinking: to people who haven’t deliberately obliterated the image of God inside of them and their own consciences.

8. The “golden rule” is primarily a system of deterrence above all else. It’s a flawed method which has been demonstrated time and time again not to actually work, in part because of the inherent power imbalances created by states and other practical attempts at solving the human condition.

Right. Somehow I expected that you would somehow find a way to resist as fundamental and universally agreed-to moral precept as this. I do credit you for at least taking atheist moral thinking to its logical conclusion: the murder of hundreds of millions perfectly justified and considered “normal.” You make Aztec human sacrifice rituals look like a kindergarten picnic.

9. You keep jumping straight from conception to birth and overlooking the nine months in between, wherein the host mother is effectively bound and constrained by the living thing inside of them, eating away with no option for relief save termination. The value of abortion lies in the fact that it is the only way out of an unwanted pregnancy.

10. At no point is the fetus (while still human, a fetus is not yet a child) actually used. Nothing of value is derived from its existence by the host mother.

This simply repeats the same atrocious thinking you have already chillingly expressed. Mengele and Eichmann would be mightily impressed.

11. I think your understanding of ethics is rooted in the idea of a fundamentally ordered and rational world. You start with a basic understanding of a universal order and build from there. But on the other hand, my conceptualization of ethics begins with the opposite, the recognition that existence is disordered and irrational. You start at 1, I start at 0. If the outside world is irrational, illogical, and fundamentally insane, what ethical sensibility can be derived from it? There is nothing, of course. It exists as philosophical white noise. All that remains is the self, the singular essence unique to one’s own consciousness. If there is nothing sane, coherent or just about the world around us, we must instead look inward. And when we look inward what we see is desire, the driving force behind all else. Our feelings and thoughts are products of our desires. Even our reasoning is derived from our desire. Ergo, in constructing my personal ethical model, I start with my own personal desires.

This is as perfect of an explanation of atheist nihilism and despair as I have ever seen. Thank you at least for making it so clear to my readers that this is what we are dealing with today.

You ignore direct reply to many of my socratic questions, which is not unexpected, because it’s always that way, and is ultimately why Socrates himself was killed. He had to be shut up at all costs.

***

Clarifying note (I must add this because it comes up every time): I am not contending any of the following:

that atheists are always immoral,

that atheism always leads in fact to an immoral, wicked system akin to the Nazis, etc.,

that individual atheists are invariably always more wicked in behavior than individual Christians,

that atheists as a class care nothing for ethics and morality,

That all atheists are moral relativists.

One can see this in my response to an atheist on the thread, BensNewLogin. My initial challenge at the top was directed to him as well. But he responded very differently, He stated: “I agree with SCOTUS; viability is a good test. . . . I am no fan of abortion. I would like to see it, as Bill Clinton put it, safe, legal, and rare.” This is a vastly different outlook than that of DC Kurtz. So I replied to him in an entirely different manner:

You agree that partial-birth abortion is wrong. Glad to hear that. Because of that, you wouldn’t have to answer most of my questions that I asked DC Kurtz in my large-scale reductio ad absurdum / socratic inquiry. The burden is on him to defend it as “good” (his own description) and justified based on “satisfaction of desire” which he considers more “paramount” than the value of each human life.

DC Kurtz, on the other hand, defends even partial-birth abortion as “good” and ghoulishly describes an unwanted preborn child as “a parasitic organism that only takes from the host mother without giving anything back” and as a “thief” and (with the utmost unawareness of the supreme and sickening irony) an “inherently selfish being.”

BensNewLogin is far more humane and compassionate, while DC Kurtz literally argues like a Nazi, in effect defending their monstrous crimes and evil (since his own “moral” positions are indistinguishable from their own). BensNewLogin is, I would argue, less logically consistent, while DC Kurtz is consistent according to what I call “diabolical logic” while being wickedly immoral. He consistently follows his premise to their logical and evil end-result. G. K. Chesterton once noted that the madman is not illogical; to the contrary, he is one who thinks that logic is all there is.

And that gets back to my clarification. I don’t maintain (here or anywhere) that all atheists are wicked or that they all (or many of them) come to the chilling conclusions that DC Kurtz arrives at. That’s just stupid. What I say is that nihilism, despair, and (in practice) widespread abortion and genocide are the logical end-result of atheist relativist moral thinking. I don’t say all atheists and agnostics are relativistic (#5 above), but that system of thought is the logical end of how most atheists or agnostics think about morality and ethics. And what it logically, consistently (not necessarily actually) leads to is a Nazi-like outlook of genocide and partial-birth infanticide.

***

Related Reading:

The “Problem of Good”: Great Dialogue with an Atheist (vs. Mike Hardie) (+ Part Two) [this is my favorite debate ever, with anyone] [6-5-01]

Dialogue w Agnostic/Deist on the “Problem of Good” [7-18-18]

The “Problem of Good”: Dialogue w Atheist Academic [9-11-19]

Problem of Good: More Difficult than Problem of Evil? [4-3-21]

Problem of Good: Further Discussions with Atheists [4-5-21]

***

Photo credit: my second granddaughter (born on Easter Sunday 2021) at two or three days old. According to most Democrat politicians in the US today, including all but one of the Democrat candidates for President in 2020 (Tulsi Gabbard), and the law in many blue states right now, she could have been murdered at this age (or right before birth, by having her brain removed after being delivered up to the neck), if only she survived a botched abortion because her mother didn’t want her, and refused to give her up for adoption. This is how low we have sunk. We’re far worse than the Nazis were, because we know better. And God won’t allow such heartless, utterly cruel barbarity to continue forever before He judges it. If He incinerated the United States to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah tomorrow, no one would have the slightest grounds to disagree with His justification for doing so.

***

Summary: I contend that (as part of the “problem of good”) nihilism, despair, and (in practice) widespread abortion and genocide are the logical end-results of atheist relativist moral thinking.

***

33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD

epistemology of atheism

partial birth abortion

Philosophy of Religion

science & Christianity

scientific materialism

2021-04-07T03:17:45-04:00

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.

“Dark Ages”: Christian or Barbarian?

Last updated on: April 7, 2021 at 3:17 am By Dave Armstrong

This exchange occurred in a combox at the atheist site, A Tippling Philosopher. Words of atheist Geoff Benson will be in blue.

*****

There has been only regression under Christian civilisations. The Dark Ages got their name for a reason.

Almost all historians now classify the so-called “dark ages” as the predominance of pagans and barbarians, over against Christianity: which was preserving classical culture, via the Roman Empire. If you don’t wanna take my word for it, look it up.

To envision this, take the well-known example of the pagan Vikings, who would come and visit monasteries (just a nice civilized friendly visit for tea), kill all the inhabitants and plunder. Which folks were on the side of “civilisation” in those instances? The pagans and barbarians opposed classical and Christian learning (which were merged in Christianity).

At length the Vikings converted to Christianity, became civilized, and ceased their murderous and otherwise unethical activities.

So you have it exactly backwards. I’m surprised that you could fall for one of the biggest historical myths.

I don’t deny that the situation is possibly more complex than a couple of lines permits, but the reality is, as I see it anyhow, that Christian Academia has, fairly recently, begun to try and change history, and paint a very different picture of the the Dark Ages. The sad fact is that Christianity put back the clock of civilisation by centuries because of its insistence on dogma, that it was the sole source of truth, its ruthless suppression of even the hint of criticism, never mind genuine resistance. The Vikings were an episode that came and went; they were invaders who viewed the locals as barbarians, but they have their own history and beliefs.

It’s not Christian academia, but all academia that rejects these simplistic and prejudiced outlooks of early medieval history. See, for example:

“6 Reasons the Dark Ages Weren’t So Dark” (History Channel)

I have written about proto-scientific views of Christians during this period:

Scientific & Empiricist Church Fathers: To Augustine (d. 430)

And of course when modern science got off the ground (which it didn’t do in ancient Greece or Rome), it was in a thoroughly Christian culture, and dominated by Christian and theist scientists for some 400 years:

Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science

23 Catholic Medieval Proto-Scientists: 12th-13th Centuries

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields

Seidensticker Folly #44: Historic Christianity & Science

The ‘Enlightenment’ Inquisition Against Great Scientists

Who Killed Lavoisier: “Father of Chemistry”?

Seidensticker Folly #59: Medieval Hospitals & Medicine

Seidensticker Folly #60: Anti-Intellectual Medieval Christians?

Medieval Christian Medicine Was the Forerunner of Modern Medicine

You have to unlearn an awful lot of myths, my friend.

There’s a good book on the subject The Darkening Ages: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey.

Catherine Nixey is merely a journalist and not an historian.

[to someone else] Perhaps I’m mistaken. If so then tell me, and why.

Yes, very mistaken, and I have given you plenty of documented historical reasons for why I think you are. It’s what I do as an apologist: provide historical defenses of Christianity among many other kinds of rationales. So I have the resources on-hand, among my more than 3,200 self-penned articles.

***

Photo credit: EyeShotYou (8-7-20) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Almost all historians now classify the so-called “dark ages” as the predominance of pagans and barbarians, over against Christianity: which was preserving classical culture.

***

Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals

barbarians

Christian civilization

2023-01-16T18:23:05-04:00

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.

Refutation of Atheist Paul Carlson’s 51 Bible “Contradictions”

Last updated on: January 16, 2023 at 6:23 pm By Dave Armstrong

I am responding to many portions of the article, “New Testament Contradictions” by Paul Carlson (The Secular Web, 1995). His words will be in blue. The numbers in red are my own (for numbering the alleged “contradictions” that I reply to).

*****

Editor’s note: As with all lists of alleged biblical contradictions, there will be disagreement in at least some specific cases as to whether a given “contradiction” is a genuine contradiction. It is therefore up to the reader to decide for him/herself whether to accept that a listed “contradiction” is, in fact, a genuine contradiction.

I agree that sometimes reasonable folks can disagree about the presence of a contradiction in some complex cases. But reasonable folks ought also never bring up an alleged “contradiction” that is clearly not a contradiction by any stretch of the imagination, according to the well-established rules of logic. Many such faux– / pseudo-“contradictions” are present in any atheist “laundry list” of proposed biblical contradictions that I have ever seen, including this present one. Shame on those who promulgate them. It’s weak, shoddy thinking, period.

1) I. THE BIRTH OF JESUS

A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH

Matthew and Luke disagree

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary’s, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph’s genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century.

See:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Contradictory” Genealogies of Christ? [7-27-17]

Are the Two Genealogies of Christ Contradictory? [National Catholic Register, 1-5-19]

2) Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

Arguments from “expectation” or plausibility are not, strictly speaking, the same as establishing a logical contradiction. This is the argument from silence, too, which is always weak in and of itself. Two Gospels mentioning it is more than enough. The other two didn’t. But who cares? Why must all four mention any particular thing? They all have to do with Jesus and His life. That is what anyone should “expect” to see in them. Details and absences and inclusions can differ in innumerable ways.

3) The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus’ birth, he says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

J. Warner Wallace answers:

We need to be very careful about drawing conclusions from silence. Paul may not have mentioned the virgin conception simply because it was widely understood or assumed. Paul may also have been silent because it was not the focus or purpose of his letters (which are often devoted to issues related to the Church). Remember that Paul was a contemporary of Luke (who was one of the two authors who wrote extensively about the conception of Jesus). Paul appears to be very familiar with Luke’s’ gospel (he quotes Luke in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). (“Why Didn’t Paul Mention The Virgin Conception?”, Cold-Case Christianity, 12-14-18)

As to the two Pauline passages mentioned, see this same excellent article for a reply.

4) Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph’s genealogy?

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph’s genealogy.

a. Tamar – disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).

b. Rahab – was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).

c. Ruth – at her mother-in-law Naomi’s request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).

d. Bathsheba – became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5). . . .

That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, “The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four “loose women” in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?”

Taylor Halverson replies:

Because of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Mary was an unusual mother. Found to be pregnant before she was married, she could have easily been outcast, thrown into slavery, or executed. She could have lived her life with terrible accusations thrown against her, and according to some ancient traditions, many people did think she was nothing more than an immoral harlot. And if so, such ancient critics reasoned, how could God ever do any good through someone so fallen, so morally compromised?

This is where the four women of Matthew’s genealogy answer the critics: Tamar (daughter-in-law to Judah), Rachab (the Jericho prostitute), Ruth (the non-Israelite Moabite), and Bathsheba (the woman unlawfully taken by David). Not only are each of these women ancestresses to Jesus, but each of them came from unusual, unexpected circumstances or were involved in what appears to be sexually improper situations. (“Why Are Four Women Mentioned in the Genealogy of Matthew 1?”, 1-10-19)

5) To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual.

Not really. Bible scholar Dr. Funlola Olojede comments:

In an essay entitled Observations on women in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9, [1] Ben Zvi (2006:174-184) already noted that the genealogical section of the book of Chronicles refers to more than fifty different women, whether named or unnamed. [2] The study classifies the women into two categories based on their roles. The first category includes women involved “in lineage roles often associated with female members of an ancient household”. These include the roles of mother-wife (e.g., the daughter of Machir who married Hezron and gave birth to Segub in 1 Chron 2:1); mother-concubine (e.g., Ephah, Caleb’s concubine and the mother of his sons in 1 Chron 2:46); mother-divorcee (e.g., 1 Chron 8:8-11); daughter-in-law-mother (e.g., 1 Chron 2:4), and identity as daughter or sister (e.g., 1 Chron 3:2, 5; 4:18).

The second group consists of “women in roles that were commonly assigned to mature males in the society” (Ben Zvi 2006:184-186). These include women who were heads of families (e.g., Zeruiah and Abigail in 1 Chron 2:16-17), and women who built cities (the only instance in this category was Sheerah). (“Chronicler’s women – a holistic appraisal”, Acta Theologica, January 2013)

6) B. THE ANGEL’S MESSAGE

In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary’s child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David’s throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her.

It’s simply two different messages, to two people for two different reasons. There is no “requirement” that they be exactly the same.

7) If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus’ family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind.

This is untrue. As I have pointed out, the family was trying to rescue Jesus from the people claiming that he had lost his mind. See:

Mark 3:21-22 (RSV, as throughout) And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, “He is beside himself.” [22] And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” (cf. Jn 10:20-21)

For further reading, see:

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]

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]

Jason Engwer and a Supposedly Sinful Mary (Doubting Jesus’ Sanity? / Inconsiderate (?) Young Jesus in the Temple / “Woman” and the Wedding at Cana) [11-16-20]

8) And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.

Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”

The context is Jesus visiting His hometown of Nazareth, where He was mistreated and disbelieved. Jesus is not merely talking about Himself, nor is it either a complaint or pique at not being honored. Rather, he was offering a proverbial observation, with a long sad history of fulfillment in Jewish history (which now included His own rejection):

Matthew 23:34-35 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, [35] that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (cf. Lk 11:49-51)

Acts 7:51-52 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. [52] Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,” [St. Stephen speaking, just before he himself was martyred] (cf. 1 Kgs 18:13; Neh 9:26)

Hebrews 11:36-38 Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment. [37] They were stoned, they were sawn in two [thought to be the fate of the prophet Isaiah], they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated — [38] of whom the world was not worthy — wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

He taught (or predicted) the same thing to His own disciples: generalizing about all Christians:

Matthew 10:21 Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; (cf. Mk 13:12)

Matthew 10:36 and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.

Luke 12:52-53 for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; [53] they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

9) C. THE DATE

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod’s death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is “this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor …” In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod’s death.

See:

The Census, Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem, & History [2-3-11]

“The Lukan Census” (Glenn Miller, A Christian Thinktank, Sep. 2014)

“Miller vs Carrier on the Lukan Census” (J. P. Holding, Tekton Apologetics)

“Some Neglected Evidence Relevant To The Census Of Luke 2” (+ Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4 / Part 5 / Part 6) (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 12-12-07)

“Is Luke’s Census Historical?” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 8-19-10)

10) D. THE PLACE

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew’s poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).

