Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #2: Weird & Fictional Mark 16?

August 3, 2019 By Dave Armstrong

This is an installment of my series of replies to an article by Dr. David Madison: a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, who has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. It’s called, “Things We Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said” (Debunking Christianity, 7-21-19). His words will be in blue below. Dr. Madison makes several “generic” digs at Jesus and Christianity, in the written portion (it details a series of 12 podcasts):

A challenge for Christians: If you’re so sure Jesus existed, then you have some explaining to do. A major frustration is that, while believers are indignant at all the talk about Jesus not existing, they don’t know the issues that fuel the skepticism—and are unwilling to inform themselves.

Yes, I’m up to the “challenge.” No problem at all. I’m not threatened or “scared” by this in the slightest. It’s what I do, as an apologist. The question is whether Dr. Madison is up to interacting with counter-critiques? Or will he act like the voluminous anti-theist atheist polemicist Bob Seidensticker?: who directly challenged me in one of his own comboxes to respond to his innumerable attack-pieces against Christianity and the Bible, and then courageously proceeded to utterly ignore my 35 specific critiques of his claims as of this writing. We shall soon see which course Dr. Madison will decide to take. Anyway, he also states in his post and combox:

[S]o many of the words of Jesus are genuinely shocking. These words aren’t proclaimed much from the pulpit, . . . Hence the folks in the pews have absorbed and adored an idealized Jesus. Christian apologists make their livings refiguring so many of the things Jesus supposedly said.

The gospels are riddled with contradictions and bad theology, and Jesus is so frequently depicted as a cult fanatic—because cult fanatics wrote the gospels. We see Jesus only through their theological filters. I just want to grab hold of Christian heads (standing behind them, with a hand on each ear) and force them to look straight ahead, unflinchingly, at the gospels, and then ask “Tell me what you see!” uncoached by apologist specialists, i.e., priests and pastors, who’ve had a lot of practice making bad texts look good. . . . I DO say, “Deal with the really bad stuff in the gospels.” Are you SURE you’ve not make a big mistake endorsing this particular Lord and Savior? That’s the whole point of this series of Flash Podcasts, because a helluva lot of Christians would agree, right away, that these quotes are bad news—if no one told then that they’ve been attributed to Jesus.

Of course, Dr. Madison — good anti-theist atheist that he is — takes the view that we are not at all sure whether Jesus in fact said anything recorded in the Gospels in the first place. I don’t play that game, because there is no end to it. It’s like trying to pin jello to the wall. The atheist always has their convenient out (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it anyway [wink wink and sly patronizing grin], and/or that the biblical text in question was simply added later by dishonest ultra-biased Christian partisans and propagandists. It’s a silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, and so I always refuse to play it with atheists or anyone else, because there is no way to “win” with such an absurdly stacked, purely subjective deck.

In my defense of biblical texts, I start with the assumption that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in the Bible (believe it or not). Going on from there, I simply defend particular [supposedly “difficult”] texts, and note with appropriate argumentation, that “here, the Bible teaches so-and-so,” etc. I deal with the texts as they exist. I don’t get into the endlessly arbitrary, subjective games that atheists and theologically liberal biblical skeptics play with the texts, in their self-serving textual criticism.

Dr. Madison himself (fortunately) grants my outlook in terms of practical “x vs. y” debate purposes: “For the sake of argument, I’m willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.” And in the combox: “So, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We’ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.”

Good! So we shall examine his cherry-picked texts and see whether his interpretations of them can stand up to scrutiny. He is issuing challenges, and I as an apologist will be dishing a bunch of my own right back to him. Two can play this game. I will be dealing honestly with his challenges. Will he return the favor, and engage in serious and substantive dialogue? Again, we’ll soon know what his reaction will be. A true dialogue is of a confident, inquisitive, “nothing to fear and everything to gain” back-and-forth and interactive nature, not merely “ships passing in the night” or what I call “mutual monologue.”

*****

Dr. Madison calls his second podcast, “On Mark 16:16-18, on the five things baptized Christians ought to be able to do”. Here is the passage:

Mark 16:16-18 (RSV) “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. [17] And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; [18] they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

He starts off by making the textual argument that Mark 16:9-20 is a disputed text. And indeed it is, among many Christians. That discussion is too complex and involved to delve into here, for my purposes of rebuttal. Catholics accept the “long ending”, and the many reasons we do are explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Gospel of St. Mark” (section: “State of text and integrity”).

Protestants are divided on the issue, as they are on many issues. But (for what it’s worth) a solid and extensive case for inclusion of 16:9-20 was made by Protestant Dave Miller (“Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?,” Apologetics Press, 2005 [link] ).

That said, the gist of this podcast is to contend that the long ending of Mark 16 is strange and “weird” and “bizarre” (especially the bit about serpents) and doesn’t sound like what Jesus would say. He says “someone invented verses 19-20” [I’m pretty sure he meant “9-20”] as a result of “creative imagination”: a piece of “religious fantasy literature.”

The five things Christians are supposed to be able to do are not “good religion”: so we are told. Dr. Madison suggests things like “love your enemies, love your neighbors . . . forgive 70 x 70” as more appropriate utterances for Jesus to express right before His ascension (as “much better religion”). Well, I suppose atheists would have all sorts of advice to Jesus as to what He ought to teach, and how and when. That’s neither here nor there. But Dr. Madison makes this argument as part of his skepticism regarding whether these things were said by Jesus at all. And we shall consider them each in turn.

Dr. Madison opines that “there was a heavy cult flavor to early Christianity, especially that line about, ‘if you do not believe, you will be condemned’: that’s typical cult playbook stuff.” If he is trying to insinuate that Jesus wouldn’t have said that, and it was simply added by overzealous, fanatical, “cultlike” adherents, he’s wrong:

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 10:28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

Jesus taught more about hell (see Gospel passages on “fire” and “hell”) than He did about heaven. Hell and condemnation was not invented as fantasy by some wild-eyed scribe who made up Mark 16:9-20.

Dave Miller (see his cited article above) contends that there is nothing in the long ending that is unique and not found elsewhere in Scripture:

Most, if not all, scholars who have examined the subject concede that the truths presented in the verses are historically authentic—even if they reject the genuineness of the verses as being originally part of Mark’s account. The verses contain no teaching of significance that is not taught elsewhere. Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to Mary is verified elsewhere (Luke 8:2; John 20:1-18), as is His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:35), and His appearance to the eleven apostles (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). The “Great Commission” is presented by two of the other three gospel writers (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-48), and Luke verifies the ascension twice (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9). The promise of the signs that were to accompany the apostles’ activities is hinted at by Matthew (28:20), noted by the Hebrews writer (2:3-4), explained in greater detail by John (chapters 14-16; cf. 14:12), and demonstrated by the events of the book of Acts . . .