For the reply, see the last-mentioned paper of mine and also:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth “Contradictions” (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2) [7-28-17]

“Do the ‘Infancy Narratives’ of Matthew and Luke Contradict Each Other?” (Tim Staples, Catholic Answers Magazine, 11-21-14)

“Do the Infancy Narratives Contradict?” (Steven O’Keefe, ACTS Apologist Blog, 11-21-14)

“Are the Infancy Narratives Historically Reliable?” (Joe Heschmeyer, Shameless Popery, 11-17-11)

“How the accounts of Jesus’ childhood fit together: 6 things to know and share” (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 2-20-14)

“Why Are The Infancy Narratives So Different?” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 11-19-06)

“The Nativity Stories Harmonized” (J. P. Holding, Tekton Apologetics)

“Miller vs Carrier on the Lukan Census” (J. P. Holding, Tekton Apologetics)

“Jesus’ Birthplace (Part 1): Early Interest And Potential Sources” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 12-15-06)

“Sources For The Infancy Narratives” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 11-12-06)

“Were The Infancy Narratives Meant To Convey History?” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 11-11-06)

“Agreement Between Matthew And Luke About Jesus’ Childhood” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 11-30-13)

“Jesus’ Childhood Outside The Infancy Narratives” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 12-9-13)

“Evidence For The Bethlehem Birthplace” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 12-5-12)

11) E. THE PROPHECIES

Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies. These prophecies include:

1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a “young woman” will give birth, not a “virgin” which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

See:

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

Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy & the Virgin Birth (vs. JMS Pearce) [12-18-20]

12) 2. The “slaughter of the innocents” (Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a pure invention on Matthew’s part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod’s crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod’s greatest crime by far. It simply didn’t happen.

See:

“The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical or Not?” (J. P. Holding, Tekton Apologetics)

“Is The Slaughter Of The Innocents Historical?” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 8-18-10)

“Herod’s Slaughter of the Children / The Return from Egypt” (Glenn Miller, A Christian Thinktank)

13) The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

Carlson doesn’t understand frequent dual application of prophecies in Scripture.

14) 3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

Dual application of prophecies in Scripture again . . . If an atheist or other sort of skeptic doesn’t grasp this aspect of the Bible, they will continue to make the same dumbfounded mistake over and over.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus’ birth and the family’s arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

See the many related articles under #10 above.

15) Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, “on them he sat.”

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, “mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated “and” in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of “even” (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus’ life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew’s gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in “future contexts,” any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!

See:

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #10: Chapter 11 (Two Donkeys? / Fig Tree / Moneychangers) [8-20-19]

16) A. WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST KNOW ABOUT JESUS AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

John’s first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers’ wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy (Luke 1:44). Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, and “the Son of God” (John 1:29,36). Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive. John’s definite knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke 7:18-23 in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?”

See:

Seidensticker Folly #27: Confusion Re John the Baptist [10-9-18]

17) B. WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus’ baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 “to fulfill all righteousness.”

Catholic writer Kirsten Andersen explains:

Since Jesus didn’t have any sins that needed forgiving (original or otherwise), was already fully himself and fully God’s son and had no need of salvation, baptism would seem redundant . . .

So what’s the deal? Why did Jesus insist on receiving baptism from John, even though John himself flat-out objected, arguing that it was Jesus who should baptize him?

The easy answer is that Jesus was simply setting the example for his followers. “WWJD” bracelets may be out-of-fashion and clichéd, but they do express the rather profound truth that as long as we keep our eyes on Jesus, and do what he showed us how to do in both word and deed, salvation can be ours. . . .

[T]he baptism Jesus received from John wasn’t the same sacrament we celebrate today. How could it have been? Jesus had not yet established his Church, so the sacraments didn’t exist yet. The “baptisms” John performed were actually ritual washings (*mikveh/*pl. mikvaot) given to converting and reverting Jews, symbolizing the death of one’s old, sinful self, and rebirth as a ritually clean Jew.

Mikvaot were commonly performed to cleanse Jews of any sins and ritual impurities before presenting themselves at the temple, . . . (“If Jesus Was Sinless, Why Did He Need to Be Baptized?,” Aleteia, 1-8-16)

For more on this question, see the appropriate section in:

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #2: Chapter 1 (Why Did Mark Omit Jesus’ Baptism? / Why Was Jesus Baptized? / “Suffering Servant” & Messiah in Isaiah / Spiritual “Kingdom of God” / Archaeological Support) [8-14-19]

18) Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, are also an embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19)

Right. We’re all embarrassed to death. [sarcasm] but I certainly am embarrassed about how ridiculous atheists arguments about “contradictions” are. I would know, having dealt with them hundreds of times by now. Let’s take a look at this nonsense:

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (cf. Lk 18:19)

This was merely a rhetorical retort by Jesus: employing socratic method, as He often did. It has no implication that He Himself was sinful. Besides, He’s saying that God is uniquely good (knowing that this person didn’t think or believe that He was God), while massively asserting many other times that He Himself is God: and this includes many instances in the synoptic Gospels, too. Jesus states in John 8:46: “Which of you convicts me of sin?”

19) Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke’s account of Jesus’ baptism occurs after the account of John’s imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).

He does no such thing.

Luke 3:21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, [22] and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

Exact, literal chronology was viewed very differently by the Jews than it is by Greek-dominated western thought. So the order here means little. I deal with this issue at length in #79 of my paper, Refuting 59 of Michael Alter’s Resurrection “Contradictions” [3-12-21] and in these two articles:

Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time: + Refutation of a Clueless Atheist “Biblical Contradiction” [5-11-17]

The Genesis Creation Accounts and Hebrew Time [National Catholic Register, 7-2-17]

Luke is clearly reflecting other accounts of Jesus’ baptism by referring to the Holy Spirit symbolized as a dove, and God the Father saying He was pleased. Yet Carlson ludicrously claims: “Luke . . . tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus.” Will this folly ever end? It is humorous to observe but also sad and tragic, because many people are taken in by this sort of ignorant nonsense and even lose their faith over it.

20) C. WHY DIDN’T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A FOLLOWER OF JESUS?

If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn’t he become a disciple of Jesus? And why didn’t all, or even most, of John’s disciples become Jesus’ disciples?

John did indeed become Jesus’ follower:

John 3:28-30 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. [29] He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. [30] He must increase, but I must decrease.”

Matthew 3:11 I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (cf. Mk 1:7-8)

John’s role was as a prototype of Elijah: the one who came before Christ:

Dialogue w Agnostic on Elijah and John the Baptist [9-24-06]

The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus’ baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down. They could not ignore it because John’s followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus’ baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God. The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus.

Most of John’s disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries.

There could be such a thing as devotees of John, just as their are various orders in the Catholic Church. But it would be understood that it was a brand of Christianity, and that Jesus was Lord and Messiah, and John the forerunner who announced him, but was much lesser than him (as he himself said), and the last prophet in the Old Testament sense. No problem.

21) III. THE LAST SUPPER

A. WHEN – BEFORE OR DURING PASSOVER?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John’s gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

See an article by Fr. William P. Saunders on the Catholic Straight Answers site, and Jimmy Akin: “Was the Last Supper a Passover Meal?”

22) C. JUDAS ISCARIOT

It is very unclear in the gospels just what Judas Iscariot’s betrayal consisted of, probably because there was absolutely no need for a betrayal. Jesus could have been arrested any number of times without the general populace knowing about it. It would have been simple to keep tabs on his whereabouts. The religious authorities did not need a betrayal – only the gospel writers needed a betrayal, so that a few more “prophecies” could be fulfilled. The whole episode is pure fiction – and, as might be expected, it is riddled with contradictions.

Of course there is no way to prove any of this nonsense. If there were, surely atheists like Carlson would make their arguments along those lines, but they usually don’t. They merely assert fanciful scenarios out of their own over-abundant imaginations. As I’ve noted many times, bald assertion is not argument. It assumes what it’s trying to prove (which is circular reasoning).

23) 1. The prophecy

Matthew says that Judas’ payment and death were prophesied by Jeremiah, and then he quotes Zechariah 11:12-13 as proof!

See:

Seidensticker Folly #53: Matthew Cited the Wrong Prophet? [9-11-20]

24) 2. Thirty pieces of silver

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests “weighed out thirty pieces of silver” to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no “pieces of silver” used as currency in Jesus’ time – they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.

Really? The Roman denarius was, according to the Wikipedia article it was “the standard Roman silver coin from its introduction in the Second Punic War c. 211 BC[1] to the reign of Gordian III (AD 238–244), . . .” It was in use in Israel. The same article states:

In the New Testament, the gospels refer to the denarius as a day’s wage for a common laborer (Matthew 20:2,[21] John 12:5).[22] . . . The denarius is also mentioned in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The Render unto Caesar passage in Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17 uses the word (δηνάριον) to describe the coin held up by Jesus, translated in the King James Bible as “tribute penny“. It is commonly thought to be a denarius with the head of Tiberius.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (“Coins”) adds:

The coins of Tyre and Sidon, both silver and copper, must have circulated largely in Palestine on account of the intimate commercial relations between the Jews and Phoenicians (for examples, see under MONEY). After the advent of the Romans the local coinage was restricted chiefly to the series of copper coins, such as the mites mentioned in the New Testament, the silver denarii being struck mostly at Rome, but circulating wherever the Romans went.

But Bible commentators appear to usually hold that silver shekels were being referred to:

15. covenanted with him] Rather, weighed out for him; either literally or= “paid him.”

thirty pieces of silver] i. e. thirty silver shekels. St Matthew alone names the sum, which= 120 denarii. The shekel is sometimes reckoned at three shillings, but for the real equivalent in English money see note on Matthew 26:7. Thirty shekels was the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32); a fact which gives force to our Lord’s words, Matthew 20:28, “The Son of man came … to minister (to be a slave), and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Matthew refers to Zechariah 11:12. These pieces were shekels of the sanctuary, of standard weight, and therefore heavier than the ordinary shekel. See on Matthew 17:24. Reckoning the Jerusalem shekel at seventy-two cents, the sum would be twenty-one dollars and sixty cents. (Vincent’s Word Studies)

So there definitely were silver coins in ancient Israel during Jesus’ time. They may have been in the minority of all coinage, but all we need is to show that they existed, for this biblical assertion to be historical. And the above documentation certainly does that. To claim that “they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before” is an unwarranted falsehood.

25) b. In Jesus’ time, minted coins were used – currency was not “weighed out.”

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah’s time but not in Jesus’ time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match “prophecies” he finds in the Old Testament.

Coined money was in use, but the shekels may have been weighed out in antique fashion by men careful to do an iniquitous thing in the most orthodox way. Or there may have been no weighing in the case, but only the use of an ancient form of speech after the practice had become obsolete . . . (Expositor’s Greek Testament)

As to the latter practice, we do that today in English in many ways. The article, “12 Old Words That Survived by Getting Fossilized in Idioms” (Arika Okrent, Mental Floss.com, 11-4-15; updated 7-5-19) provides four examples:

EKE

If we see eke at all these days, it’s when we “eke out” a living, but it comes from an old verb meaning to add, supplement, or grow. It’s the same word that gave us eke-name for “additional name,” which later, through misanalysis of “an eke-name” became nickname. . . .

ROUGHSHOD

Nowadays we see this word in the expression “to run/ride roughshod” over somebody or something, meaning to tyrannize or treat harshly. It came about as a way to describe the 17th century version of snow tires. A “rough-shod” horse had its shoes attached with protruding nail heads in order to get a better grip on slippery roads. It was great for keeping the horse on its feet, but not so great for anyone the horse might step on. . . .

FRO

The fro in “to and fro” is a fossilized remnant of a Northern English or Scottish way of pronouncing from. It was also part of other expressions that didn’t stick around, like “fro and till,” “to do fro” (to remove), and “of or fro” (for or against). . . .

LURCH

When you leave someone “in the lurch,” you leave them in a jam, in a difficult position. But while getting left in the lurch may leave you staggering around and feeling off-balance, the lurch in this expression has a different origin than the staggery one. The balance-related lurch comes from nautical vocabulary, while the lurch you get left in comes from an old French backgammon-style game called lourche. Lurch became a general term for the situation of beating your opponent by a huge score. By extension, it came to stand for the state of getting the better of someone or cheating them.

Likewise, with the payment to Judas, it may be a case where for centuries coinage based on weight of silver, gold, or copper was weighed out, so that in order to ascertain or measure an exact amount, the coins were weighed. This saying of “weighing out” would then have remained after coins had a definite numerical amount, and was simply synonymous with “counting” except that the older method was still referred to by habit.

26) 3. Who bought the Field of Blood?

a. In Matthew 27:7 the chief priests buy the field.

b. In Acts 1:18 Judas buys the field.

E. W. Bullinger adequately explained seeming but not actual contradiction this in his Companion Bible.

27) 4. How did Judas die?

a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.

b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

See:

Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked (vs. Dave Van Allen and Dr. Jim Arvo) [9-27-07]

28) c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to “the twelve” after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Protestant apologist Eric Lyons provides the rebuttal:

Numerous alleged Bible discrepancies arise because skeptics frequently interpret figurative language in a literal fashion. They treat God’s Word as if it were a dissertation on the Pythagorean theorem rather than a book written using ordinary language. . . . The simple solution to this numbering “problem” is that “the twelve” to which Paul referred was not a literal number, but the designation of an office. This term is used merely “to point out the society of the apostles, who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number, and a number which was afterward filled up” (Clarke, 1996). Gordon Fee stated that Paul’s use of the term “twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5 “is a clear indication that in the early going this was a title given to the special group of twelve whom Jesus called to ‘be with him’ (Mark 3:14).

This figurative use of numbers is just as common in English vernacular as it was in the ancient languages. In certain collegiate sports, one can refer to the Big Ten conference, which consists of 14 teams, or the Atlantic Ten conference, which is also made up of 14 teams. At one time, these conferences only had ten teams, but when they exceeded that number, they kept their original conference “names.” Their names are a designation for a particular conference, not a literal number.

In 1884, the term “two-by-four” was coined to refer to a piece of lumber two-by-four inches. Interestingly, a two-by-four still is called a two-by-four, even though today it is trimmed to slightly smaller dimensions (1 5/8 by 3 5/8). Again, the numbers are more of a designation than a literal number.

Biblical use of “the twelve” as a designation for the original disciples is strongly indicated in many Gospel passages. Jesus Himself did this: “Did I not choose you, the twelve . . .?” (Jn 6:70). He didn’t say, “did I not choose you twelve men.” By saying, “the twelve” in the way He did, it’s proven that it was a [not always literal] title for the group. Hence, John refers to “Thomas, one of the twelve” after Judas departed, and before he was replaced by Matthias (Jn 20:24). Paul simply continues the same practice. It was also used because “twelve” was an important number in biblical thinking (40 and 70 are two other such numbers). For a plain and undeniable example of this, see Revelation 21:12, 14, 21.

29) 5. How did the Field of Blood get its name?

a. Matthew says because it was purchased with blood money (Matthew 27:6-8).

b. Acts says because of the bloody mess caused by Judas’ bursting open (Acts 1:18-19).

It’s not one field, but two being referred to, as E. W. Bullinger explained, adding:

In addition to all the above, the two pieces of land were respectively called “agros of blood” (Matthew 27:8) and “chorion of blood” (Acts 1:19) for different reasons. Indeed, the “agros of blood” that the chief priests bought was called like this because it was bought with the “price of blood” (Matthew 27:7, 9) i.e. with the thirty pieces of silver paid for the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, the “chorion of blood” that Judas bought was called like this because Judas committed suicide there (Acts 1:19).

30) 1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?

a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).

b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24). . . .

d. John mentions only the high priest – no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus.

John reports that Jesus was first questioned by Annas: “the father-in-law of Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year” (Jn 18:13), who “questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching ” (Jn 18:19). “Annas then sent him bound to Ca’iaphas the high priest” (18:24). Then “they [implied: the Sanhedrin] led Jesus from the house of Ca’iaphas to the praetorium [where Pilate was]” (18:28). And “They answered him, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over” (18:30). Note that Caiaphas was present at the judgment and “monkey trial” of the Sanhedrin, as indicated by Matthew 26:57, 62, Mark (not named, but mentioned as the “high priest”: 14:53-54, 60, 63, 66), and Luke (“high priest”: 22:54).

So it’s all the same overall story, told by four storytellers, with the expected differences in detail and emphases that we would expect in any four different accounts of the same incident. Matthew and John refer directly to Caiphas the high priest as being involved (Matthew mentions also the assembly, whereas John doesn’t (directly), but still indicates their presence by the two uses of “they” in describing the Jewish leaders leading Jesus to Pilate. Mark and Luke don’t name him, but note that the “high priest” was involved, which is no contradiction.

31) b. Pilate’s “custom” of releasing a prisoner at Passover.

This is pure invention – the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival. Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesus’ death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews.

According to The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, c. 1984, Vol. 8, page 773f: “The custom referred to of releasing a prisoner at the Passover Feast is unknown outside the Gospels. It was, however, a Roman custom and could well have been a custom in Palestine. An example of a Roman official releasing a prisoner on the demands of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59ff. There the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, says to Phibion, the accused: ‘Thou has been worthy of scourging, but I will give thee to the people’.” (“Release Barabbas! Did the Gospel Writers Make That Up”, Sam Harris, The John Ankerberg Show, 8-9-00)

32) Who put the robe on Jesus?

a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.

b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

See:

“Bible Contradiction? Who put the robe on Jesus?” (The Domain for Truth, 2-16-17)

33) Crucified between two robbers

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.

The following crimes entailed this penalty: piracy, highway robbery, assassination, forgery, false testimony, mutiny, high treason, rebellion (see Pauly-Wissowa, “Real-Encyc.” s.v. “Crux”; Josephus, “B. J.” v. 11, § 1). Soldiers that deserted to the enemy and slaves who denounced their masters (“delatio domini”)were also punished by death on the cross. (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, “Crucifixion”)

The crucifixion of robbers by the Romans is also verified with many ancient sources on pages 46-50 of the book, Crucifixion, by Martin Hengel, Fortress Press, 1977. But Carlson gives us no documentation. He simply asserts demonstrable falsehood. Atheists often do this, apparently thinking it is impressive. It ain’t.

34) Peter and Mary near the cross

When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross, they run afoul of another historical fact – the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was allowed near (least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person).

[C]rucifixion as a public means of execution served as an emphatic warning to onlookers. A quote ascribed to Quintillian explains that “when we [Romans] crucify criminals the most frequented roads are chosen, where the greatest number of people can look and be seized by this fear. For every punishment has less to do with the offense than with the example” (Decl., 274) (in The Governor and the King: Irony, Hidden Transcripts, and Negotiating Empire in the Fourth Gospel, by Arthur M. Wright, Jr., Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2019, see the quotation at Google Books)

Many movies about Jesus show Mary His mother and others including the apostle John right at the foot of the cross. If the tradition is to believed, where they actually stood was at least half a football field in distance away. I myself stood at the traditional spot in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 2o14. The Bible doesn’t indicate exactly how close the lookers were. Luke 23:35 says they “stood by, watching.” Matthew 27:55 states: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar . . .” Mark 15:40 similarly describes it as “There were also women looking on from afar . . . John 19:25 uses the language of “standing by the cross of Jesus.” Once again, an alleges atheist biblical “contradiction” falls flat or sheer lack of substance, plausibility, and coherence.

35) The opened tombs

According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.

Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening – historians of that time certainly know nothing of it – neither do the other gospel writers.

See:

Seidensticker Folly #45: “Zombies” & Clueless Atheists (Atheist Neil Carter Joins in on the Silliness and Tomfoolery as Well) [8-29-20]

36-38) Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.”

b. According to Mark 16:1, “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.”

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, “the women who had come with him out of Galilee.” Among these women were “Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James.” Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.

Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

a. According to Mark 16:8, “they said nothing to anyone.”

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they “ran to report it to His disciples.”

c. According to Luke 24:9, “they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest.”

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

See:

Pearce’s Potshots #13: Resurrection “Contradictions” (?) [2-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #14: Resurrection “Contradictions” #2 [2-4-21]

Dialogue w Atheist on Post-Resurrection “Contradictions” [1-26-11]

Seidensticker Folly #18: Resurrection “Contradictions”? [9-17-18]

Seidensticker Folly #57: Male Witnesses of the Dead Jesus [9-14-20]

Refuting 59 of Michael Alter’s Resurrection “Contradictions” [3-12-21]

39) THE ASCENSION

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus’ ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus’ ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.

See:

Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18]

40) NO SIGNS, ONE SIGN, OR MANY SIGNS?

At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

1. In Mark 8:12 Jesus says that “no sign shall be given to this generation.” . . .

3. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning (or first) of the signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the “second sign” (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus “because they were seeing the signs He was performing” (John 6:2).

This exhibits rank ignorance of Scripture (very common among anti-theist atheists). The difference (not a contradiction) has to do with willingness to believe vs. unwillingness. Jesus knew who would accept His signs and miracles and who would not. With people who did not and would not (usually the “scribes and Pharisees”), He refused to do miracles and signs. This is made clear in the Bible:

Mark 8:11-12 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. [12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

Matthew 12:39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (cf. 16:4)

In Jesus’ story of Lazarus and the rich man, He explains why sometimes it does no good to perform miracles:

Luke 16:27-31 And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ [29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ [30] And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ [31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'”

This also, of course, foretold the widespread rejection of the miracle of His own Resurrection. Belief or willingness to accept the evidence of a miracle is also tied to Jesus’ willingness to do miracles:

Matthew 13:58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

With the common folk, it was entirely different, and so we also see a verse like John 6:2 above. Because the atheist hyper-critic refuses to acknowledge or understand these simple distinctions, all of a sudden we have yet another trumped-up, so-called contradiction where there is none at all. E for [futile] effort, though . . .

41) 2. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be given – the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction – he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

This is an old and stupid saw of atheist anti-Christian polemics, which exhibits an ignorance of ancient Near Eastern Semitic culture and certain expressions and the reckoning of time. I thoroughly refute it here:

“Three Days and Nights” in the Tomb: Contradiction? [10-31-06]

42) SON OF DAVID?

Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages which have Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1 to argue that the Messiah does not need to be a son of David (Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44).

1. This contradicts many Old Testament passages that indicate that the Messiah will be a descendant of David. It also contradicts official church doctrine.

2. In Acts 2:30-36 Peter, in what is regarded as the first Christian sermon, quotes Psalm 110:1 in arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, a descendant of David.

The Messiah (Jesus) was indeed the Son of David, which is why He accepted this title for Himself, and never rebuked or denied it (Mt 9:27; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9; Mk 10:47-48; Lk 18:38-39), and why St. Peter repeated this truth.

The falsehood involved here is thinking that the three passages first listed contradict this understanding. They do not, because they record a certain kind of socratic rhetoric that Jesus frequently used; not intended as a denial at all. The Bible commentaries cited below explain this, so as to get atheists woefully ignorant of biblical teaching and exegesis (and Hebrew literary figures of speech and rhetorical argumentation) up to speed:

“The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lord’s ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiah’s pedigree, arising from Psalms 110 : What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? — Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David — This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psalm 89:35-36; and Isaiah 11:1.” He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord — If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? “The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God’s right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ’s enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.” And no man was able to answer him a word — None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions — “The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.” — Macknight. (Benson Commentary)

He had silenced his opponents, and opened profundities in Scripture hitherto unfathomed; he would now raise them to a higher theology; he would place before them a truth concerning the nature of the Messiah, which, if they received it, would lead them to accept him. It was as it were a last hope. He and the Pharisees had some common ground, which was wanting in the case of the Sadducees and Herodians (comp Acts 23:6); he would use this to support a last appeal. . . . He desires to win acceptance of his claims by the unanswerable argument of the Scripture which they revered; let them consider the exact meaning of a text often quoted, let them weigh each word with reverent care, and they would see that the predicted Messiah was not merely Son of David according to earthly descent, but was Jehovah himself; and that when he claimed to be Son of God, when he asserted, “I and my Father are one,” he was vindicating for himself only what the prophet had affirmed of the nature of the Christ. (Pulpit Commentary)

From the universally recognized title of the Messiah as the Son of David, which by His question He elicits from them, He takes occasion to shew them, who understood this title in a mere worldly political sense, the difficulty arising from David’s own reverence for this his Son: the solution lying in the incarnate Godhead of the Christ, of which they were ignorant. (Henry Alford’s Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary)

43) THE FIG TREE

After Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem a sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21).

1. Since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree.

2. Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered.

a. In Matthew, the tree withers at once and the disciples comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20).

b. In Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).

Apologist Kyle Butt offers a plausible explanation:

One prominent question naturally arises from a straightforward reading of the text. Why would Jesus curse a fig tree that did not have figs on it, especially since the text says that “it was not the season for figs”? In response to this puzzling question, skeptical minds have let themselves run wild with accusations regarding the passage. . . .

When Jesus approached the fig tree, the text indicates that the tree had plenty of leaves. R.K. Harrison, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, explains that various kinds of figs grew in Palestine during the first century. One very important aspect of fig growth has to do with the relationship between the leaf and the fruit. Harrison notes that the tiny figs, known to the Arabs as taksh, “appear simultaneously in the leaf axils” (1982, 2:302) This taksh is edible and “is often gathered for sale in the markets” (2:302). Furthermore, the text notes: “When the young leaves are appearing in spring, every fertile fig will have some taksh on it…. But if a tree with leaves has no fruit, it will be barren for the entire season” (2:301-302).

Thus, when Jesus approached the leafy fig tree, He had every reason to suspect that something edible would be on it. However, after inspecting the tree, Mark records that “He found nothing but leaves.” No taksh were budding as they should have been if the tree was going to produce edible figs that year. The tree appeared to be fruitful, but it only had outward signs of bearing fruit (leaves) and in truth offered nothing of value to weary travelers. . . .

[I]n a general sense, Jesus often insisted that trees which do not bear good fruit will be cut down (Matthew 7:19; Luke 13:6-9). The fig tree did not bear fruit, was useless, and deserved to be destroyed: the spiritual application being that any human who does not bear fruit for God will also be destroyed for his or her failure to produce.

Jesus did not throw a temper tantrum and curse the fig tree even though it was incapable of producing fruit. He cursed the tree because it should have been growing fruit since it had the outward signs of productivity. Jesus’ calculated timing underscored the spiritual truth that barren spiritual trees eventually run out of time. As for personal application, we should all diligently strive to ensure that we are not the barren fig tree.

44) THE GREAT COMMISSION

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.

First of all, this is another bald assertion that a particular passage was added later to the Bible. No proof, no evidence; just the assertion, which, of course, carries no force or weight whatsoever.

Secondly, trinitarianism is massively present in the New Testament, both in terms of Jesus’ own claim to be God in the flesh (and New Testament agreement), and also the trinitarian teaching that the Holy Spirit is God, as well as, of course, God the Father.

The Didache was a very early Christian document (as early as 70 AD), and it states:

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (7:1)

That’s hardly “two hundred years” later “before this baptismal formula came into use”: as Carlson ignorantly proclaims.

45) In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38).

They were baptized in Jesus’ name (as well as in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit). The same book of Acts did not deny trinitarianism at all, since it provided the best single passages that proves the deity of the Holy Spirit:

Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? [4] . . . You have not lied to men but to God.” . . .

Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit; at the same time he lied to God; therefore the Holy Spirit and God are synonymous: one and the same. Just five verses before Acts 2:38 cited above, Luke provides an explicitly trinitarian utterance:

Acts 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.

He did the same again, later in the book:

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Commentaries provide a fuller explanation of the main question at hand:

The question presents itself, Why is the baptism here, and elsewhere in the Acts (Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5), “in the name of Jesus Christ,” while in Matthew 28:19, the Apostles are commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Various explanations have been given. It has been said that baptism in the Name of any one of the Persons of the Trinity, involves the Name of the other Two. It has even been assumed that St. Luke meant the fuller formula when he used the shorter one. But a more satisfactory solution is, perhaps, found in seeing in the words of Matthew 28:19 (see Note there) the formula for the baptism of those who, as Gentiles. had been “without God in the world, not knowing the Father;” while for converts from Judaism, or those who had before been proselytes to Judaism, it was enough that there should be the distinctive profession of their faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, added on to their previous belief in the Father and the Holy Spirit. In proportion as the main work of the Church of Christ lay among the Gentiles, it was natural that the fuller form should become dominant, and finally be used exclusively. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard further elaborates:

Why is the Church saying that we can baptize with the Trinitarian formula when all the baptisms mentioned in the Bible are done “in the name of Jesus”? Here are few ways to meet this challenge.

First, a self-professed Christian can’t reject the validity of the Trinitarian formula because Jesus commands the apostles to use it when they baptize: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Those who pose the challenge, therefore, at least have to acknowledge that the Trinitarian formula is valid since it comes from the lips of the Master himself.

Second, when compared to Jesus’ instruction to use the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19**,** the passages found in the book of Acts don’t seem to refer to the actual formula that must be used in administering the sacrament.

Notice how in Matthew 28:19 Jesus is privately addressing only the eleven (Matt. 28:16), whom he is sending toperform baptisms. In context, it makes sense that Jesus would be telling them exactly how to do it.

Contrast this with, for example, Peter’s injunction in Acts 2. That takes place in a public setting and is given to those who would receive baptism—not to those who would be performing it. It would not seem to be as vitally important for those receiving the sacrament to know the precise formula as for those performing it, right?

Moreover, Peter’s injunction is not premeditated. Instead, he is quickly enumerating what must be done to be saved in response to those present who, upon hearing his preaching, were “cut to the heart” and asked him, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (v.37). It’s unreasonable to think that Peter would be giving precise instructions as to the words that must be used in baptism when he’s merely saying, “You want to be saved? Okay, here are the things you need to do—repent and get baptized.”

Jesus’s command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is also distinct from Peter’s command for Cornelius to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). As on the day of Pentecost, Luke records what Peter says to those who would receive baptism, not those who would administer it.

Also, Luke does not record what Peter said specifically. He merely narrates in summary form: “And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” It doesn’t seem that Luke intends to say that the words “in the name of Jesus” were Peter’s instructions for the actual words to be used in administering baptism. (“Baptize in the Name of … Who?”, Catholic Answers, 11-29-18)

46) This contradicts Jesus’ earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul’s version) to the gentiles.

Again, this exhibits a profound ignorance and cluelessness as regards actual biblical teaching. I have disposed of this bogus objection at least four times (aren’t links wonderful and so convenient?):

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #7: Ch. 7 (Gentiles) [8-19-19]

Vs. Atheist David Madison #39: Jesus the Xenophobic Bigot? (And did Jesus minister exclusively to Jews and not Gentiles at all: an alleged Gospel inconsistency)? [12-12-19]

Did Jesus Minister Exclusively to Jews and not Gentiles? [7-2-20]

Did Jesus Heal and Preach to Only Jews? No! [National Catholic Register, 7-19-20]

47) ENOCH IN THE BOOK OF JUDE

Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of “Enoch” from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God. The Book of Enoch was used in the early church until at least the third century – Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However, as church doctrine began to solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a short period of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch. A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia in 1768. Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get rid of Enoch – not only does it contain fantastic imagery (some of which was borrowed by the Book of Revelation), but it also contradicts church doctrine on several points (and, since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also contradicts itself).

The fallacy here is to think that because the Bible cites something, it, too, must be the “Word of God.” This simply isn’t true, since the Bible cites several non-canonical works or aspects of various traditions without implying that they are canonical. St. Paul, for example, in speaking to the philosophical Athenians (Acts 17:22-28), cited the Greek poet Aratus: (c. 315-240 B. C.) and philosopher-poet Epimenides (6th c. B. C.) – both referring to Zeus. So St. Paul used two Greek pagan poet-philosophers, talking about a false god (Zeus) and “Christianized” their thoughts: applying them to the true God. He also cited the Greek dramatist Menander (c.342-291 B.C.) at 1 Corinthians 15:33: “bad company ruins good morals”.

For more along these lines, see David Palm, “Oral Tradition in the New Testament” (This Rock, May 1995) and “Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible” (Wikipedia).

48) THE APOSTLE PAUL’S CONVERSION

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. All of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul’s fellow travelers.

1. Acts 9:7 says they “stood speechless, hearing the voice…”

2. Acts 22:9 says they “did not hear the voice…”

3. Acts 26:14 says “when we had all fallen to the ground…”

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American Standard, for example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase quoted above as “did not understand the voice…” However, the Greek word “akouo” is translated 373 times in the New Testament as “hear,” “hears,” “hearing” or “heard” and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as “understand.” In fact, it is the same word that is translated as “hearing” in Acts 9:7, quoted above. The word “understand” occurs 52 times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word “akouo.”

This is an example of Bible translators sacrificing intellectual honesty in an attempt to reconcile conflicting passages in the New Testament.

Several people have made adequate and sufficient refutations of this charge: Erik Manning, J. P. Holding, Bill Pratt, and Jimmy Akin.

49) JESUS CALLS THE DISCIPLES

1. In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.

2. In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter’s boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow Jesus.

3. In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.

Apologist Eric Lyons has made a direct reply to Paul Carlson concerning this groundless charge.

50) SHOULD THE TWELVE DISCIPLES TAKE STAFFS?

When Jesus summons the twelve disciples to send them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, he lists the things the disciples should not take with them.

1. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take.

2. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception – the disciples may take a staff.

At least this appears at first glance to be a real contradiction (unlike virtually all atheist proposed ones I’ve ever seen: and I’ve dealt with several hundred). So it deserves a serious treatment. Protestant apologists Eric Lyons and Brad Harrub (on a site that specializes in alleged biblical contradictions) grant the difficulty of interpreting these passages harmoniously in writing that they were “Perhaps the most difficult alleged Bible contradiction that we have been asked to ‘tackle’ . . . A cursory reading of the above passages admittedly is somewhat confusing.” Then they proceed to explain the apparent discrepancies:

The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. In Matthew, the word “provide” (NKJV) is an English translation of the Greek word ktesthe. According to Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon, the root word comes from ktaomai, which means to “procure for oneself, acquire, get” (1979, p. 455). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb “acquire” in Matthew 10:9 (“Do not acquire….”), instead of “provide” or “take.” In Matthew, Jesus is saying: “Do not acquire anything in addition to what you already have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are.” As Mark indicated, the apostles were to “take” (airo) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in God’s providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more.

They continue by tackling the additional information from Luke:

As is obvious from a comparison of the verses in Matthew and Luke, they are recording the same truth—that the apostles were not to spend valuable time gathering extra staffs—only they are using different words to do so.

“Provide (Greek ktaomi) neither gold nor silver…nor staffs” (Matthew 10:9-10, emp. added).

“Take (Greek airo) nothing for the journey, neither staffs” (Luke 9:3, emp. added).

Luke did not use ktaomi in his account because he nearly always used ktaomi in a different sense than Matthew did. In Matthew’s account, the word ktaomai is used to mean “provide” or “acquire,” whereas in the books of Luke and Acts, Luke used this word to mean “purchase, buy, or earn.” Notice the following examples of how Luke used this word.

“I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get” (ktaomai) [Luke 18:12, emp. added, NAS]

“Now this man purchased (ktaomai) a field with the wages of iniquity (Acts 1:18, emp. added).

“Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased (ktaomai) with money!” (Acts 8:20, emp. added).

The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained (ktaomai) this citizenship” (Acts 22:28, emp. added).

[Luke 21:19 is the only place one could argue where Luke may have used ktaomai to mean something other than “purchase, buy, or earn,” but even here there is a transactional notion in it (Miller, 1997)].When Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), used the word ktaomai, he meant something different than when Matthew, the tax collector, used the same word. Whereas Luke used ktaomai to refer to purchasing or buying something, Matthew used the Greek verb agorazo (cf. Matthew 14:15; 25:9-10; 27:6-7). Matthew used ktaomai only in the sense of acquiring something (not purchasing something). As such, it would make absolutely no sense for Luke to use ktaomai in his account of Jesus sending out the apostles (9:3). If he did, then he would have Jesus forbidding the apostles to “purchase” or “buy” money [“Buy nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money….”]. Thus, Luke used the more general Greek verb (airo) in order to convey the same idea that Matthew did when using the Greek verb ktaomai.

Just as ktaomai did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew, the Greek word airo (translated “take” in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) often did not mean the same for Luke and Mark (see Miller, 1997). [Understanding this simple fact eliminates the “contradiction” completely, for unless the skeptic can be certain that Mark and Luke were using the word in the same sense, he cannot prove that the accounts contradict each other.] Mark consistently used airo in other passages throughout his gospel to mean simply “take” or “pick up and carry” (2:9; 6:29; 11:23; 13:16). That Luke (in 9:3) did not mean the same sense of airo as Mark did (in 6:8) is suggested by the fact that in Luke 19:21-22 he used this same verb to mean “acquire.” [see also the visual chart in the article that is very helpful]

Now, the anti-theist atheists (who love bringing up things like this) typically respond with “well, see how hard you had to work to solve the contradiction?! It shouldn’t have to be that hard!” We agree that it shouldn’t be so hard, if one understood Greek in the first place. But for those of us who don’t know Greek, it appears contradictory, because the difference hinges upon different Greek words and even different meanings of the same Greek words (in context): just as English words usually have several definitions.

Therefore, it takes a considerable bit of explaining to clarify for the non-Greek speaker. Once that key difference is understood, the so-called “contradiction” is shown to not be one at all, because the writers are using different Greek words and meaning different things. And there are many alleged “biblical contradictions” that are resolved in this same fashion.

51) THE SECOND COMING

1. During the disciples’ lifetime

There are several passages in the gospels where Jesus says he will return in the disciples’ lifetime (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.).

The same expectation held during the period the apostle Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 Paul says that the time is so short that believers should drastically change the way that they live. But Paul had a problem – some believers had died, so what would happen to them when Jesus returned?

Paul’s answer in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that Paul expected that at least some of those he was writing to would be alive when Jesus returned – “we who are alive, and remain…” The same passage also indicates that Paul believed that those believers who had died remained “asleep in Jesus” until he returned. However, as the delay in Jesus’ return grew longer, the location of Jesus’ kingdom shifted from earth to heaven and we later find Paul indicating that when believers die they will immediately “depart and be with Christ” (Philippians 1:23).

It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he believed he would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite obvious that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back.

See:

Seidensticker Folly #58: Jesus Erred on Time of 2nd Coming? (with David Palm) [10-7-20]

“The Last Days”: Meaning in Hebrew, Biblical Thought [12-5-08]

Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #3: Nature & Time of 2nd Coming [8-3-19]

Debate with an Agnostic on the Meaning of “Last Days” and Whether the Author of Hebrews Was a False Prophet [9-13-06]

***

Photo credit: darksouls1 (10-10-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: I tackle and refute all 51 supposed Bible “contradictions” suggested by anti-theist atheist Paul Carlson in his pathetic hit-piece, “New Testament Contradictions” (The Secular Web, 1995).

***

Bible and Tradition

anti-theism

Atheism

HairyEyedWordBombThrower:

2021-03-18T21:35:49-04:00

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.

How Anti-Theist Atheists “Argue” Online (I.e., Insult)

Last updated on: March 18, 2021 at 9:35 pm By Dave Armstrong

I got these examples from Jonathan MS Pearce’s A Tippling Philosopher blog, from four different comboxes with many hundreds of comments each: made between 3-11-21 and 3-18-21. Links will be provided. I am only documenting what they say about me; not every Christian or otherwise non-atheist who dares to enter their sublime hallowed, oh-so-academic and intelligent environs.

I’ve allowed a measure of the “PG-13” language. It almost had to be let through in order to illustrate the utter idiocy and worthlessness of all of these comments. So be forewarned.

*****

Proverbs 1:22 (RSV) How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 15:2 . . . the mouths of fools pour out folly.

Proverbs 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool that repeats his folly.

Luke Breuer: Curiously enough, Tippling actually manages to keep a lot of insults down to a reasonable level, such that actual discussion can keep happening. And this without uniform groupthink, . . . (3-14-21)

***

Still fishing for clicks, you hack? Go away. We’re not giving you any traffic, so I hope those Communion wafers have all the required vitamins and minerals, because no clicks means no MONEY. (3-15-21)

Davie-poo, stop lying. We HAVE replied, often at great length. Then you, in your predictably cowardly fashion, block / ban / rewrite the comments as necessary to make you the hero. YOUR KIND no longer have the ability to goad us into following you back. Ain’t it great? ;-) (3-15-21)

Fishing for clicks like the beggar you are. Worse, a beggar who thinks he’s a prince, a The Prince and the Pauper-style, jumped-up cretin ‘prince’. (3-15-21)

Davie-poo, YOU make the positive claim, YOU provide evidence. We just don’t believe you because
– You *haven’t* provided evidence
– You’re a demonstrated honorless lying cretin. (3-15-21)

Dishonorably lying, blocking those who counter your assertions, rewriting comments to retroactively show you to be ‘right’…. the list goes on, Davie-poo. (3-15-21)

Oh, I know YOUR KIND demand we deny reality and allow ourselves to be abused and browbeaten with your lies… but we’re under no obligation to comply. (3-15-21)

You’ve blocked / banned / removed any contesting views, no matter how respectfully addressed. Get over yourself, or at least have the honor, courage, and general decency to not lie and then double down on your Big Lie. (3-15-21)

I see you’re still raging against your insignificance. We don’t want you to go away *mad*, just go away. And we won’t visit any more than we *have*, which is why you infest our spaces with your scrofulous presence. (3-13-21)

You’re a pathetic, needy, lonely liar who tries and constantly FAILS at taunting any of us to give your page any hits. Why don’t you just go martyrbate with YOUR KIND and leave us good people here in peace? (3-13-21)

You just want to plaster your hateful authoritarian agitprop like manure on somebody else’s property. (3-15-21)

YOU have and do support Nazis. Not our problem. Get over your hate and prejudice. (3-13-21)

You’re dodging an answer, as the answer you’re itching to give would condemn yourself. And concerning just and fair moderation of fora… pot, meet kettle. YOU PERSONALLY are the least just, least fair, *most* thin-skinned weakling bully that I’ve seen in Patheos. (3-13-21)

Poor Davie-poo. IF he answers honestly, he’ll be exposed as the fascist authoritarian power-lusting scumbag that he is. (3-13-21)

Davie-poo, when you fly in, purposely try to create bad feeling to bait denizens of those fora to follow you back to your own path etic, forlorn, deserted blog for clicks, shit in the punchbowl, etc… why SHOULDN’T you be banned as a sociopathic danger to civil discussion? What makes you think you have a right to soil somebody else’s private property? Why do you hate the free market of ideas and free enterprise, complete with rules to exclude those obviously dealing in bad faith? (3-13-21)

Dave, (sadly) you’d be AMAZED at how little we care about what you believe. You’re a crybully wasting the time of everybody in this thread, and need to fix yourself, rather than lashing out at those of us who HAVE freed our minds of the supernatural terrors that still bedevil you. (3-13-21)

Poor pathetic Davie, mining for clicks and relevance again. We know you’re a liar who just wants traffic…. so I’ll do my best to make sure nobody wastes time on your martyrbating hypocritical blog. (3-17-21)

Liar. You pontificate, then either insult / misdirect / derail, or, if it’s on your own moribund blog, you deceptively edit and delete posts that aren’t amenable to such selective editing, and block those who have valid arguments that you can’t counter . . . (3-18-21)

Ignorant Amos:

You’re lying again. We know how to tell, your hypothetical mouth is moving. (3-15-21)

Bwaaahahahaha… what a cretin. You’ve banned those who attempt to defend at your dump, ya dishonest lying louse. (3-13-21)

What a lying for Jesus piece of pish, is Armstrong. (3-13-21)

Liar, liar, pants on fire. (3-13-21)

You’ll burn in Hell brother, so will you brother…see ya’ll down there.. (3-13-21)

What a lying bastard. You banned Bob Seidensticker when he went to your shitehole to respond to your dross. You were subsequently banned at Cross Examined because you banned Bob for doing that very thing you accuse him of not doing here, not hearing from him again. Now you engage in bad mouthing him, when it is you who is the chickenshite cowardly bastard who can’t hack it. I don’t think Jonathan MS Pearce should be giving you a platform for spewing this lies and slander. (3-14-21)

Well it gets very lonely in his wee “panic room” of a shite blog where he goes to hide, and where saying anything he decides is contentious, which is just about everything that is in disagreement with his nonsense, gets one the the banhammer. With nothing but a handful of toady arselickers for company in his own house, it’s understandable he can’t maintain his flounce for any noticeable length of time. (3-14-21)

He’s the proverbial “legend in his own lunchtime”, isn’t he? (3-14-21)

Ya lying piece of shite. (3-14-21)

So still a very disingenuous louse, if not technically a liar. (3-15-21)

He lies about lots of other stuff, so I’ve no reason to trust his honesty where there is ambiguity. (3-15-21)

And that is a loada lies, and demonstrably so. (3-14-21)

90Lew90:

I’m sure your six readers will be along presently. (3-12-21)

I can assure you that the level of tolerance in comments here far exceeds anything Armstrong allows. Dave, meanwhile, has me blocked and banned for daring to challenge him on his site. I should add, he locked and banned me after creating two whole posts on his blog out of our exchange, thus precluding me from replying. That’s how Dave rolls. Very poor show. (3-12-21)

It says a lot more about his ego than his readers. His books are all self-published and he has no readers. (3-12-21)

Your project of trying to show the truth of the Bible “from a Catholic perspective” just betrays that you haven’t shaken off your evangelical perspective which is decidedly un-Catholic and you’re missing the point of Catholicism by trying to stitch your evangelicalism into it. Poorly. (3-11-21)

You appear to know almost nothing about the Catholicism you have adopted and profess, and have gotten yourself a soapbox from which to wave around your ignorance of it, . . . your attempted racket, ahem, ‘blog’, ‘Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, With Dave Armstrong’. The title on its own smacks of self-promotion; life lessons from your burnt out local radio host. . . . You’re the kind of person who would be a priest if you thought there was money in it and you could still have sex. . . . you appear to have spent more time studying how much tax-deductible cash you can get for the “papers” you publish on your blog. . . . Apart from your constantly begging for money all over your posts, redirecting to more of your posts for clicks, and plugging your 50 self-published books, the detail you provide here is all about how people can give you income on which you don’t have to pay tax. As a dubious bonus, we’re treated to an unflattering picture of you looking every bit the pea-brained burnout (perhaps you thought you looked like a kinda cool “family man” or something), still aiming for that one big money maker. . . . You include in your “qualifications” your “literary resume”. Give me a break you venal little &%$@#. (3-13-21)

You’re here to drive traffic to your blog. (3-13-21)

Armstrong comes here solely to drive traffic to his own blog. (3-13-21)

Frankly, the man doesn’t know Catholicism at all, and to read one or two of his articles is enough to leave one feeling somewhat sullied. He’s applying his former Protestant, evangelical approach in a kind of Christianity where it has no place. (3-13-21)

democommiescrazierbrother:

I just took a look at his facebook page, wottan#%$@&*%. One might be forgiven for thinking it’s more “griftin’ teh roobwazee than prinicipled apologetics*. * I’m not sure if it’s like intermarriages between matter and anti-matter but, I do think that, “principled apologetics” is prolly an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. (3-12-21)

Bob Seidensticker:

In short, you’re too much trouble. Wading through the bile to find an interesting point has been too much work. (3-14-21)

WCB:

You ban everybody who does that. That is why nobody over at your black hole site does it. Banned1 Banned! Banned! (3-14-21)

You are not that good as an apologist. And when anybody starts demonstrating that on your site, you ban them. (3-13-21)

Armstrong is an apologist. Not much of a theologian, but theology is not his mission. One of the reasons to play with people like Armstrong is to see what he has been peddling to the world. So we can be sure that we atheists are not using bad arguments that do not apply to people like Armstrong. Debunking Dave is not hard really. (3-17-21)

If Dave won’t seriously discuss these issues with me, it is because I bring up issues he has no easy, glib apologist’s argument that can win the day. This is all off the apologist’s beaten path, with the usual canned answers, an my posts are designed to be that way. . . . Playing the apologist game is not new with me, and Armstrong is not much different. (3-17-21)

JMallett:

You: Nobody wants to play with me!!! This could be a hint that maybe, just maybe, you aren’t that good at your job. (3-11-21)

Tiresome drivel. (3-16-21)

Grimlock:

Lots of Patheos Catholic blogs with more commenters. Not to mention more interesting and civilized commenters. (3-15-21)

im-skeptical:

You stand in proud defiance of truth and reality. (3-13-21)

Raging Bee:

You’re the only one who doesn’t see the debunkings and rebuttals you routinely get. (3-14-21)

Maybe he should be banned from this one too, since he’s banned nearly all of us from his blog while taking advantage of Pearce’s tolerance to hog attention here — while blocking and ignoring most of the people he’s badgering here. That’s both unseemly and unfair. I don’t mind letting people with such opinions comment and argue here, but hypocritical dishonest behavior like Dave’s should not be tolerated. (3-17-21)

TheMarsCydonia:

I am unsurprised that after all these years that you believe there one iota of fair moderating practices in your forums. (3-13-21)

You do say a lot of things to avoid having rational or objective discussions whenever you’re called out… (when you don’t outright ban people). (3-13-21)

3lemenope:

He bragged of his great patience after giving up with someone over the course of a couple of exchanges. I’m not against blocking as a rule–it’s a tool with a purpose, and very helpful for preserving bandwidth for non-trolls–but this guy thinks of his own thin-skinned hair trigger banning reflex to be the height of patience and deliberation. That kind of distorted self-perception is weird almost to the point of parody. (3-13-21)