Here are the five things “baptized Christians ought to be able to do” (right from the passage):

1) they will cast out demons;

2) they will speak in new tongues;

3) they will pick up serpents,

4) and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them;

5) they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.

First of all, note that this is a proverbial-type statement, meaning that it doesn’t follow that every Christian believer “ought” to be able to do any of these things at any time, at will. Proverbs are generalized statements, that allow many exceptions. So Jesus is saying, “these signs will accompany those who believe”; that is, “among Christians [not every single one, for all time] you will see all of this sort of phenomena, or signs.” I’ve written at length about the biblical view of healing, and to some extent, also about the related issue of how not all prayers are answered.

But (this is what many — including the snake-handling fools — don’t get): signs were never to be considered normative among Christians. In fact, Jesus was scathingly critical of those who sought signs for their own sake (e.g., “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign”: Mt 12:39; “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”: Jn 20:29).

That understood, the writer of Hebrews proclaims: “God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles” (2:4). And Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father” (Jn 14:12). Thus, Jesus told His disciples: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons” (Mt 10:8). Thus, we can find examples of all of the five things above among Christians:

1) casting out demons (Mk 3:15; 6:13; Lk 9:1; 10:17, 20; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 16:16-18; 19:12)

2) speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4-11)

3) contact with serpents, unharmed (Lk 10:19; Acts 28:1-6)

4) unharmed by poison (Lk 10:19)

5) healing the sick, including raising the dead (Mk 6:13; Lk 9:1-2; Acts 3:6-9; 5:15-16; 8:7; 9:34-40; 19:12; 28:8)

Conclusion: there is nothing novel or new in Mark 16 that cannot be found elsewhere. It’s completely consistent with Jesus’ teachings and actions, and those of His disciples. That’s why even those Bible scholars who think it is not an authentic biblical text concede that it preserved a portion of authentic tradition, from Jesus. In other words, it was the very opposite of “creative imagination” and “religious fantasy literature.”

Hence, Dr. Madison’s second claim fails.

***

Photo credit: Saint Paul Shipwrecked on Malta (1630) [note the snake on his hand], by Laurent de La Hyre (1606-1656) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family?

August 1, 2019 By Dave Armstrong

Good! So we shall examine his cherry-picked texts and see whether his interpretations of them can stand up to scrutiny. He is issuing challenges, and I as an apologist will be dishing a bunch of my own right back to him. Two can play this game. I will be dealing honestly with his challenges. Will he return the favor, and engage in serious and substantive dialogue? Again, we’ll soon know what his reaction will be. A true dialogue is of a confident, inquisitive, “nothing to fear and everything to gain” back-and-forth and interactive nature, not merely “ships passing in the night” or what I call “mutual monologue.”

*****

Luke 14:26 (RSV) If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Dr. Madison, in his podcast, calls the text in question a “full body blow” and “embarrassing.” He adds (for no extra charge): “cult leaders . . . have not wanted people who would be swayed by family . . . that was part of his [Luke’s] agenda . . . for him it was standard operating procedure.”

Is that so? How very odd, then, that the same writer, eyes allegedly ablaze with propagandizing purposes and a cultish hatred of normal familial relations, records Jesus healing Peter’s mother-in-law:

Luke 4:38-39 And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her. [39] And he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her; and immediately she rose and served them.

What sense does that make? None . . . If we interpret everything with a stultified, wooden literalism (utterly ignoring the richness of literary forms and genres that every language has: including Hebrew and Greek), then we have the absurdity of Jesus supposedly advocating literal hatred of family members, yet turning around and healing one of same. And Luke the wild-eyed “true believer” — inexplicably, if we accept Dr. Madison’s take — records this! So do Matthew (8:14-15) and Mark (1:29-31).

“Hate” . . . means exactly what it seems to mean . . . This verse has to be at the top of the list of things we wish Jesus hadn’t said. . . .

One would have to know Greek or Aramaic . . . if not, so Dr. Madison opines, it is a “knee jerk reaction” to not interpret literally.

I’m delighted that he actually brought up the question of language and [implied] literary genres. It’s the only indication we have in his podcast, that he is aware of such factors that are crucial in interpretation. But one would fully expect this in one who has a PhD in Biblical Studies. This is what makes it all the more odd and strange that Dr. Madison can’t figure out what is going on in this passage. It’s really not all that complicated.

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. Bullinger continues, in the Introduction:

All language is governed by law; but, in order to increase the power of a word, or the force of an expression, these laws are designedly departed from, and words and sentences are thrown into, and used in, new forms, or figures.

The ancient Greeks reduced these new and peculiar forms to science, and gave names to more than two hundred of them.

The Romans carried forward this science . . .

These manifold forms which words and sentences assume were called by the Greeks Schema and by the Romans, Figura. Both words have the same meaning, viz., a shape or figure. . . .

Applied to words, a figure denotes some form which a word or sentence takes, different from its ordinary and natural form. This is always for the purpose of giving additional force, more life, intensified feeling, and greater emphasis.

Bullinger devotes six pages (423-428) to “Hyperbole; or, Exaggeration”: which he defines as follows:

The figure is so called because the expression adds to the sense so much that it exaggerates it, and enlarges or diminishes it more than is really meant in fact. Or, when more is said than is meant to be literally understood, in order to heighten the sense.

It is the superlative degree applied to verbs and sentences and expressions or descriptions, rather than to mere adjectives. . . .

It was called by the Latins superlatio, a carrying beyond, an exaggerating.

I shall cite some of his more notable and obvious examples (omitting ellipses: “. . .” ):

Gen. ii. 24. — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” This does not mean that he is to forsake and no longer to love or care for his parents. So Matt. xix. 5.

Ex. viii. 17. — “All the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt”: i.e., wherever in all the land there was dust, it became lice.

I Sam. xxv. 37. — Nabal’s “heart died within him, and he became as a stone”: i.e., he was terribly frightened and collapsed or fainted away.

I Kings i. 40. — “So that the earth rent with the sound of them.” A hyperbolical description of their jumping and leaping for joy.Job xxix. 6. — “The rock poured me out rivers of oil”: i.e., I had abundance of all good things. So chap. xx. 17 and Micah vi. 7.

Isa. xiv. 13, — “I will ascend into heaven”: to express the pride of Lucifer.

Lam. ii. 11.— “My liver is poured upon the earth, etc”: to express the depth of the Prophet’s grief and sorrow at the desolations of Zion.

Luke xiv. 26. — “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother”: i.e., does not esteem them less than me. So the verb to hate is used (Gen. xxix. 31. Rom. ix. 13). [my bolding]

John iii. 26. — “All men come to him.” Thus his disciples said to John, to show their sense of the many people who followed the Lord.

John xii. 19. — “Behold, the world is gone after him.” The enemies of the Lord thus expressed their indignation at the vast multitudes which followed Him.