It certainly isn’t my fault that you literally stand in common cause with ‮sizaN‬, Fascists, nihilists, and neo-Confederates by supporting Trump and the modern GOP. That’s your problem. It’s just compounded by your unwillingness to notice or acknowledge that the people you stand next to, by choice, are the very worst people. Maybe you’re just an angel in a sea of demons, bringing the light of conscience to pandemonium. But it isn’t likely. And when you try to dress up the vile movement you willingly associate with as something of actual intellectual pedigree, like conservatism in its primary descriptions in the annals of political history and political science, I’m gonna call you out on that shit. (3-13-21)

Fmr ATrealDonaldTrump ��:

People like Armstrong illustrate that there are “Conservative Cafeteria Catholics” as well as liberal “Cafeteria Catholics. (3-15-21)

Neko:

&%#$ Armstrong, he banned me for accusing him of being an apologist for the insurrectionist party, i.e., the Trumpist GOP, which is nothing less than the *^&%$#@%$ truth! (3-14-21)

John Loftus [cited by “WCB” who apparently asked him why he wouldn’t respond to my critiques]:

Yes [Dave was banned], because he is ignorant and obnoxious. It’s the obnoxious part that was too much. (cited on 3-13-21)

al kimeea:

I’ve read of your behaviour to valid criticism, so no traffic for you. (3-18-21)

RoverSerton:

Funny how you go to sites like this for interaction since you have ZERO comments on your dark spot on the internet. Since you ban everyone that you can’t refute, it must be a lonely lonely place to live. (3-18-21)

Lark62:

You’re nothing but a dishonest hack begging and pleading for clicks. Everyone outside your small collection of sycophants knows you’re pathetic. (3-17-21)

Here he cannot ban anyone and everyone who hints at disagreeing with him. He cannot bear to have anyone point out his inadequacy. (3-17-21)

Ya know what? I don’t give a tinker’s dam about what King You thinks “doesn’t fly.” Pathetic hacks terrified of actual conversation are in no position to the judge whether an argument “succeeds.” (3-17-21)

Illithid:

If you wanted open-minded, rational interaction, you wouldn’t ban people from your blog for specious reasons. (3-16-21)

***

The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians [9-15-15]

Angry Anti-Theism Strikes Again! (“Dave Armstrong is Delusional”) [3-31-17]

Illogical Angry Atheists: Five Typical Examples [7-21-17]

Not Many “Angry Atheists” Online? You be the Judge [7-22-17]

Atheist Blogs Delete & Block Insulters & Idiots, Too! [7-31-17]

Why I Blocked Anti-Theist Atheist Bob Seidensticker [8-8-18]

Hysterical Frenzy vs. Me on Atheist Seidensticker’s Blog [8-10-18]

Atheist Eloquently & Admirably Denounces Anti-Theism [4-12-19]

Anti-Theist Atheist Snobfest & Insult Extravaganza [12-7-20]

Atheist Blogger Renounces Angry Anti-Theist Obsessions [3-16-21]

***

Photo credit: Philippe Gillotte (9-7-10) [Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license]

***

Summary: I document a classic “feeding frenzy”: a regular, time-honored tactic of anti-theist atheists, who collectively decide to lie about & slander a person (me in this case), sans any semblance of rational arguments.

***

anti-Christian hostility

2021-03-18T14:00:07-04:00

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.

Pearce’s Potshots #18: Doubting Thomas & Evidence

Last updated on: March 18, 2021 at 2:00 pm By Dave Armstrong

Jonathan wrote a paper entitled, “The Double Standards Involved with Doubting Thomas” (3-16-21). I replied with Pearce’s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God (3-16-21). I also responded at length to two other atheists in his forum, on the same topic: Debate w Atheists: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God (3-17-21). Jonathan has now counter-responded with Doubting Thomas: A Response to Catholic Dave Armstrong (3-17-21), to which I now reply. His words will be in blue.

*****

I will leave aside the dubious historicity of this pericope, especially given that it is merely a response to the Pauline theology of a spiritual resurrection (each successive Gospel renounces the Pauline theology more and more, with John having Thomas prove that Jesus is not just resurrected spiritually, but very much bodily too).

What else is new? The atheist of course has to doubt the genuine nature of anything in Scripture (on inadequate grounds) and has to (by some immutable law of the universe) engage in worthless speculation about origins and purpose (with no supporting evidence presented, let alone plausible evidence), including a flat-out falsehood about St. Paul supposedly teaching a “spiritual resurrection only, and not a bodily one.

I dealt with this latter question, not just once, but twice, in engaging atheist polemicist Bob Seidensticker, who has chosen to utterly ignore 72 of my critiques. With this baggage (three major false premises), Jonathan proceeds to provide some sort of cogent, coherent analysis of the passage.

Instead, let me return to my original point, which is just a corollary of this asserted incident: that the great St Thomas only ended up believing in Jesus’ resurrection when presented with first-hand sensory experience of it (such that the apparent eyewitness testimony of his fellow disciples was not enough).

That’s no kind of “point”; it’s merely the assertion of a self-evident fact.

Yet, for an awful lot of modern potential and actual Christians (and all people throughout time, from Amazonian tribespeople to someone born in Riyadh in the 1600s), there is a completely unfair distribution of evidence. Thomas is afforded far more evidence so that he eventually believes (and becomes a saint, no less) than I can ever hope for or reasonably expect. If the end result of judgement (and heaven or hell) is based on my belief decision (or in Amazonians’ cases, there is no Christian option in their “decision”), then this seems even more unfair.

And I have thoroughly replied to this charge twice. We’ll see if Jonathan actually interacts with my arguments.

Dave Armstrong, a fellow Patheoser, though on the Catholic channel, often baits me to respond, and this time I have accepted. He replied to my short piece, saying on my own thread:

Perhaps some folks will have the intellectual courage, and/or curiosity, and/or open-mindedness to actually rationally interact with my argument this time, rather than engage in crazed, mindless personal attacks, such as massively, obsessively took place in two recent threads. One person already has, which is wonderful.

“Bait” has a decidedly negative connotation. It doesn’t describe how I have acted towards Jonathan at all. Merriam-Webster online defines it as:

to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks

to try to make angry with criticism or insults

Jonathan has replied to some five or six of my critiques in the past. Then he just stopped. I complained a bit (which was not “baiting”: but simply inquiring as to why he stopped). He explained in a long post that he was very busy and had some health problems, too. I fully accepted that, appreciated the clarification, and wished him the best. Since then I have simply informed him out of courtesy that I have replied to one of his articles. If he wishes me to cease doing that, too (and/or leave his forum if I upset the apple cart too much), I’ll be happy to comply.

My words above were not directed to Jonathan (because he doesn’t engage in such personal attacks), but to many other people on his forum who can do nothing but insult when it comes to me. I was registering my strong protest against that. Jonathan apparently has no problem with such personal attacks at all and allows any conceivable personal attack to be aired on his forum. So I rebuked it in no uncertain terms.

I’m looking for intelligent, probing, challenging discussion, not mud pie fights and urinating matches. The personal attacks from others against me continue full force on his blog, in several comboxes. I ignore them, block the people who do it, and once in a while make a protesting statement such as the above. I am certainly entitled to express indignation at such nonsense (like virtually any other human being would also do).

To give just one example of hundreds, Steven Watson, underneath this latest article from Jonathan, stated: “Armstrong is in the grip of an irrational delusion, he is a loony.” You get the idea. This is the sort of comment Jonathan has no problem permitting on his site. On my blog, on the other hand, if someone made a ridiculous comment like that about a particular atheist, he would be immediately banned. So we have vastly different opinions as to the nature of constructive and civil discussion.

So — nice try Jonathan — now we get back to the actual topic at hand.

This is ironic since he has, as you shall see, failed to interact with my actual points.

Nonsense. I responded by attacking Jonathan’s false premises. This is what socratics always do (and I am a socratic). Then the charge comes back that this is not a response. It certainly is: just on a deeper level than the person critiqued wants to deal with. In my other debate with two of Jonathan’s friends on the same topic (linked above) I go into, much more depth. Blanket statements like this that are untrue, do not help the debate proceed forward. But Jonathan does interact with my arguments to some extent.

His defences of this are as follows:

“Because you have seen Me, have you now believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Did you notice the last verse there? The Thomas incident was not regarded by Jesus as normative, but rather, a special act of mercy that was not “epistemologically required.” Jesus thought it wasn’t necessary, and criticized Thomas at the end for his undue doubt. He did it because He loved Thomas, and we all do many things that aren’t required for our loved ones.

Irrespective of whether Thomas was somewhat chastised here, the point remains entirely the same: Thomas was afforded far more evidence, and went on to be a foundational member of the church and have some kind (one is pretty sure) of union with God, which appears to be one of the goals that God has set for humanity.

This still doesn’t establish that:

empirical evidence is the be-all and end-all regarding evidences for God’s existence,

or that

all human beings must receive the same sort of visitation from Jesus, lest it is “unfair” that they received less verification, which is “required” for them to properly decide the “God question”,

or that

God hasn’t provided sufficient evidence of His existence to each person in many different ways (not just empirical).

It is the many unspoken premises lying beneath this charge that I attack as false.

I still don’t remotely get to cross or even approach that evidentiary threshold or benchmark. All I get is a bunch of people telling me a particular book is true, amongst a whole collection of holy books and revelations from other people and cultures and religions around the world, and the assertion that this one alone is the one.

And that’s it.

That’s not “it” at all. There are all kinds of Christian arguments. These have a cumulative effect.

I cannot be convinced by personal revelation, since Muslims and Hindus have them too.

This is considered some sort of “argument”? Obviously, one has to consider the Christian arguments for why the Bible is a uniquely inspired document, and indeed, God’s revelation. There are hundreds and hundreds of them. One way to show that it is plausible to believe that the Bible is inspired is to shoot down alleged “contradictions” in its pages. I recently did that with 59 alleged “contradictions” regarding Jesus’ Resurrection, in response to one of Jonathan’s articles. When a point of view is that consistently wrong, it shows that something is seriously awry. No one took it upon themselves to make any sort of direct reply. Instead, I received an avalanche of personal insults.

And philosophical arguments can only really get you to atheism, or deism or theism, as large umbrellas. The Bible is what gets you to Christianity.

Correct. And that’s why I devote my time in atheist venues mostly to defending the Bible: understanding this very thinking, and knowing that going round and round with philosophy accomplishes virtually nothing. Jonathan (like many atheists) insists on taking his shots at the Bible, and I reply with counter-arguments. He’s now playing on my field when he does that. If that’s what he wants to do, more power to him. I’m here. Bring it on.

And that is very poor evidence indeed. Unknown authors, writing in unknown times and places that we can only guess at, with unknown sources, unverified and unverifiable, writing with evangelising agendas ex post facto, with no historiographical pedigree.

It’s shockingly poor evidence.

These are just blanket hostile statements, not arguments, and as such, deserve no further consideration.

And I can supposedly go to hell on the back of whether I choose to believe that very low-level evidence (let’s call it 5%) and St Thomas (the Apostle) gets to stroll through the pearly gates, one assumes, on the back of not believing (assuming the Gospels are true here) with a level of, say, 90%, and Jesus then reversing this unbelief (in the Resurrection, and thus Jesus’ divinity, and thus the atonement – not that he actually would have understood this at the time, I wager) by getting Thomas to poke him, and raising the evidential threshold to 95%!! (I am somewhat making these figures up to illustrate my point).

This is just a more colorful way of reiterating the original assertion, which is shot-through with demonstrably false premises. It’s simplistic thinking. He does (thank God for small favors!) eventually start dealing with my actual arguments.

Armstrong claims my position is based on three premises that he refutes:

The notion that empiricism is the only way to verify or prove anything, as if there are no other ways of knowing.

The denial that God is already known by observing the universe, as Romans 1 states.

The idea that every atheist would immediately believe (and respond exactly as Thomas did) if only they had the “100% sure!” experience of Thomas: with the risen Jesus standing there, bodily, so that he could touch Him.

Thanks for putting these words into my mouth, but the first two doesn’t really apply to Thomas – or at least all equally get him to Judaism, or some theism.

At any rate, the first two are either nonsense or straw men, or both.

Hogwash. The entire issue as atheists see it, is the alleged “unfairness” of Thomas receiving such a crystal-clear evidence of the risen Jesus, thus allowing him to more easily believe that Jesus is God, and (obviously) that God does exist. This is empirical evidence through-and-through, entailing the evidence of senses and the experience of touching a physical, alive-again Jesus Who had just been killed. So atheists complain about how this is so terribly “unfair!” God is such a meanie and a brute, to be so absurdly unjust in how He presents evidence for Himself.

My denial that empirical evidence is the only evidence or any way to reliably know anything undercuts this whole notion, because then it’s not the only way God can reveal Himself. That’s the false premise. Jonathan needs to prove first of all that empiricism is the cat’s meow, epistemologically speaking. Instead, he chooses to ignore that (the elephant in the room) and merely assert that my brining it up is “nonsense or [a] straw [man]”. I then get into willful rejection, another factor that Jonathan ignored in his presentation, as if will plays no part in the choices all human beings make on a variety of issues.

(3) is a false analogy since Thomas was not an atheist. Thomas has just been in godmanspirit’s ministry. Either he already believed Jesus was God (almost certainly not the case) or that he was a Messiah (much more likely, though it must be remembered that this whole event recorded here almost certainly never happened). Then, after all the crazy stuff that supposedly happened, and all the claims of his fellow disciples that this would have entailed, he still didn’t believe. (It is worth reinforcing here that the theology of this piece is not primarily about epistemology, but about the form of Jesus’ resurrection to fight off the theology we see Paul discussing with the Corinthians).

Whether he’s an atheist or not, his example is being used to assert that God is “unfair” and that God ought to make similar appearances to atheists en masse.

Thomas was, according to the Gospel, afforded a level of evidence I will never get, and nor will (or has) any other human, I would argue, in the history of Christianity.

Exactly. This is the point I just made (I am replying as I read).

Thomas got to be in Jesus’ gang, and then touch his resurrected body whilst conversing with him (God).

Yep.

I’ll ignore the long tirade of articles Armstrong offers to attack my apparent sole reliance on empiricism (as if, as a philosopher arguing all day long about all sorts of things, that empiricism is my single only route to epistemological conclusions).

Scholars offer footnotes for further reading: if anyone desires to do so. I offer my own articles. Somehow this is objectionable and Jonathan describes a collection of related links as a “tirade.” It’s laughable. The argument that was made was entirely of an empirical nature. An utterly empirical experience (Thomas’s) is used to try to indict God for unfairness and “double standards.” That requires a prior analysis of empiricism and noting that it’s not the sum total of all knowledge. Many many atheists think that it is. If Jonathan doesn’t (welcome to the club) then he needs to formulate non-empirical arguments with regard to Doubting Thomas and atheist unbelief.

His claims about point (2) are pretty naive:

Romans 1:19-20 (RSV) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] 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. . . .

Not only is this just asserted nonsense that also gets you to every other religion, but it has nothing to do with the point in hand: Doubting Thomas and the varied apportioning of evidence for the Christian god to all humans throughout time.

So I will ignore this and his defence of it.

I explained this in my related dialogue, linked above:

I was presenting how the Bible itself views this issue of God being “fair”; and how it views evidence and how God is known. The critique in the OP is of the Bible. If Jonathan didn’t want it to be [at least partially] a biblical discussion then he shouldn’t and wouldn’t have ever introduced the Doubting Thomas story into it. Since he did, I explain why it doesn’t fly (from our Christian perspective).

If I critique atheism, then you can explain your view (that I don’t accept, just as you don’t accept ours). If you claim the Christian view is unjust or insufficient or incoherent / inconsistent in some way, then the Christian quite logically responds by showing how this isn’t (internally) the case.

I’m not citing the Bible to try to convince atheists of anything: only to explain why the atheist critique of Christianity in this instance doesn’t succeed (being based on insufficient understanding of what the biblical teaching is in the first place).

It’s Jonathan who exercises double standards. He reserves the prerogative to enter into the territory of biblical interpretation by giving his two cents’ about Doubting Thomas and the implications of the story for atheists, but if I come back and attempt to explain it from a Christian perspective (getting into the wider area of unbelief), then he wants no part of it. In effect, then, he seems to think that an atheist can comment on the Bible, but if a Christian does, it’s “naive” and “nonsense” and only fit to be ignored.

To which I reply: if you’re gonna bring up the Bible, don’t be surprised that a Christian will 1) defend the Bible, and 2) comment upon related passages in it that are relevant to the point. Jonathan thinks God is unfair, and this passage is evidence (he thinks) of that. We show how it is not and show how the biblical Christian outlook, rightly understood, is not an unfair system at all. That’s completely relevant to the discussion. But Jonathan has this double standard whereby only atheists can do biblical exegesis. If the Christian apologist (who obviously knows nothing about the Bible) deigns to do the same thing, it’s “naive” and “nonsense”. It’s just dumb. Unless atheists are called on these unsavory and illogical techniques of “argument” they will keep doing it.

His defence of point (3):

As for #3, many atheists — if not necessarily Jonathan — casually assume that pretty much every atheist and skeptic would respond as Thomas did. Jesus thought quite otherwise…

He misses my point. I am not really bothered whether I would react the same or differently to Thomas. My general point is that all sorts of people react differently to the same level of evidence, and all sorts of people get different levels of evidence. It’s all a bit of an unfair mess.

How is it unfair? Jonathan has to establish that there is no other kind of evidence that people receive (Christians assert that there are hundreds of such evidences, of widely different sorts). And he has to establish that all atheists are completely objective, impartial, rational machines, in which there is no slightest shred of resistance to truth or evidence when presented; no bias, no willful rejection, no irrational emotionalism, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

All of these factors and more have to be discussed in order to plausibly make this grand charge of UNFAIRNESS of that wascally wascal: God. In other words, it’s a vastly more complex issue than he makes out. But atheists are masters at simplistic, one-millimeter- deep arguments against the Bible and Christianity.

Imagine I have a class of 30 children to whom I give a test. All 30 children have different brains, knowledges, abilities and thresholds, etc. I give them a test of 100 questions, and declare that the children who fail to get 70/100 will get detention. Children who get 70 will get a special treat.

I then give them a test.

Except, I also give out different cheat sheets to everyone ranging from 0 points of help to 90 points. Each child either gets no extra help or gets some kind of leg up to getting closer to that 70 point success. Some people, like little Thomas, get a cheat sheet with answers worth 95 points. Lucky him.

Poor Alice, who is not very clever (due to her genetics and troublesome environment) gets a cheat sheet with 0 points of help, and gets 16/100 and detention.

We could actually make this more accurate: some children are given trickster cheat sheets, like our Saudi student, Mo, who gets a sheet that actually tells him wrong answers, and leaves him with 35 points less than he would have got. He gets 50, and receives a detention.

This is my analogy to explain the point.

All of this assumes what it needs to prove: that the empirical evidence of the Thomas incident is somehow the whole ball of wax as to proofs for God. It’s simply not. The fact that the analogy has Thomas receiving 95 points out of a 100 on his cheat sheet, absolutely illustrates that Jonathan thinks such an empirical proof comprises at least 95% of the evidence or proof of God. Thanks for making my point for me, Jonathan! It still remains to be proved that, somehow, empirical evidence is 95% of all the evidence that can be mustered up in theistic proofs.

And, in my previous piece, this was my potential theistic wriggle:

Perhaps, as a teacher, I actually take in the answers, don’t announce to anyone the results until the end of the school day whereby, after plugging their results into a matrix that calculates an outcome based on (1) abilities, (2) environment, (3) cheat sheets, and (4) their results and spits out their end mark, I enforce on them a detention or a reward.

That would need some unpicking and looks rather like some kind of deterministic algorithm, the results of which, as a teacher, I knew in advance anyway. In other words, creating the test is pointless. What it would actually look like is everyone getting the same marks since the algorithm would have to be fair: there would be no child who would have their environment, genetics, cheat sheet or anything else over which they have no control giving them an advantage or disadvantage.

The only fair option for an OmniGod designing and creating all humanity from nothing is to give everyone the same chance; and when we control for causal circumstances, this translates to the same score.

Again, this is circular reasoning. An empirical-only epistemology is assumed from the outset (without proof and seeming oblivious unawareness of the massive amount of reasoning against such a naive epistemology). It’s assumed that there is no other form of evidence that can be used to prove the existence of God and offer a way salvation to all, etc. This (surprise!) leads to the conclusion already preordained from the outset by false and hostile premises: God is unfair.

Yeah: the straw-man “God” set up in such a silly mind game is what is unfair, because the whole thing is rigged from the outset with stupid, false premises. In my “tirade” of links that Jonathan blew off, I explain how and why it is a false premise, for all who are interested in hearing the reasons why. It’s not just me saying it (which I wouldn’t use as a basis for any claim). The literally logically absurd views of empiricism-only and logical positivism were destroyed philosophically by the early 50s at the latest by philosophers like Michael Polanyi and others. I’m surprised it took that long, or that these silly views ever took hold among serious thinkers in the first place.

Armstrong doesn’t get all of this, it seems; he is happy merely taking the opportunity to have some pop shots:

Jonathan, like most atheists, completely overlooks the prideful, stubborn and irrationally defiant aspect of atheism (and indeed of the human race, generally speaking). St. Paul wrote about that, too…

But lest atheists (or anyone) think that therefore no atheist can be saved, this is not Paul’s position, either, as he clarifies in the next chapter:

Therefore, an atheist can possibly be saved, and there is a big biblical distinction between the not-convinced seeker after truth and the outright rejecter of God. But they can’t be saved if they know God exists (are conscious of that belief) and reject Him and His free offer of grace and salvation. How much one “knows” is obviously the key. And only God knows that for any given person. It’s not for other persons to judge that or to condemn people to hell. They don’t have nearly even knowledge to make that determination.

Lovely, but almost nothing to do with the point at hand.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand: which is the alleged unfairness of God. I took pains to show that in the biblical, Christian view, God is not unfair at all (and even he indirectly acknowledges this by saying “Lovely”). Atheists routinely assume that the Bible and all Christians teach that all atheists (and indeed all non-Christians) go to hell and that they are uniformly wicked. I explain that both things are false and that God is infinitely more merciful and “fair” and just than the caricature that typically floats around in atheist circles.

But Jonathan is blinded in his Ultra-Empiricism as the be-all and end-all of (I guess) everything in the universe; every philosophical or theological proposed “difficulty.”

Thomas decided not to believe; he rejected God. But God gave him special treatment. Why can’t he do that for everyone else?

This again assumes what it is trying to prove: empirical proofs are all there is; therefore, since Thomas “got” this one; all others must, too, lest God be an unfair moron and arbitrary tyrannical monster. But if the premise is false, so is Jonathan’s conclusion. He hasn’t shown the slightest inclination to more deeply analyze or scrutinize his premises. I know, it’s scary and intimidating to do so, but this is the duty of thinkers.

This is not about what it would take to make any given person believe, but about that some people throughout history are supposedly afforded huge amounts of evidence, whilst others suffer terribly from divine hiddenness, perhaps being brought up in Saudi Arabia or the Australian outback in the 1500s. Some get those cheat sheets with 50 extra points, others are set back -30.

This is incoherent. To say that Thomas (and others like him) receive “huge amounts of [empirical] evidence” is necessarily also asserting that those who didn’t receive “Thomas-like” evidence were treated shabbily. Therefore, such assertions are indeed also dealing with “what it would take to make any given person believe.” The very claim of “unfairness” presupposes this.

I should think that at some point atheists would tire of their own viciously circular arguments with utterly unexamined premises. These may satisfy and titillate those in the choir and echo chamber, but they certainly don’t impress anyone outside of it.

Armstrong finishes off with:

Lastly, atheists manage to believe many extraordinary things without much proof (or even understanding) at all.

Whaaaaat? Examples please. Otherwise what can be asserted without evidence can be summarily dismissed without any.

Of course I proceeded to explain what I meant, with examples and a link (which Jonathan cited, so I have no idea why he thinks I didn’t do so.

Why should they place the existence of God in a category all its own? For example, I have written about how atheists in effect “worship” the atom (this paper raised such a huge ruckus that I had to do a follow-up paper to explain the nature of the satire), and attribute to it virtually every characteristic that Christians believe God possesses: it supposedly came from nothing (this one not a trait of God), managed to have the inherent capability to evolve and create and bring about everything we see in the universe, including consciousness, life, the galaxies, etc.

This is what Jonathan cited from my reply, that he just claimed I didn’t explain. If you can figure out this chain of reasoning, please let me know.

Nothing to do with the point at hand.

It has everything to do with the point at hand. It’s claimed that God must provide ironclad “evidence” (of course as atheists define the term) of everything related to God and Christianity, lest He be brutally “unfair.” We say that He does, but in ways in addition to those atheists concentrate on. My point here is one of “epistemological hypocrisy.” That is: atheists certainly don’t apply such a “strong” criterion to everything they believe.

And so (to provide an example) I mentioned my notorious “atomism” paper: that ruffled the feathers of scores and scores of atheists: with nary a single one at the time even understanding the nature of the satirical points I made in the article. This is what happens when one is deeply entrenched in the bubble of groupthink. If one doesn’t interact with outside critiques, they get to the point where they literally can’t even comprehend any other view. This is what atheism often does to otherwise sound minds.

I won’t get sidetracked onto why there is something rather than nothing. Why is God as a brute fact any more reasonable than the universe as a brute fact? God + universe fails Ockham’s Razor compared to the universe alone as brute fact.

He should, at some point, for his own (intellectual and spiritual) good.

These are extraordinary attributes. And why do atheists believe in them? Well, they have few ultimate reasons to explain it, but it’s the only alternative they think they have to admitting that God exists and that He created, designed, and upholds the universe. If you want to reject God: concerning Whom there are many evidences and arguments that have been rationally and seriously discussed for thousands of years, then you go instead to a blind faith position: the atom (and a larger materialism) can do anything: including creating itself from nothing (a self-evidently absurd position that science has long since rejected).

G. K. Chesterton observed”: “if men reject Christianity, it’s not that he believes in nothing, but that he believes in anything.”

Drivel and nothing to do with my point.

It relates to it in a way that I have explained, in my original reply and now.

All told, my point still stands and it would be nice to see Dave actually address it.

[EDIT: which he only decided to do, a little bit, in another comment on my thread, which I will address next.

EDIT 2: It seems like Geoff Benson came to the same conclusion.]

I have addressed his “point” and argument in the greatest depth, analyzing it from every which way, including the premises beneath it. This is now my third time doing the same thing. Eric’s arguments in Jonathan’s combox were more in-depth and of a constructive nature in terms of progressing in dialogue, in my opinion. I replied to him and Geoff in my other related dialogue. But Jonathan has essentially simply put his head in the sand and plugged his ears about the glaring faults of his own argument, and ignored virtually all of my counter-argument. This won’t do. But it’ll impress his echo chamber (as it always does).

***

Photo credit: wilhei (4-13-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: This is now my third go-around, discussing the same issue: whether God was “unfair” to give Doubting Thomas so much more “evidence” than almost everyone else. False PREMISES . . .

***

anti-theism

argument from design

Atheism

Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable?: in Order to be Rationally Held? Positivist Myths and Fallacies Debunked by Philosophers and Mathematicians [7-14-10]

cosmological argument

teleological argument

2021-03-17T11:15:39-04:00

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.

Pearce’s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God

Last updated on: March 17, 2021 at 11:15 am By Dave Armstrong

*****

I am replying to Jonathan’s paper, “The Double Standards Involved with Doubting Thomas” (3-16-21).

God saw fit to convince Doubting Thomas, who – after all – knew ~Jesus and saw him do his miracles. He was a disciple – one of Jesus’ inner circle. And yet even he didn’t believe in the Resurrection, attested to by his friends and eyewitnesses, until he had Jesus standing in front of him until Jesus made him touch the wounds.

Some people are slow. One can find the entire range of types of people in any group. Thomas is a certain “hard-nosed” type, but he’s not in the same category as most atheists, as I will contend below.

As John 20 relays:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called [e]Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

26 [f]Eight days later His disciples were again inside, and Thomas was with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been [g]shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be to you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “Place your finger here, and see My hands; and take your hand and put it into My side; and do not continue in disbelief, but be a believer.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you now believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Did you notice the last verse there? The Thomas incident was not regarded by Jesus as normative, but rather, a special act of mercy that was not “epistemologically required.” Jesus thought it wasn’t necessary, and criticized Thomas at the end for his undue doubt. He did it because He loved Thomas, and we all do many things that aren’t required for our loved ones.

And yet almost the entirety of the rest of humanity is not remotely afforded this level of evidence and is expected to believe, arguably on pain of hell.

Thomas got to poke Jesus, bodily resurrected in front of him, in the hands. He got to feel the skin of the real and resurrected God, and only then did he believe.

He’s now a Saint.

This is completely unfair and terrible double standards.

God is not fair.

Therefore, God is not perfect or omnibenevolent.

It’s only “unfair” and a supposed massive disproof of God’s perfection and benevolence if we accept Jonathan’s prior premises. I do not. Nor does the Bible. I reject three of them (off the top of my head) in particular:

The notion that empiricism is the only way to verify or prove anything, as if there are no other ways of knowing.

The denial that God is already known by observing the universe, as Romans 1 states.

The idea that every atheist would immediately believe (and respond exactly as Thomas did) if only they had the “100% sure!” experience of Thomas: with the risen Jesus standing there, bodily, so that he could touch Him.

Empiricism (#1 above) is not the only way of knowing anything. That is a myth and a fallacy. I’ve written about it many times:

Is Christianity Unfalsifiable? Is Empiricism the Only True Knowledge? [5-6-17]

Science, Logic, & Math Start with Unfalsifiable Axioms [1-6-18]

Seidensticker Folly #13: God Hasta Prove He Exists! [8-29-18]

Theistic Argument from Longing or Beauty, & Einstein [3-27-08; rev. 3-14-19]

Atheist Demands for a Miracle to “Prove” God (Dialogue) [2-22-19]

Atheist Desire for Amazing Divine Miracles / Incorruptibles [2-23-19]

God’s Proof of Himself Via Miracles (vs. an Atheist) [3-6-19]

Dialogue w Agnostic on Proof for Miracles (Lourdes) [9-9-18]

Dialogue with an Agnostic: God as a “Properly Basic Belief” [10-5-15]

Non-Empirical “Basic” Warrant for Theism & Christianity [10-15-15]

Atheist Demands for “Empirical” Proofs of God [10-27-15]

Implicit (Extra-Empirical) Faith, According to John Henry Newman [12-18-15]

The biblical position is the opposite of #2:

Romans 1:19-20 (RSV) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] 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. . . .

Now, of course, the atheist says, “who cares about that? It’s just the Bible saying what we would expect it to say; but it’s circular reasoning to cite the Bible to prove the Bible . . .” For my part, I’m not trying to prove the point at the moment, so I’m not engaged in circular reasoning or begging the question. I’m simply reporting (sociologically and theologically) what the Bible teaches

How we would flesh out Romans 1 philosophically would be to utilize the teleological and cosmological arguments. But is it true that a thinking person can simply view the universe and the marvels of science and have a rational basis for thinking that it suggests God or some sort of Higher Power (either personal or impersonal) or “organizing / creative principle” (or whatever way one would like to describe it)? I submit that some very great minds (and not Christian minds) have indeed had that reaction.

Philosopher David Hume was a deist (not an atheist: as is wrongly assumed by many). It is thought that he dismantled the teleological argument. But many good Hume scholars maintain that he disposed of merely one form of it: not all forms. He appears to offer support for my contention, from Romans 1, that the observable world bears witness to God’s existence:

The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind. (Treatise, 633n)

Wherever I see order, I infer from experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance . . . the same principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect from the Infinite Art and Contrivance which is displayed in the whole fabric of the universe. (Letters, 25-26)

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 . . . (Natural History of Religion, 1757, edited by H. E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26)

As my second corroborating example, I submit Albert Einstein, who was some sort of pantheist (“God is everything”) or panentheist (“God is in everything”) — assuredly not an atheist –, but who backs up to a significant degree, the thought that Paul expresses in Romans 1 and that Christians believe (in faith, but backed up by philosophy). I’ve collected many of his statements concerning religion and the marvels of the universe. Here are several of those (further detailed source information is provided in that paper):

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. (1927)

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. (1930)

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres. (1941)

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (c. 1941)

As for #3, many atheists — if not necessarily Jonathan — casually assume that pretty much every atheist and skeptic would respond as Thomas did. Jesus thought quite otherwise:

Luke 16:19-31 There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. [20] And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz’arus, full of sores, [21] who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. [22] The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; [23] and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz’arus in his bosom. [24] And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ [25] But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz’arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ [27] And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ [29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ [30] And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ [31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'”

Jonathan, like most atheists, completely overlooks the prideful, stubborn and irrationally defiant aspect of atheism (and indeed of the human race, generally speaking). St. Paul wrote about that, too:

Romans 1:18, 21-25 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. . . . [21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. [24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

But lest atheists (or anyone) think that therefore no atheist can be saved, this is not Paul’s position, either, as he clarifies in the next chapter:

Romans 2:6-16 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Therefore, an atheist can possibly be saved, and there is a big biblical distinction between the not-convinced seeker after truth and the outright rejecter of God. But they can’t be saved if they know God exists (are conscious of that belief) and reject Him and His free offer of grace and salvation. How much one “knows” is obviously the key. And only God knows that for any given person. It’s not for other persons to judge that or to condemn people to hell. They don’t have nearly even knowledge to make that determination.