Gary Amirault highlights more biblical examples in a similar article:

[T]is verse is a hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect:

“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matt. 23:24, NIV)

It is not too difficult to determine that this is a hyperbole, an exaggeration. Because the English language is full of Bible terms and phraseology, this Hebrew idiom has become part of the English language. Therefore most English speaking people know the real meaning of that phrase: “You pay close attention to little things but neglect the important things.” [Dave: or, “you can’t see the forest for the trees”]

However, here is a hyperbole that the average Bible reader may miss and formulate doctrine from which may end up being harmful to themselves and others.

“Everything is possible for him who believes.” (Mark 9:23b, NIV)

The Bible is full of exaggerations like the one above which are not to be taken literally. Careful attention, comparing scripture with scripture, knowing the Bible and its author thoroughly, making certain not to necessary apply things to ourselves which weren’t meant for us individually and some basics about the original languages are needed to prevent us from misinterpreting various scripture verses like this one. . . .

“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Matt. 5:29 (I met a Christian who actually tried to pluck out his right eye because he had a lust problem. This is an example the kind of problem a Bible translation can cause if one is not informed of the various figures of speech found in the Bible.)

The literary device of antithesis, or contrast also seems more specifically applicable to the verse we are considering. Bullinger writes about this in his pages 715-718:

A setting of one Phrase in Contrast with another.

. . . It is a figure by which two thoughts, ideas, or phrases, are set over one against the other, in order to make the contrast more striking, and thus to emphasize it. [footnote: “When this consists of words rather than of sentences, it is called Epanodos, and Antimetabole (q.v.).”]

The two parts so placed are hence called in Greek antitheta, and in Latin opposita and contraposita. . . .

It is called also contentio: i.e., comparison, or contrast. When this contrast is made by affirmatives and negatives, it is called Enantiosis, see below. The Book of Proverbs so abounds in such Antitheses that we have not given any examples from it.

Hence (understanding all this, which Dr. Madison obviously does not), when Jesus says “does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters” He is expressing Hebrew hyperbole and/or antithesis to express with extreme exaggeration what He literally means: “does not esteem them less than me.” Thus, the thought of “loving Jesus more than one’s own family” is expressed by the non-literal “hate [one’s family, in order to] be my disciple.”

In fact, Jesus did express what we contend He was stating non-literally in Luke 14:26, in a literal fashion elsewhere (and here we see the important hermeneutical principle of “interpret less clear or obvious passages by more clear related passages”):

Matthew 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

We see precisely the same parallelism (“hate” = “love relatively more than”) in the poetic literary expression of Genesis:

Genesis 29:30-33 So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. [31] When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. [32] And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said, “Because the LORD has looked upon my affliction; surely now my husband will love me.” [33] She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also”; and she called his name Simeon.

The apostle Paul expresses largely the same sort of thing in the same way:

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

Paul also seemed blissfully unaware of Luke and other early Christian “cultist” supposed fanatical anti-family views, since he casually alluded to apostles like himself and Peter (“Cephas”) having “the right to be accompanied by a wife” (1 Cor 9:5).

I submit that Jesus commented on his own statement in another related sense in this passage:

Matthew 12:47-50 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

He’s not rejecting His family. He is enlarging the concept of family to include people like His disciples and indeed, anyone who “does the will of my Father in heaven.” It’s another very typical instance of Hebrew hyperbole or a type of antithesis. But it’s inclusive, not exclusive.

Jesus taught that we are to love (not hate) even our enemies:

Matthew 5:43-44 You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (cf. Lk 6:27-35)

Obviously, then, He would not (and did not) teach that we ought to hate our own families. Jesus taught that we should love all people, and that includes families:

Matthew 19:19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 22:37-40 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Mark 12:30-31 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ [31] The second is this, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Luke 10:27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.

John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.[35] By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

John 15:17 This I command you, to love one another.

I rest my case. This poses no problem whatsoever for either Christians, or a consistent interpretation of these Bible passages. It’s simply a function of non-literal forms of speaking that were common in Hebrew culture (just as in every other culture and language, to more or less degrees). But Hebrew language was especially rich in figures and non-literal techniques.

And this leads to innumerable misguided readings of Scripture from atheists and other biblical skeptics (even including those with doctorates in biblical studies) who — oddly — don’t grasp this rather elementary consideration, and appear to make no effort to try to understand it. They’re too busy tearing down Holy Scripture and approaching it like how a butcher views a hog.

***

Photo credit: The Sermon on the Mount (1877, portion), by Carl Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Vs. Atheist David Madison #42: Jesus vs. Financial Responsibility?

December 19, 2019 By Dave Armstrong

Dr. David Madison is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. You can see (by the number in the title) how many times I have replied to his videos or articles. Thus far, I haven’t heard one peep back from him (from 8-1-19 to this date). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. All I’ve seen is expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison and from his buddy, the atheist author, polemicist, and extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the ultra-insulting Debunking Christianity blog. Dr. Madison made his cramped, insulated mentality clear in a comment from 9-6-19:

[T]he burden of the apologist has become heavy indeed, and some don’t handle the anguish well. They vent and rage at critics, like toddlers throwing tantrums when a threadbare security blanket gets tossed out. We can smell their panic. Engaging with the ranters serves no purpose—any more than it does to engage with Flat-Earthers, Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and those who argue that the moon landings were faked. . . . I prefer to engage with NON-obsessive-compulsive-hysterical Christians, those who have spotted rubbish in the Bible, and might already have one foot out the door.

John “you are an idiot!” Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, so that he and Dr. Madison could avoid replying to yours truly, or even see notices of my replies (er, sorry, rants, rather).

This is one of the replies to Dr. Madison’s series, “Things we Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said” (podcast episodes 13-25). I have already replied to every previous episode. He states in his introduction to this second series:

[A]pologists (preachers and priests) who explain away—well, they try—the nasty and often grim message in many of the sayings attributed to Jesus. Indeed, the gospels are a minefield; many negatives about Jesus are in full view.

Dr. Madison’s episode 16 is entitled, “Jesus tells those present at his trial that they will see him coming on the clouds of heaven” (8-16-19). I’ve already refuted this reasoning earlier in this series: “Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #3: Nature & Time of 2nd Coming” (8-3-19). His episode 17 (to which I presently respond) is called, “Bad advice that Jesus gave in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 6:19-20 and 5:40 & 42” (8-19-19). Episode 18 (8-24-19) continues essentially the same flawed analysis, and so is also refuted below. Episode 19 (“Mark 2:1-12, Jesus heals a paralyzed man by forgiving his sins”), has already been rebutted by my paper, David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #3: Chapter 2 (Archaeological Support / Sin, Illness, Healing, & Faith / “Word” & “Gospel”). Since Dr. Madison has deliberately decided to ignore all my critiques, he taped his episode 19 exactly 17 days after I refuted all of its main contentions.

My patience is now exhausted with this series, and Dr. Madison is often merely spinning his wheels and regurgitating stale material that he has already presented, so I will end my critiques of this series with this post.

Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue.

*****

Matthew 5:40-42 (RSV) “and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; [41] and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. [42] Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.”

Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, [20] but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. [21] For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” [Dr. Madison ignores verse 21, which is the conclusion of the thought]

Is this advice you would give to young people starting out in life? Of course not. But in the mind of Jesus, or more correctly, in the mind of the cult propagandist who wrote the Gospels, there wasn’t going to be any such thing as starting out in life or saving for the future. The kingdom of God, with Jesus ruling and all governmental authorities removed, made no allowance for careers or saving for the future, or for the unfolding of 2000 more years of history, for that matter. It didn’t matter if you loaned money. It didn’t matter if you gave it all away to beggars.

The business about the supposed assumption that the world was gonna end soon was already dealt with in my past paper, mentioned above. Here I will address the subject matter of generosity, charity, benevolence, and opposition to materialism and excessive riches. The advice given is, of course, proverbial; hence it was not intended absolutely literally, as if it applied to every conceivable situation; any and all situations.

Jesus is cultivating a general unselfish way of life, a way of love and concern for other human beings. Then He makes the point that the eternal, spiritual things are more important than temporary earthly possessions. He does it by the typical Hebraic extreme contrast of one thing over against another.

To use an entirely “earthy” comparison, it would be like saying, “would you choose a very happy marriage that lasted five years, or an even happier marriage that lasted for a lifetime?” Anyone would choose the latter. Thus, Jesus draws a contrast between temporary material goods on earth, and “treasures” in heaven, that last forever, and are beyond the reach of either decay or theft. The preference is a no-brainer.

If there is a heaven, this makes eminent sense. The problem, of course, is that atheists like Dr. Madison don’t believe in heaven or any kind of afterlife. Obviously, then, such a concept is meaningless to him (and them). They just view it as what they deride as “pie in the sky.” But it’s perfectly reasonable if one accepts the premise (on many other reasonable grounds) that God exists and an eternal afterlife of bliss in heaven also awaits those who follow Him and accept His free offer of grace and salvation that is available to all human beings.

In any event, what is described in Matthew 5:40-42 is proverbial advice. Bob Deffinbaugh wrote an excellent article on the nature of biblical proverbial literature. Here are a few snippets:

Proverbs are highly compressed, carefully chosen words of wisdom. In the Bible, proverbs are found elsewhere than just in the Book of Proverbs. I cannot help but smile when I read the proverb Israel’s King Ahab cites to Ben Hadad, king of Syria. Ben Hadad had assembled his army and besieged the city of Samaria. He sent word to Ahab, conveying his demands, threatening to destroy Samaria if Ahab did not comply. Ahab sent Ben Hadad this response:

“Tell him the one who puts on his battle gear should not boast like one who is taking it off” (1 Kings 20:11).

We would have said, “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.”

Proverbs may very well exist in every culture. We have many proverbs in our culture. Here are just a few:

“First things first.”
“A stitch in time saves nine.”
“Don’t cry over spilled milk.”
“Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
“Hind sight is better than foresight.”
“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
“Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”

Proverbs are words that are skillfully crafted to stick in our minds and to engage us in thought: . . .

Proverbs are not necessarily promises, but rather generalizations of what is commonly true. Generally speaking, those who work hard and are self-disciplined prosper, while those who are lazy and gluttonous become poor . . .

[W]e must be careful not to read any particular proverb as though it comes with an unconditional guarantee of being fulfilled.

See also, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (“Proverb”). The key to understanding a proverb is to know that it is intended to be general advice, which admits of exceptions, according to situation. It’s not absolute in nature. It is not like asserting “2 + 2 = 4” or “the moon goes around the earth” or “The Empire State Building is in New York City.” It’s situational and prudential. A famous couplet from the book of Proverbs perfectly illustrates this:

Proverbs 26:4-5 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. [5] Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

I’ve often employed both pieces of advice in my own apologetics work. There is a time to answer a fool (as in fact I am doing right now), and a time not to, which brings to mind another famous Proverb from Ecclesiastes, which was the basis of a song by Pete Seeger, and a #1 hit song for the Byrds in 1965:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: [2] a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; [3] a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; [4] a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; [5] a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; [6] a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; [7] a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; [8] a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

Jesus Himself proves that His advice in Matthew 5 is not absolute and to be applied in any and every situation, in His parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30; cf. Luke 19:11-26). It has been called a primitive description of capitalistic industriousness, in which He expressly sanctions investment with bankers, and the making of interest (Mt 25:27; Lk 19:23). In the parable the master is God, who agrees with the investment.

For Dr. Madison, who apparently cannot comprehend the nature of proverbial biblical literature, “in the mind of the cult propagandist who wrote the Gospels, there wasn’t going to be any such thing as starting out in life or saving for the future.” Wrong! Matthew 25 and Luke 19 show this to be a falsehood.

Moreover, Dr. Madison claims that Christians were not supposed to have the slightest concern about money or the practical necessities of responsible everyday life because they were allegedly taught that the world was gonna end very soon. Why is it, then, that in the introduction of the parable of the talents in Luke’s version, the narrator (Luke) expressly denies an imminent end of the world?:

Luke 19:11 . . . he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

Dr. Madison thinks the Gospel writer “cult propagandists” were seeking to indoctrinate the gullible, stupid Christian cult members to think that the end of the world could and would occur in the next five minutes. Why, then, is the parable of the talents in two of these Gospels, and why is Luke 19:11 there: dead-set against the supposed nefarious goal and agenda? It makes no sense. Jesus Himself makes the same point: that the time of the end is not known, immediately preceding the Matthew version of the parable of the talents:

Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

The parable of the ten virgins and their oil lamps, right before this portion of Matthew (Matthew 25:1-13) is making the same point: industrious preparedness and wise stewardship of the material possessions one has: the very opposite of “simply give to every beggar and take no thought of how to wisely provide for yourselves.” What one does depends on prudence and a given situation. That is biblical “wisdom”: expressed in a very specific literary idiom, with its own particular characteristics: the proverb or the parable.

So much for Dr. Madison’s imaginary nonsense and slop (for now the 42nd time!). He doesn’t have the slightest clue concerning what he is pontificating about. His atheism has made him thoroughly illogical and oblivious to facts and reason alike, when it comes to Anything Biblical. This is what extreme, fanatical bias and hostility do to an otherwise fairly rational and sensible mind.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!

See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: The Parable of The Talents, by Willem de Poorter (1608-1668) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Vs. Atheist David Madison #40: Jesus: ALL Sexual Desire is Lust?

December 18, 2019 By Dave Armstrong

Replies to some of the most clueless atheist “arguments” to ever enter the mind of a sentient human being . . .