Lastly, atheists manage to believe many extraordinary things without much proof (or even understanding) at all. Why should they place the existence of God in a category all its own? For example, I have written about how atheists in effect “worship” the atom (this paper raised such a huge ruckus that I had to do a follow-up paper to explain the nature of the satire), and attribute to it virtually every characteristic that Christians believe God possesses: it supposedly came from nothing (this one not a trait of God), managed to have the inherent capability to evolve and create and bring about everything we see in the universe, including consciousness, life, the galaxies, etc.

These are extraordinary attributes. And why do atheists believe in them? Well, they have few ultimate reasons to explain it, but it’s the only alternative they think they have to admitting that God exists and that He created, designed, and upholds the universe. If you want to reject God: concerning Whom there are many evidences and arguments that have been rationally and seriously discussed for thousands of years, then you go instead to a blind faith position: the atom (and a larger materialism) can do anything: including creating itself from nothing (a self-evidently absurd position that science has long since rejected).

G. K. Chesterton observed”: “if men reject Christianity, it’s not that he believes in nothing, but that he believes in anything.”

***

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

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

Seidensticker Folly #38: Eternal Universe vs. an Eternal God [4-16-20]

***

Summary: Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce argues that God was unfair, insofar as Jesus extraordinarily proved Himself in person to Doubting Thomas. But three of his prior premises can easily be denied.

***

Photo credit: The Incredulity of Thomas (1622), by Hendrick ter Brugghen (1588-1629) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

anti-theism

argument from design

Atheism

“Difficulty” in Understanding the Bible: Hebrew Cultural Factors

cosmological argument

teleological argument

2026-06-05T23:58:08-04:00

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.

Refuting 59 of Michael Alter’s Resurrection “Contradictions”

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:58 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist and sometimes sparring partner Jonathan MS Pearce announced a book on this topic:

Here is a list of contradictions, differences and speculations found in Paul’s writings, the Gospels concerning the Resurrection accounts, and Acts, taken from Michael J. Alter’s tour de force, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry [UK]. This is a comprehensive list well worth perusing and checking out further. . . . There are 120 “Differences and Contradictions” and 217 “Speculations”. Please check the thorough work he has done on them in his magnificent book.

Mr. Alter is an adherent of Judaism, who specializes in countering Christian theology and apologetics. Pearce then listed all 120 alleged “contradictions.” I replied in the combox:

Cool! Something else for me to work on refuting. I wish there was a bit more information under each one, but can’t have everything.

He wrote back: “His book is well worth getting.” I noted:

I’ve already refuted many of these:

“Three Days and Nights” in the Tomb: Contradiction? [10-31-06]

Dialogue w Atheist on Post-Resurrection “Contradictions” [1-26-11]

Seidensticker Folly #18: Resurrection “Contradictions”? [9-17-18]

Seidensticker Folly #57: Male Witnesses of the Dead Jesus [9-14-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #13: Resurrection “Contradictions” (?) [2-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #14: Resurrection “Contradictions” #2 [2-4-21]

Seidensticker Folly #31: Jesus’ Burial Spices Contradiction? [4-20-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #12: Discipleship & Jewish Burial Customs [8-8-19]

Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18]

Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked (vs. Dave Van Allen and Dr. Jim Arvo) [9-27-07]

12 Disciples of Jesus: Alleged Contradictions Debunked [12-9-06]

Seidensticker Folly #30: Small vs. Great Commission? [10-26-18]

Seidensticker Folly #48: Peter’s Denials & Accusers [8-31-20]

I shall make [mostly, with a few notable exceptions] brief responses to many of the 120 “Differences and Contradictions” (in blue). With the help of the Google Books page for this book I can find out what he was trying to argue in the vague titles.

Differences and Contradictions

#1: The Year Jesus Was Crucified

Honest folks (including orthodox Catholics and traditional Protestants) disagree on this matter, and Mr. Alter surveys the debate in his book (see the Google Books link I provide above), but — in any event — Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin provided what I think is a solid and plausible case from the Bible that the date was 33 AD (or CE).

#2: The Controversy Regarding the Garments

Alter argues that many people (“Most of the crowd” in Matthew 21:8, RSV) laying down their garments before Jesus on Palm Sunday makes no sense because these were often the only clothes the poorer people (who were numerous) had. But he himself notes more than once that the clothing at this time in Israel usually had an inner layer (shirt or tunic) and an outer cloak (abba, or himatia in Greek). It seems a rather weak objection: lots of people spread out their “jackets” in effect. No biggie: especially not in a hot climate. I don’t see that this is immediately questionable as an accurate account on these grounds.

#3: Nisan 14 or Nisan 15

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin proved from the Bible that Jesus’ crucifixion and death occurred on 3 April (Nisan 15) 33 AD. See also, “April 3, AD 33: Why We Believe We Can Know the Exact Date Jesus Died” (Andreas J. Kostenberger, First Things, 4-3-14), and Lori Eldridge, “What Day of the Week Was Jesus Crucified?”

#4: The Last Supper as a Passover Meal

Yes it was, as shown by Fr. William P. Saunders on the Catholic Straight Answers site. See also, Jimmy Akin: “Was the Last Supper a Passover Meal?”

#5: The Wrong Name in Mark 14:12

Christian philosopher and historian Bill Fortenberry solves this alleged “problem.”

#6: The Day of the Week Jesus Was Crucified

Jimmy Akin and Andreas J. Kostenberger proved from the Bible and history that it was on a Friday.

#7: John Contradicts Mark

This has to do with the exact time of the crucifixion. Jimmy Akin deals with that, too.

[#8, #10, and #11 are too vague to know what the skeptical claims are and are inaccessible in the Google Book version. #9 is too involved and complex for a brief answer to suffice]

#12: When Jesus Spoke His Last Words

Explained by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, “Simple Harmony of the Crucifixion Accounts (NIV)”.

[#13 and #15 are vague and are inaccessible in the Google Book version]

#14: Contradictory Narratives Regarding the Veil

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press ably refutes this.

[#15 to #17 are vague; not sure of the meaning of #18 and I don’t want to guess; all are inaccessible in the Google Book version]

#19: Topography versus Matthew: The Centurion Could Not View the Tearing of the Temple’s Veil

Matthew never claims that the centurion saw the temple veil tearing. Matthew 27:54 (RSV) states:

When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

The temple veil was mentioned four verses earlier. “What took place” doesn’t have to refer to absolutely everything. It simply means (in what I submit is the obvious, straightforward, common-sense interpretation) what the centurion saw in front of him, including an earthquake and an eclipse (27:45). That’s more than enough to seem to him to be divine signs. It’s quite a desperate argument.

[#20 is too vague to understand without further elaboration and is inaccessible in the Google Book version]

#21: The Differing Accounts of the Women at the Cross during the Crucifixion

This appears to be about whether the women stood “by” the cross [what is interpreted as very close] (John) or at a “distance” (Matthew, Mark, Luke). It comes down mostly to meanings of Greek words, but also to the element of time and the nature of an actual contradiction. The “difficulty” is disposed of at The Domain for Truth website.

#22: The Prophetic Fulfillment Is Omitted in the Synoptics

A specific omission in one or more Gospels is an “argument from silence” and proves absolutely nothing. This is assuredly not a contradiction, by its very nature, and thus requires no further consideration. I suppose he could say this was one of the “differences” rather than “contradictions” (per his subtitle).

If so, I reply: “then how is it relevant to your project if it doesn’t involve a contradiction?” Who cares that one Gospel mentions something that the others didn’t? Are we to believe that all four Gospel writers must be absolutely clones of each other, or else we will hear the cry of “contradiction!” every time the slightest (non-contradictory) variation of any sort appears? Without a contradiction, then biblical inspiration and infallibility aren’t weakened.

#23: Exodus 12:46 Is Not a Prophetic Verse
#24: Psalm 34 Is Not a Prophetic Verse

It’s not that simple. The fact remains that passages in the Old Testament that, prima facie, don’t “seem” to be “prophecies” were later interpreted to be just that. And the reason is that a prophecy can have a dual application. I explained — and proved — this at length to Jonathan MS Pearce, with regard to the virgin birth: in reply to one of his attempted rebuttals of some of my reasoning. He has not counter-replied as of this writing (almost three months later). He’s a very busy person (understood; aren’t we all?). I’m simply stating the fact of non-reply thus far.

There are also some passages like Isaiah 53 that we know were considered messianic by the Jews before the time of Christ, but have since been differently interpreted (largely due, we think, to reaction against Christian messianic interpretations).

[#25 is vague and inaccessible in the Google Book version]

#26: How Could John Know Blood and Water Exited Jesus’s Body?

By simple observation. He saw what has been verified by medical science; and this is an excellent verification of the trustworthiness and accuracy and (we also say) inspiration of Holy Scripture. A cardio-thoracic surgeon, Dr. Antony de Bono, explained it this way:

Jesus had a haemothorax, which in the stillness of the dead body, had separated out as they do into two layers: the heavier red cells below and the light watery plasma above. The haemothorax was the result of the savage flagellation.

The withdrawal of the spear would have been followed first by the red cells (blood), then by the lighter plasma (water).

The body of Jesus had been hanging on the cross, dead, for some time. Obviously the fluid must have accumulated during life by a bleeding into the chest cavity, almost certainly due to the savage flagellation.

It is well known that blood in these circumstances in a still dead body starts to separate out, to sediment, the heavier red cells sinking to the bottom leaving a much lighter, straw colored fluid, the plasma above.

When a hole is made by the spear, the red cells, which John describes as blood, gushes out first, followed by the plasma, which John saw as water.

It’s the consecutive, non-simultaneous draining of the blood first, then water, that made it easy to identify by a “lay” onlooker (with the clear fluid being accurately identified as “water”). See also, “The Science of the Crucifixion” by biologist Dr. Cahleen Shrier.

#27: The Distorted Emotional Context of Zechariah 12
#28: The Distorted Historical Context of Zechariah 12—Israel Is Saved
#29: The Distorted Historical Context of Zechariah 12—Prophetic Fulfillment
#30: The Distorted and Mistranslated Subjects of “They” in Zechariah 12:10
#31: The Distorted and Mistranslated Subjects of “HIM” in Zechariah 12:10
#32: The Figurative Subject of “HIM” in Zechariah 12:10
#33: The Distorted and Understood PRONOUN of “HIM” in Zechariah 12:10

Boy, he’s giving it all he’s got for this verse, huh? As with Isaiah 53, the Jews before Christ regarded this as a messianic passage (therefore, Christians are justified in applying it to Jesus, Who is the Messiah). I did a study of this passage (among many others) way back in 1982, as one of my very first apologetics projects. Here’s what I discovered:

Zechariah 12:10-12: “They will look on me whom they have pierced.” Connection with Joel 2:28; see also Mt 24:30 and Rev 1:7. Some Jews sought to give “pierced” a figurative meaning, i.e., “grieved.” This was the view of the Septuagint also. Similar interpretation was given to Zech 13:3, where it seems even more unlikely. Elsewhere, the verb daquar is never figurative; it is always literal: Num 25:8, Jud 9:54, 1 Sam 31:4, 1 Chr 10:4, Is 13:15, Jer 37:10, 51:4, Lam 4:9. The parallel verse Zech 13:7, with its mention of the sword, gives good reason to interpret the verse literally. The Palestinian Talmud and also the Babylonian Talmud interpret the verse messianically, as do Ibn-ezra and Abravanel. Many Jews attributed the passage to Messiah ben Joseph. The Jews eventually changed the divine “Me” to “him,” even though “Me” is found in the oldest, the best, and the largest number of manuscripts.

[drawn from Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg [1802-1869; an orthodox Lutheran and eminent theologian], translated by T. Meyer, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 4 volumes, 1854-1858]

#34: Zechariah 12: Contradictory to the Olivet Discourse

Interpretation of prophecy is a very complex area, and prophecy can have dual applications and “time-compression” (what is also known as “telescoping), and (strange, to our modern thinking) a different conception of chronological elements, as I have written about:

Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time: + Refutation of a Clueless Atheist “Biblical Contradiction”

These are known and studied phenomena of ancient Jewish thought and literature. Therefore, passages (from both testaments) can sometimes address both the first and second comings of Jesus more or less together in what we perceive as a “jumbled” fashion.

[#35 and #36 are too vague and are inaccessible in the Google Book version]

#37: Who Took Jesus’s Body Down from the Cross?

The Domain for Truth website does a devastating and thorough refutation of this claim of “contradiction.”

#38: Joseph’s Purchase of the Linen Sheets

I disposed of this in my paper: Pearce’s Potshots #15: Gospel of Matthew vs. Gospel of Mark?

[#39 is vague and is inaccessible in the Google Book version]

#40: Archaeological Rebuttal to an Existing Garden

I’m not sure if he is referring to the so-called “Garden Tomb” (which is of an absurdly late date) or the “garden” referred to in John 19:41 or even the Garden of Gethsemane, so I can’t reply. Much archaeological evidence (some of which I have written about) confirms that Jesus’ tomb and the site of the crucifixion are located in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

[#41-42 are vague and are inaccessible in the Google Book version]

#43: Luke versus Luke

Here Alter claims that in Luke 23:51 Joseph of Arimathea is cleared of any involvement in the determination of Jesus’ guilt. But he claims that Acts 13:28-29 contradicts this in making a general statement, referring to “rulers” in Jerusalem (13:27): that “they asked Pilate to have him killed” (13:28). This is straining at gnats (and that’s putting it lightly), as if broad statements about groups have no exceptions. It’s like saying, “Congress asked the President to sign Bill #157.” It obviously doesn’t imply a logically necessary unanimity (which indeed almost never occurs in Congress).

Yet this is the flimsy nature of the “argument” Alter makes, despite Luke 23:51 expressly contradicting it, in informing us specifically of Joseph of Arimathea’s opinion and action.

#44: Conflicting Accounts

This claims that the Gospels present contradictory accounts of those visiting the tomb. I dealt with this issue in these two papers (more so the first):

Pearce’s Potshots #13: Resurrection “Contradictions” (?) [2-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #14: Resurrection “Contradictions” #2 [2-4-21]

#45: Luke Contradicts Mark

He is making claims about accounts of the burial spices. I dealt with that in my paper: Seidensticker Folly #31: Jesus’ Burial Spices Contradiction?

#46: Luke Violates the Yom Tov
#47: The Gospels’ Violations of the Yom Tov

“Yom Tov” means “holy day.” Alter’s argument was that the Friday during which Jesus was crucified was a holy day: the first of Passover that year, and so work regarding burial preparations would have been forbidden (so he argues). But there were exceptions to this (which Jesus refers to: such as rescuing a lost sheep on the Sabbath). In the Theology Web discussion, “Joseph of Arimathea Buying Linen On Passover?” it was stated:

NT scholar Harold Hoehner [stated], “The purchases of Joseph of Arimathea were proper for necessities could be obtained on the Sabbath (and on a feast day).” His source for this is Mishnah Shabbath 23.4[:] “One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter.” “By ‘techoom’ is meant the distance of 2,000 ells [7,500 feet] which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance.”

Burial preparation is this type of work which is exceptional and permitted even within Mosaic Law. If it was permitted on the Sabbath, then it would be on other holy days.

[I couldn’t access the Google Book after this point in the book]

[#48-49 are too vague]

#50: The Sanhedrin Performing Work on the Sabbath by Sealing the Tomb

This is the same invalid objection disposed of in my answer to #46-47.

[#51 is too vague]

#52: Mark Provides No Time to Purchase the Spices

Mark 16:1 (RSV) And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

Luke (23:55-56) shows that the women bought spices right before the Sabbath. They could have also bought more on Sunday. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Mark 16:1 observed:

[T]hey might buy more for the same purpose, after the sabbath was over: for this there was a particular market at Jerusalem (d); for we are a told, that

“there were there three markets, one by another; in the first of which were sold, all kinds of precious things, silks, and embroidered work; in the second, various kinds of fruits and herbs; and in the third, all kinds of spices.”

[(d) Jechus Haabot, p. 24. Ed. Hottinger. (e) Misn. Betacot, c. 8. sect. 6. & Barrenors in ib. T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 12. 2.((f) Hiichot Ebel, c. 4. sect. 1.]

[#53-57 are too vague]

#58: Apologetic Christian Sources Do Not Believe the Veracity of the Guard Episode

“Apologetic Christian Sources” (regarded en masse) are not infallible, and we have to examine what any particular one argues. Apologist Dr. William Lane Craig, who is no dummy, and has done great work in defending the Resurrection of Jesus and the biblical accounts (arguably better than anyone else has done), thinks it is quite worthy of belief, and explains at great length why he does.

[#59 is too vague]

#60: It Is Possible that the Body Could Have Been Removed before the Stationing of the Guard

Yes, theoretically. But that’s not a textual question per se. It’s merely a cynical take on the entire scene of Jesus’ death and burial. So I see no purpose in debating it in this context.

[#61-69 are too vague to comment upon]

#70: Luke 24:49 Contradicts Matthew 28:10

Luke 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.

Matthew 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

This is apples and oranges. The disciples did see Jesus after He was risen, in Galilee (Mt 28:16-17; Jn 21:1). So Matthew is talking about post-Resurrection appearances. Luke’s passage, on the other hand, which describes what occurred after what Matthew described, has to do with the Day of Pentecost, when the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which happened right in Jerusalem. It’s described by the same writer, Luke, in Acts 2:1-4 (cf. language of Lk 1:35; 9:1). The following passage also ties in:

Acts 1:8 “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth.”

In Acts 1:9, Jesus ascends to heaven. Likewise, in Luke 24:51, He ascends to heaven. Both passages are describing the same thing, and are written by the same author. No contradiction whatsoever. Matthew and Luke + Acts are talking about completely different things. But it’s fascinating that this couplet is somehow thought to be a contradiction, isn’t it?

[#71-72 are too vague]

#73: Mary Magdalene Refutes that She Believed Jesus Was Going to Be Resurrected

I’m not sure what he is driving at here. Is it because she went to the tomb on Easter Sunday, not expecting Him to be risen? If so, we have no reason to believe that she heard Jesus talking about rising on the third day. So she could have believed it, but didn’t know when it would occur. Or her eyes were closed, just as the disciples were, until the time came (see Mt 16:21-23; 17:23, and especially Lk 18:31-34).

#74: When Jesus Was Supposed to be Raised

I’m assuming that this is about the “raised on the third day” business. I dealt with that here: “Three Days and Nights” in the Tomb: Contradiction?

#75: Which Women Saw the Post-resurrected Risen Jesus on Easter Sunday?

Dealt with:

Pearce’s Potshots #13: Resurrection “Contradictions” (?) [2-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #14: Resurrection “Contradictions” #2 [2-4-21]

[#76-78 are vague]

#79: Matthew Contradicting Mark-Luke When Judas Was Paid

Matthew 26:14-15 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests [15] and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.

Mark and Luke describe him being paid later on. Matthew appears to be applying what is called in Hebrew literature “telescoping” or “compression” of time. In his book, Hebrew for Theologians: A Textbook for the Study of Biblical Hebrew in Relation to Hebrew Thinking (University Press of America, 1993) Jacques Doukhan notes that in the Hebrew mind, “the content of time prevails over chronology. Events which are distant in time can, if their content is similar, be regarded as simultaneous.” (p. 206)

Craig Blomberg also took note of this:

Perhaps the most perplexing differences between parallels occur when one Gospel writer has condensed the account of an event that took place in two or more stages into one concise paragraph that seems to describe the action taking place all at once. Yet this type of literary abridgment was quite common among ancient writers (cf. Lucian, How to Write History 56), so once again it is unfair to judge them by modern standards of precision that no-one in antiquity required. (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, IVP: 2nd edition, 2007, p. 216)

F. Gerald Downing, in his volume, Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century (Sheffield: 2000, pp. 121-122) observed that the Jewish historian Josephus (37-c. 100 AD) used the same technique:

Josephus is in fact noticeably concerned to ‘improve’ the flow of his narrative, either by removing all sorts of items that might seem to interrupt it, or else by reordering them. . . . Lucian, in the next century, would seem to indicate much the same attitude to avoidable interruptions, digressions, in a historical narrative, however vivid and interesting in themselves.

Michael R. Licona, Baptist New Testament scholar and professor of theology, specializes in the literary analysis of the Gospels as Greco-Roman biographies. He observed in his article, “Licona Responds to Ehrman on New Testament Reliability”:

Compression was a compositional device employed on a regular basis by historians in Jesus’s day. I provide several examples of compression and other compositional devices in my book scheduled for publication this fall, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (Oxford University Press, 2016).

Licona, on pages 71-72, noted that Plutarch also utilized compression in his book, Antony and that his work, Pompey omits details on the same events that are included in his Antony and Caesar.

Matthew 28:2-4 is arguably another example of the same technique. Former atheist Steve Diseb elaborates on a further instance of this in Matthew:

The Cursing of the Fig Tree . . .

Matthew 21:17-22; Mark 11:11-15, 19-25.

Matthew — Jesus curses the fig tree. The withering of the tree appears to happen immediately after the curing.

Mark — Jesus curses the fig tree, but the withering happens much later after Jesus and the disciples have moved on; they don’t notice it until after the cleansing of the Temple.

As we have seen throughout the examples provided in this series, Matthew regularly shortens his telling of the events. Matthew decided to tell the two parts of the story side-by-side, instead of separating the curing and withering of the fig tree with the cleansing of the Temple between them. As we have seen throughout this series, Matthew tends to group things according to thematic reasons.

Erik Manning expands upon this aspect of Matthew’s literary style:

As philosopher Tim McGrew points out, other ancient historians have used this device, including Sallust, Lucian, Cicero, and Quintillian. (Historiae, Vera Historia 56-57, De Orateore 3.27.104-105, Institutio Oratoria 8.4) . . .

Luke wasn’t the only Gospel writer to use such a technique. Matthew used compression in the story of the centurion’s servant. He omits all remarks of the Jewish elders and the centurion’s friends who served as go-betweens in Luke’s account.

He compresses the story by leaving out these extra people and stages of the narrative. (Compare Matthew 8:5-13 with Luke 7:10) Some have tried to say this is a contradiction, but they just don’t understand compression.

Likewise, Matthew 9:18-26 compresses the story of the healing of Jairus’ daughter. Mark gives us a much longer version of the story with two different stages of development. In the first stage, Jairus’ daughter was sick to the point of death. In the second stage, the messengers come and tell Jairus that his little girl just died.

Matthew gets to the point — the daughter dies, and Jesus raises her back to life. Matthew takes 176 words (at least in our English Bible) for what Mark takes 481 words to tell us. Ehrman has tried to complain that these accounts are also irreconcilable but they’re not when we understand that Matthew is telescoping the events.

We observe for the millionth time that the Gospel writers and ancient Hebrews were not primitive simpletons. The entire Bible is very rich in literary techniques and figures of speech. Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger catalogued “over 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.” That is a statement from the Introduction to his 1104-page tome, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898). I have this work in my own library (hardcover). It’s also available for free, online.

#80: Satan Being Judas’s Motivation for Betraying Jesus

Not sure what he is driving at here: maybe the fact that only Luke mentions this. For those itching to find a “contradiction” under every rock, this is a big deal. But it’s only a worthless argument from silence. Life is filled with situations of multiple causation. Satan is one cause; Judas’ own sins are another, etc. It’s not like they are mutually exclusive.

[#81: I would need more specifics in order to reply]

#82: Matthew’s False Citation of Jeremiah’s Name
#83: The Words of Jeremiah Were Not Prophetic
#84: The Prophecy Attributed to Jeremiah Could Not Really Be Zechariah 11:10–13

Dealt with here: Seidensticker Folly #53: Matthew Cited the Wrong Prophet? Also with regard to #83, see: Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy & the Virgin Birth (vs. JMS Pearce).

#85: Acts Contradicts Matthew—Judas’s Repentance

In Matthew 27:3-4, it says in RSV that Judas “repented” and said “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” Acts 1:16-20, in mentioning Judas’ suicide, simply doesn’t say one way or the other whether he repented or not. So it’s an argument from silence, from which nothing can be determined, as to alleged contradiction. But there is also a linguistic consideration:

The Greek word is not that commonly used for “repentance,” as involving a change of mind and heart, but is rather “regret,” a simple change of feeling. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Matthew 27:3)

A different Greek word from that used, ch. Matthew 3:2; it implies no change of heart or life, but merely remorse or regret. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on Matthew 27:3)

Repented himself (μεταμεληθείς). This word (differing from μετανοέω, which expresses change of heart) denotes only a change of feeling, a desire that what has been done could be undone; this is not repentance in the Scripture sense; it springs not from love of God, it has not that character which calls for pardon. (Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 27:3)

#86: Acts 1:18 Contradicts Matthew 27:7 Regarding the Action Taken by Judas

I think — in light of #87 — that he actually means Matthew 27:5 and is discussing how Judas died (a longtime “chestnut” of anti-biblical polemics). I tackled and dismantled it over 13 years ago: Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked (vs. Dave Van Allen and Dr. Jim Arvo).

#87: Acts 1:18 Contradicts Matthew 27:7 Regarding Who Purchased the Field

This is regarding who bought the “potter’s field”: Judas (Acts) or the chief priests (Matthew). The Domain of Truth website thoroughly refutes the charge of contradiction.

[#88 is too unspecific to reply to]

#89: Why the Pilgrims Failed to Recognize Jesus during the Daylight

I think he is referring to the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, after Jesus’ death (Lk 24:13-32). I’m not sure what the exact charge is. The text says that “their eyes were kept from recognizing him” (24:16) and “their eyes were opened and they recognized him” (24:31). God kept them from realizing it was Jesus, for whatever reason. I’d like to know what Alter thinks is “contradictory.”

[#90-91 are too vague]

#92: Peter’s Investigation of the Tomb Challenges 1 Corinthians 15:5

This is another case of apples and oranges. When Peter went to the tomb, it was empty and he didn’t see Jesus at that time (from all we know from the accounts). 1 Corinthians 15:5, on the other hand, refers to Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances. Matthew has this occurring in Galilee (28:16), where the disciples “saw him” and “worshiped” (28:17). That is perfectly harmonious with a notion that Jesus appeared to Peter (“Cephas”: Aramaic for “Rock”) first. Likewise, the accounts in Mark, Luke, and John do not logically rule out an appearance to Peter first. So, no cigar again . . .

#93: The Number of Disciples Who Saw Jesus

See the answer to #75 above.

[#94-101: I would need more information to know exactly what Alter is claiming. I’ve already speculated on a number of these accusations, and may have been wrong as to what he was arguing (lacking further information) ]

#102: When the Disciples Received the Holy Ghost

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

This was the (then eleven) disciples only. On the Day of Pentecost, it was a group of “about” 120 new Christians (Acts 1:15). Acts 2:4 reports that “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.” This is perfectly compatible, logically, with a notion of “the disciples first received the Holy Spirit” and then about 108 more people — present with them — did on the day of Pentecost.” Or one could hold that the act of Jesus in John 20:22 was symbolic, meant to anticipate what was soon to come, or that they received a measure of the Holy Spirit then and a fuller measure on Pentecost (suggested by the word “filled”). Any of these possible explanations are non-contradictory and plausible.

#103: John Contradicts John—Who Will Send the Holy Ghost?

I think he has in mind passages about the Holy Spirit in John chapters 14-16, (maybe) compared to John 20:22 as well. This poses no problem for Christians, who believe in circumincession (Latin) or perichoresis (Greek): the doctrine describing how all three Persons in the Trinity are contained in each other. So it’s no problem to say that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit or that the Father did. The Gospel of John actually states the notion of circumincession in this regard:

John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, [17] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. [18] I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name . . .

John 15:4-5 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;

John 16:7 . . . if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

John 16:15 All that the Father has is mine . . .

Jesus, in effect, “sends” the Holy Spirit by praying to God the Father to send Him, and send Him in Jesus’ name. Jesus comes through the Spirit, too (“I will come to you” / “I in him”). It’s all interconnected. This is trinitarianism. The same sort of thing occurs when the Bible talks about Jesus’ Resurrection. Acts 5:30 says “God . . . raised Jesus” (cf. Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:10) while John 2:19 and 10:17-18 say that Jesus raised Himself. In biblical / Hebraic “both / and” thinking, this is perfectly acceptable and not “contradictory” at all.

For further elaboration on this, see the section, “6. Circumincession / Perichoresis: the Indwelling of the Three Persons in One Another” in my paper: Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV Edition).

[#104-105 are too vague]

#106: Why the Synoptic Authors Failed to Detail the Other Appearances in John

They simply are under no (logical or moral or literary) obligation to do so. Each Gospel has its own approach and emphases. And just like any other situation with multiple accounts of the same general set of events, they will differ in detail and order, etc., from each other. That’s simply the nature of multiple reports. In terms of the overall Bible (as a revelation from God), if one Gospel contains a detail that others don’t have, the others don’t have to repeat it. It’s enough. It’s the irrational “demand” that all four Gospels (in effect, judging by their rhetoric) be exactly the same, under the horrendous “fear” of being accused of “contradiction!” which is logically absurd.

#107: Jesus’s Command to Take the Gospel to All the Nations

I think the falsely alleged “contradiction here is what I have dealt with in my paper, Seidensticker Folly #30: Small vs. Great Commission?

#108: Mark versus Matthew—Jesus’s Command to Baptize

Mark combines baptism and baptismal regeneration (Mk 16:16) with the great commission to evangelize the world (16:15). Jesus doesn’t “command” them to baptize, but it’s strongly implied, since it is so closely tied to salvation.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Matthew adds the famous trinitarian formula. It’s not, of course, a contradiction; rather, different emphases (regeneration and formulaic trinitarianism in the ritual of baptism). Mark says that baptism is essential for salvation, and Matthew provides the liturgical formula for the sacrament of baptism and makes a direct command. No contradictions whatsoever (if indeed this is what Alter was driving at) . . .

[#109-110 are too vague]

#111: Luke 24:50–53 Contradicts John and Possibly Mark

Really? All the other attempts have failed. Let’s look at this one, too! He appears to be claiming a contradictory difference in the accounts of Jesus’ Ascension. I refuted this charge: Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days?

[#112 is too vague]

#113: Luke 24:51 Contradicts Luke 23:43

Apologist Eric Lyons disposes of this. I explain how “paradise” here is not referring to heaven: Luke 23:43 (Thief on the Cross): “Paradise” = Sheol, Not Heaven. See also: Multiple Meanings of “Paradise” in Scripture (and Literary Genre).

#114: Acts 1:9 Contradicts Luke 24:43

I have no idea whatsoever what he thinks is contradictory, and so can’t comment further without knowing his full argument.

#115: Omissions Detailing the Ascension

Omissions are not contradictions. The claim that they are is an argument from silence. Since this comes up so often, let’s examine it more closely for a moment. Wikipedia has a good article, “Argument from silence”:

To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.[2][3] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author’s available writings.[3]

Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned.[4] While most historical approaches rely on what an author’s works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.[4] This approach thus uses what an author “should have said” rather than what is available in the author’s extant writings.[4][5]

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.[6][7]

Arguments from silence, based on a writer’s failure to mention an event, are distinct from arguments from ignorance which rely on a total “absence of evidence” and are widely considered unreliable; however arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies.

The article notes that Marco Polo never mentioned the Great Wall of China. Using the usual hyper-critical methodology applied to the Bible, this would “prove” that the Great Wall doesn’t exist (or else that he never actually visited China).

[#116-120 are too vague]

This concludes my examination. I have looked at these alleged “contradictions” and have found them all abject failures in terms of establishing what they intended to prove. Such continual abysmal failure of argument surely bespeaks a seriously deficient method and false premises (what I usually posit is the case).

***

Photo credit: geralt (4-7-13) [Pixabay /Pixabay License]

***

Summary: I examine 59 of Michael Alter’s alleged Resurrection “contradictions” from his book, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry. One notices the same logical fallacies recycled over and over.

***

Bible and Tradition

Trinitarianism & Christology

alleged Resurrection contradictions