[T]he burden of the apologist has become heavy indeed, and some don’t handle the anguish well. They vent and rage at critics, like toddlers throwing tantrums when a threadbare security blanket gets tossed out. We can smell their panic. Engaging with the ranters serves no purpose—any more than it does to engage with Flat-Earthers, Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and those who argue that the moon landings were faked. . . . I prefer to engage with NON-obsessive-compulsive-hysterical Christians, those who have spotted rubbish in the Bible, and might already have one foot out the door.

[A]pologists (preachers and priests) who explain away—well, they try—the nasty and often grim message in many of the sayings attributed to Jesus. Indeed, the gospels are a minefield; many negatives about Jesus are in full view.

I am replying to episode 14, entitled, “Jesus equates sexual arousal with adultery” (7-29-19). Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue.

*****

Matthew 5:27-30 (RSV) “You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.’ [28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”

Dr. Madison pontificates:

First of all, adultery is a serious violation of trust. And it’s caused so much pain and anguish. We don’t need gods to tell us not to do it.

Great! I agree, and this is our common ground. Adultery is a bad thing, and Jesus and Christianity are against it. One would think we wouldn’t even have to discuss the issue, then. “All” agree. But no such luck . . .

But anyone who suggests that sexual arousal — that old religious obsession of lust — can be equated with adultery, is just dead wrong. Yes, I’m looking at you, Jesus. . . . Sexual fantasies just pop into our heads. . . . We don’t need some religious zealot standing over our shoulder, scolding us for lust: “guess what, pal? You’ve just committed adultery in your heart.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence. Sexual arousal itself is not the same thing as adultery; nor is it always the same thing as lust (it could be in some cases). What I profoundly disagree with is that Jesus is equating all sexual arousal with lust and adultery. It’s not in the text. Dr. Madison has simply assumed what ain’t there, because, after all, we’re talking about Christians, and everyone “knows” that they hate sex, right (even though secular sociological polls consistently reveal that committed, serious Christians have more sexual happiness in marriage — and happier, more long-lasting marriages — than just about any other group)?

It seems that Christians and atheists can agree on the definition of lust: or at least whatever exists in lust that Christians object to. Dictionary.com defines it as follows:

1 intense sexual desire or appetite.

2 uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

3 a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by for): a lust for power.

Merriam-Webster provides a definition (its first one) that is closer to the meaning of the biblical term, and standard usage in Christianity (and similar to #2 in Dictionary.com):

1: usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS He was motivated more by lust than by love.

Note how “lasciviousness” is provided as a synonym. If we go to that entry, it defines the word as synonymous with “lewd.” If we go in turn to the definition of “lewd” it’s this:

1a: OBSCENE, VULGAR lewd remarks

b: sexually unchaste or licentious (see LICENTIOUS sense 1) lewd behavior

One gets the idea by now. This is not preaching or the Bible; it’s two secular dictionaries. Lust is not simply sexual desire or arousal itself. It goes far beyond that. It’s “uncontrolled” and “unbridled” and “lecherousness.” It’s “overmastering” and associated with a “lust for power” (a thing that isn’t even necessarily sexual). It’s “lascivious” and the opposite of love. It’s lewd, unchaste, licentious, obscene, and vulgar. Remember, this is simply dictionaries, not Christian manuals, written by old celibate men; killjoys who supposedly want to control what everyone does in the bedroom and make sure they are unhappy, unfulfilled, and miserable. But it almost sounds like an old-fashioned fire and brimstone sermon, doesn’t it?

I think Christians and atheists can also readily agree that disordered desire is a bad thing, and that there is proper desire. We certainly disagree (quite a bit!) on where the lines are drawn, but we agree that there are such ethical / moral distinctions to be recognized. Even today, there are many areas of immoral sexuality, where virtually all people of all belief systems can and do agree; for example, rape, pedophilia, sexual abuse of all kinds, incest, bestiality, and sexual slavery and trafficking.

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is talking about lust (i.e., what we have just seen defined, above), not all sexual desire. Dr. Madison is more than capable of figuring this out and grasping it. But he simply doesn’t give a fig about accurately portraying Jesus’ teaching. I’ve already demonstrated how he’s been consistently wrong and out to sea, 13 times; and this is (true to form) the 14th. But because of his extreme hostility, he makes this absurd argument.

Obviously then (these preliminaries out of the way), we can agree that lust is bad, and that Jesus was right to condemn it. It shouldn’t be in the least bit controversial. It’s only when Dr. Madison distorts and lies about Jesus’ words and thoughts, that we have a serious problem. Jesus’ reflections here are scarcely even arguable. It’s the idea that great crimes and sins and wrongful acts have an origin in our minds before we commit them. This is not at all exclusive to religious thinking. It’s the basis of degrees of charges for crime. Hence, premeditated murder is a much more serious charge because it was thought about beforehand and planned in great detail. That’s a lot more worthy of punishment than a crime of passion, committed in a momentary burst of anger.

So Jesus makes a point that should be readily understood and agreed with, with just a little reflection: “every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” That’s exactly right. The seeds and the essence of it are in the planning, just as the essence of a premeditated murder lies in the original evil plans to carry it out. Therefore, we ought not lust, as it can lead to very bad things: for us and for those around us. Simply having a sexual desire arise is not evil. It’s how we react to it. Do we sustain and “coddle” it if it is a wrong desire? The desire can quickly transform into lust.

The Bible and Christianity are not opposed to sexual desire; only to disordered sexual desire (sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, non-procreative sex — as Catholics believe — forced sex, etc.). Hence, St. Paul in the Bible doesn’t condemn sexual desires themselves (towards a future spouse in this instance), but rather, uncontrolled desires (i.e., lust):

1 Corinthians 7:9 . . . if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:36-37 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin. [37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.

Sexual desire is famously expressed (as perfectly good and permissible) in the Song of Solomon:

Song of Solomon 1:15-16 Behold, you are beautiful, my love; behold, you are beautiful; your eyes are doves. [16] Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, truly lovely. . . .

Song of Solomon 2:5-6 . . . I am sick with love. [6] O that his left hand were under my head, and that his right hand embraced me!

Song of Solomon 4:5-7, 9-13 Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies. [6] Until the day breathes and the shadows flee, I will hie me to the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense. [7] You are all fair, my love; there is no flaw in you. . . . [9] You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride, you have ravished my heart with a glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace. [10] How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride! how much better is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your oils than any spice! [11] Your lips distil nectar, my bride; honey and milk are under your tongue; the scent of your garments is like the scent of Lebanon. [12] A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed. [13] Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with all choicest fruits, . . .

Song of Solomon 7:6-10 How fair and pleasant you are, O loved one, delectable maiden! [7] You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. [8] I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches. Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples, [9] and your kisses like the best wine that goes down smoothly, gliding over lips and teeth. [10] I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me.

Really puritanistic, Victorian, sexually repressed words and sentiments, ain’t they?

This self-mutilation metaphor in this text is gross. Pluck out your eyes, cut off your hand. A great moral teacher could think of something better. Cult fanatics talk like this: before trying to get you to drink the Kool-Aid.

At least he has wits enough to recognize that it is a metaphor. But once one does that, there is little objection left. In one of my 39 past refutations of Dr. Madison’s nonsense (the first installment of this very series), I wrote about how Jesus said, “if you don’t hate your family, you’re not worthy of me.” This is hyperbole: the extreme contrast. But in another Gospel, Jesus gives the literal meaning, which is how the hyperbole is interpreted: “if you love your family more than me, you’re not worthy of me.”

The figure is so called because the expression adds to the sense so much that it exaggerates it, and enlarges or diminishes it more than is really meant in fact. Or, when more is said than is meant to be literally understood, in order to heighten the sense.

It is the superlative degree applied to verbs and sentences and expressions or descriptions, rather than to mere adjectives. . . .

It was called by the Latins superlatio, a carrying beyond, an exaggerating.

I shall cite some of his more notable and obvious examples (omitting ellipses: “. . .” ):

Gen. ii. 24. — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” This does not mean that he is to forsake and no longer to love or care for his parents. So Matt. xix. 5.

Ex. viii. 17. — “All the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt”: i.e., wherever in all the land there was dust, it became lice.

I Sam. xxv. 37. — Nabal’s “heart died within him, and he became as a stone”: i.e., he was terribly frightened and collapsed or fainted away.

Lam. ii. 11.— “My liver is poured upon the earth, etc”: to express the depth of the Prophet’s grief and sorrow at the desolations of Zion.

John xii. 19. — “Behold, the world is gone after him.” The enemies of the Lord thus expressed their indignation at the vast multitudes which followed Him.

Gary Amirault highlights more biblical examples in a similar article:

[T]is verse is a hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect:

“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matt. 23:24, NIV)

It is not too difficult to determine that this is a hyperbole, an exaggeration. Because the English language is full of Bible terms and phraseology, this Hebrew idiom has become part of the English language. Therefore most English speaking people know the real meaning of that phrase: “You pay close attention to little things but neglect the important things.” [Dave: or, “you can’t see the forest for the trees”] . . .

“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Matt. 5:29 (I met a Christian who actually tried to pluck out his right eye because he had a lust problem. This is an example the kind of problem a Bible translation can cause if one is not informed of the various figures of speech found in the Bible.)

Dr. Madison concludes that this is flat-out bad and “gross” teaching, and the stuff of “cult fanatics.” The real truth is that he (biblical studies doctorate and all) is — amazingly enough — simply unfamiliar with the many sophisticated types and figures in the Bible, including hyperbole or exaggeration. He has to get up to speed and be properly educated, in order to understand and avoid contending for ludicrous things, as he has done (yet again!) here.

***

Photo credit: MarCuesBo (7-28-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Vs. Atheist David Madison #39: Jesus the Xenophobic Bigot?

December 12, 2019 By Dave Armstrong

And did Jesus minister exclusively to Jews and not Gentiles at all (an alleged Gospel inconsistency)?

[T]he burden of the apologist has become heavy indeed, and some don’t handle the anguish well. They vent and rage at critics, like toddlers throwing tantrums when a threadbare security blanket gets tossed out. We can smell their panic. Engaging with the ranters serves no purpose—any more than it does to engage with Flat-Earthers, Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and those who argue that the moon landings were faked. . . . I prefer to engage with NON-obsessive-compulsive-hysterical Christians, those who have spotted rubbish in the Bible, and might already have one foot out the door.

[A]pologists (preachers and priests) who explain away—well, they try—the nasty and often grim message in many of the sayings attributed to Jesus. Indeed, the gospels are a minefield; many negatives about Jesus are in full view.

I am replying to episode 13, entitled, “Matthew 15:22-28, Jesus calls a Gentile woman a dog” (7-23-19). Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue, and those of other atheists in purple, green, and brown.

*****

Matthew 15:22-28 (RSV) And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” [23] But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” [24] He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” [25] But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” [26] And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” [27] She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” [28] Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

In this installment, Dr. Madison trots out what is apparently a big favorite of anti-theist atheist polemicists. This is my fourth time dealing with it, so it’s nothing new. One atheist who goes by the nick “BeeryUSA” stated that this very thing ( a complete misunderstanding on his part) made him cease to be a Christian:

I recall the precise passage that I was reading when I realized that Jesus was actually a xenophobic nationalist . . . and therefore could not be any kind of god I could worship:

Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

So this psycho Jesus refuses to treat a woman’s daughter simply because she was a Canaanite. All of a sudden, my desire to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt melted away and, with my new-found skepticism, it didn’t take long from there for all the rest of it to unravel.

Likewise, Bible-Basher Bob Seidensticker (whom I have refuted 35 times with no reply whatsoever), opined:

At the end of the gospel story, Jesus has risen and is giving the disciples their final instructions.

Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

This is the familiar Great Commission, and it’s a lot more generous than what has been called the lesser commission that appears earlier in the same gospel:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5–6)

This was not a universal message. We see it again in his encounter with the Canaanite woman:

[Jesus rejected her plea to heal her daughter, saying] “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Matthew 15:24–6)

You might say that a ministry with limited resources had to prioritize, but that doesn’t apply here. Don’t forget that Jesus was omnipotent. . . .

Let’s revisit the fact that Matthew is contradictory when it says both “Make disciples of all nations” and “Do not go among the Gentiles [but only] to the lost sheep of Israel.” There are no early papyrus copies of Matthew 28 (the “Make disciples of all nations” chapter), and the earliest copies of this chapter are in the codices copied in the mid-300s. That’s almost three centuries of silence from original to our best copies, a lot of opportunity for the Great Commission to get “improved” by copyists. I’m not saying it was, of course; I’m simply offering one explanation for why the gospel in Matthew has Jesus change so fundamental a tenet as who he came to save.

Dr. Madison’s buddy, John Loftus also chimed in, along the same lines, in his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages). I have now critiqued it ten times without (you guessed it!) any counter-reply from him. In it, he wrote:

[H]e also called a Syrophoenician woman part of a race of “dogs” and only begrudgingly helped her (Mark 7:24-30). (p. 123)

Now, Dr. David Madison comes along in his podcast and makes these claims:

But guess what? In Matthew 28, at the end of the Gospel, verse 19, the resurrected Jesus says, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” . . . this Jesus quote was probably added to the story then [50 years after Jesus’ death] and it certainly does not match, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The Gospel writer didn’t notice much, contradictions, sometimes. . . . what a nasty thing to say: “it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” . . . The ideal Jesus that people adore is punctured by this Jesus, quote: this insult, calling her a dog.

Apologists Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt thoroughly dispense of this “objection” concerning Jesus’ use of the word “dog” (complete with a good dose of sorely needed humor) in their article, “Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman?”:

To our 21^st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy-dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” . . . Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews…. Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” . . .

Consider that Matthew had earlier recorded how a Roman centurion approached Jesus on behalf of his paralyzed servant. Jesus did not respond in that instance as He did with the Syrophoenician woman. He simply stated: “I will come and heal him” (8:7). After witnessing the centurion’s refreshing humility and great faith (pleading for Christ to “only speak a word” and his servant would be healed—vss. 8-9), Jesus responded: “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (vs. 10, emp. added). . . .

What many people miss in this story is what is so evident in other parts of Scripture: Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples how the tenderhearted respond to possibly offensive truths. . . .

Before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was unkind and intolerant. In truth, they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

As to the groundless charge of internal contradiction (sent to Israel only / disciples evangelize Israel only “vs.” evangelizing the whole world), here is my reply:

First of all, being sent to Israel doesn’t also mean that He would ignore all non-Israelis. This is untrue. The woman at the well was a Samaritan. He told the story about the good Samaritan who helped the guy who had been beaten, and concluded that he was a better neighbor than a Jew who didn’t do these things. He healed the Roman centurion’s servant, and commended his faith as better than most Jews. The Bible says that He healed this woman’s daughter (and highly commended her mother for her faith).

In the whole passage (blessed context), we readily see that Jesus was merely asking (as He often did) a rhetorical question. In effect He was asking her, “why should I heal your daughter?” She gave a great answer, and He (knowing all along that she would say what she did) did heal her.

I fail to see how this passage proves that Jesus didn’t give a fig about non-Jews. He healed the Canaanite woman’s daughter! How does that prove what atheists contend? Jesus heals a Canaanite girl (after being asked to by her mother), and that “proves” that He only healed and preached to Jews; hence it is a “contradiction”? Surely, this is a form of “logic” that no one’s ever seen before.

Another example, even more famous, is Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:4-29). He shares the Gospel very explicitly with her, stating that He is the source of eternal life (4:14), and that He is the Jewish Messiah (4:25-26): a thing that she later proclaimed in the city (4:28-29, 39-42).

The text even notes that — normally — Jews avoided Samaritans: “The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samar’ia?’ For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (4:9; RSV).

A third instance of Jesus’ outreach beyond the Jews is His interaction with the Roman centurion:

Matthew 8:5-13 As he entered Caper’na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him [6] and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.” [7] And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” [8] But the centurion answered him, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. [9] For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes, and to another, `Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it.” [10] When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. [11] I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” [13] And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Note how Jesus not only readily healed the Roman centurion’s servant (8:7, 13), but also “marveled” at his faith and commended it as superior to the faith of anyone “in Israel” (8:10). And that led Him to observe that many Gentiles will be saved, whereas many Jews will not be saved (8:11-12). But there is much more:

A fourth example is Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). The whole point of it was to show that Samaritans were truly neighbors to Jews if they helped them, as the man did in the parable. I drove on the road (from Jerusalem to Jericho) which was the setting of this parable.

A fifth example is from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus told His followers, “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14).

A sixth example is the common motif of Jesus saying that He came to save not just Jews, but the world (Jn 6:33, 51; 8:12 [“I am the light of the world”]; 9:5; 12:46 [“I have come as light into the world . . .”]; 12:47 [“to save the world”]; ). The Evangelists in the Gospels, and John the Baptist state the same (Jn 1:29; 3:16-17, 19).

A seventh example is Jesus praying for His disciples in their missionary efforts: “As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18).

An eighth example is the parable of the weeds, which showed a universal mission field fifteen chapters before Matthew 28: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of man; [38] the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; . . .” (13:37-38).

A ninth example is Jesus’ statements that “all men” can potentially be saved (Jn 12:32; 13:35).

The book of Acts recounts St. Peter and St. Paul massively reaching out to Gentiles. I need not spend any time documenting that.

As anyone can see, the evidence in the Bible against this ridiculous atheist critique is abundant and undeniable. Jesus never says (nor does the entire New Testament ever say) that He came to “save Israel” or be the “savior of Israel.” Anyone who doesn’t believe me can do a word search (here’s the tool to do it). Verify it yourself. He only claims to be the “Messiah” of Israel (Jn 4:25-26): which is a different thing. When Jesus says who it is that He came to save (i.e., provided they are willing), He states explicitly that He came “to save the lost” (Lk 19:10) and “to save the world” (Jn 12:47).

Likewise, St. Paul states that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). Last I checked, sinful human beings were not confined solely to the class of Jews or Israelis.

***

Photo credit: The Woman of Canaan at the Feet of Christ (1784, by Jean Germain Drouais (1763-1788) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #8: Ch. 9 (“Mean” Jesus)

August 19, 2019 By Dave Armstrong

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on Mark by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, “Not-Your-Pastor’s Tour of Mark’s Gospel: The falsification of Christianity made easy” (Debunking Christianity, 7-17-19). His words will be in blue below.

Dr. Madison has utterly ignored my twelve refutations of his “dirty dozen” podcasts against Jesus, and I fully expect that stony silence to continue. If he wants to be repeatedly critiqued and make no response, that’s his choice (which would challenge Bob Seidensticker as the most intellectually cowardly atheist I know). I will continue on, whatever he decides to do (no skin off my back).

Dr. Madison believes we are not at all sure whether Jesus in fact said anything recorded in the Gospels. The atheist always has a convenient “out” (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it anyway and that the text in question was simply made up and added later by unscrupulous and “cultish” Christian propagandists.

I always refuse to play this silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, because there is no way to “win” with such a stacked, subjective deck. I start with the assumption (based on many historical evidences) that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in the Bible (believe it or not).

Dr. Madison himself — in his anti-Jesus project noted above, granted my outlook, strictly in terms of practical “x vs. y” debate purposes: “For the sake of argument, I’m willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.” And in the combox: “So, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We’ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.” Excellent! Otherwise, there would be no possible discussion at all.

*****

[Dr. Madison’s critique of chapter 8 was so silly, repetitive, insubstantial, and non-exegetical that it deserved no reply, so I passed over it]

Dr. Madison called this installment: “Jesus the Cult Fanatic, At It Again: Christians pretend not to notice…” (11-16-18)

Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, suddenly disappears, verse 42: “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.” Wow. Anyone who obstructs belief in the cult leader deserves a grim fate. This is script for the fanatic who was Mark’s hero.

Huh? All He’s saying is that if one messes with the innocent, trusting faith of little children, they are in a very bad spiritual place. My RSV reads: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin . . .” It’s protecting children: hardly a “controversial” notion or example of Dr. Madison’s so-called “bad Jesus.” This would arguably cover pedophilia and other forms of child abuse, too. This kind of polemics is over-the-top ridiculous. Dr. Madison seems to make ever-more lousy arguments as he goes along.

But it gets worse. Priests and preachers wave off the next few grim verses (43-48) as metaphor or hyperbole, but couldn’t a compassionate Jesus have chosen his words more carefully? Unless you chop sin out of your life—literally—you aren’t a good bet for making it into the Kingdom.

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.”

It’s my guess that if many Christians ran into a street preacher shouting these words, they would cross the street to get away. But why is it okay when Jesus says these things, solemnly recited as part of the white noise on Sunday mornings?

The self-mutilation metaphor cannot be considered appropriate for sane religion; moreover, Jesus declines to specify exactly what he has in mind, i.e., the sins that hands, feet, and eyes can commit to deserve severe punishment. This has given license for preachers for centuries to fill in the details, according to their own personal biases about sin.

This is, of course, non-literal hyperbole, or extreme exaggeration to make a point. I dealt with it as a common phenomenon in Scripture in my paper, Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family?

Please don’t tout Jesus as greatest ethicist who ever lived if he taught that, for their mistakes, fallible human beings could end up in a place where the punishing fire never ceases. Our role models for morality cannot be mean and vindictive.

An eternal hell can easily be defended as a just notion, and I have done so many times:

Replies to Some Skeptical Objections to the Christian Doctrine of Hell (“Religion Is Lies” website) [5-24-06]

Biblical Annihilationism or Universalism? (w Atheist Ted Drange) [9-30-06]

Dialogue w Atheists on Hell & Whether God is Just [12-5-06]

Hell: Dialogue with a Philosophy Graduate Student [12-26-08]

Dialogue: Hell & God’s Justice, Part II [1-2-09]

Can Hell Actually be Defended? My Shot … [10-7-15]

Atheism & Atheology (Copious Resources, including on hell) [11-5-15]

A Defense of Hell: Philosophical Explanations of its Plausibility, Necessity, and Factuality [12-10-15]

Exchanges with an Atheist on Hell & Skepticism [12-17-15]

How to Annihilate Three Skeptical Fallacies Regarding Hell [National Catholic Register, 6-10-17]

Hell as a Deterrent: Analogy to Our Legal Systems [10-3-18]

As I mentioned earlier, Jesus had given his disciples the ‘authority’ to cast out demons (one aspect of magical thinking found in the gospel). But it turns out that they weren’t always up to the task. In the heart of chapter 9 we learn about a demon that resisted their magic. A father had brought his mute, deaf son to be healed; Jesus was furious that they had failed. Instead of calming asking what might have gone wrong, he lashed out: “You faithless generation, how much longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you? Bring him to me.” (v. 19)

We can see that the text never says that Jesus was “furious.” That’s simply wishful thinking on Dr. Madison’s part: always desperately and vainly looking for “bad Jesus.”

The father reported that his son had been like this since childhood: “It has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him…”

Now comes one of the most poignant texts in the gospel. The desperate father pleads, “…but if you are able to do anything, have pity on us and help us.” Jesus had snarled at the disciples,

He merely rebuked them for lack of belief (and He later explains why: “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer”: 9:29). And so Dr. Madison calls this reply of Jesus, “a smug, smart-ass answer.” Really? There are times when Jesus gets truly angry (righteously indignant), such as his encounter with the moneychangers at the temple and with the Pharisees (Matthew 24). This is not one of them; nor is it “proof” that Jesus was sinfully angry at all. It’s just one of the innumerable “Madison myths.” Dr. Madison adds:

Gee, the disciples hadn’t tried that [prayer, to remove the demon]?

Probably, but just not enough: is also a reasonable interpretation. To offer an analogy, it would be like saying that “getting over the death of a loved one comes through crying.” There is momentary crying and there is extended, anguished soul-level weeping and wailing. All of us who have experienced great tragedy, including loss and grieving know the difference well. That’s how prayer is, too. It’s a matter of degree. And this seems to be a plausible take on this incident. The disciples needed to pray more, and with more faith. But they lacked it; hence Jesus’ chastising rebuke (just as all good parents do with children, where necessary for their own good).

now he belittled the father. Jesus said to him, “‘If you are able!—All things can be done for the one who believes.’ Immediately the father of the child cried out, ‘I believe; help my unbelief!’” The poor guy might have wondered if his own lack to belief could have been a factor in his son’s disability. He wants to make amends, “Help my unbelief!”

Again, how is this belittling the father? Dr. Madison is apparently quite the mind-reader: and most of what he seems to observe are alleged “negative” thoughts. The man asked Jesus, “if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us” and Jesus replied, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes” (9:22-23). I have noted repeatedly in these replies how faith is tied in with healing in Scripture: not always, but probably the great majority of times. So Jesus was saying that it was not merely a matter of His own divine power, but also of the faith of the man (and with use of more hyperbole).

There are two pieces of bad advice—actually bad theology—in this story which have no doubt caused much Christian anguish for centuries.

• Belief is a key to overcoming illness—it just has to be strong enough: “All things can be done for the one who believes.” Jesus condemned “this faithless generation.”

• Add some prayer to that, and the magic will work: the demon could be vanquished “only through prayer.”

The devout who actually do read the gospels for guidance on how to live and survive, and assume that Jesus is telling the honest truth, sense that these are unreasonable expectations. They know that, far too often, belief and prayer don’t work in the face of chronic suffering, and they beat themselves up for failing. This is not healthy religion. Shame on Jesus for this bad advice.

I have dealt with the repetitive, droning theme in Dr. Madison’s overall polemic (which doesn’t become any more true merely by repeating the same tired lies): Madison vs. Jesus #10: Universal Answered Prayer & Healing?

Mark’s gospel is saturated with miracle, magic, superstition, and fantasy: Jesus glowed on a mountaintop while having a chat with long-dead heroes. Such stories emerge from imaginations fired by religious zeal. If only Christians could read the gospels carefully, meticulously, critically—and wise up that they’ve been conned.

[I pass over further slanders and blasphemies against Jesus and the Holy Bible, such as these. One has only so much patience — even by God’s supernatural enabling grace — with this sort of bilge. I ain’t Job]

***

Photo credit: Christ driving the money-changers from the Temple (1610), by Cecco del Caravaggio (1588-1620) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

“Catholic Verses” #5: Denominationalism

October 27, 2023 By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Including “Straight Talk” on the Catholic and Protestant Inquisitions

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will now systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, Catholic “Unity” and Denominationalism? (9-10-18).

Citing the seven passages below, Armstrong argues that the multiplicity of divisions within Protestantism is a bad thing:

John 17:20-23: “’I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,’”

1 Corinthians 11:18-19: “For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”

Romans 16:17: “I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.”

1 Corinthians 1:10-13: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

1 Corinthians 3:3-4: “for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? For when one says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ and another, ‘I belong to Apollos,’ are you not merely men?

1 Corinthians 12:25: “that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.”

Philippians 2:2: “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

The biblical data in this respect is so overwhelming that Tom decided to actually cite one of the seven passages in full, and to link to the other six.

Directly beneath John 17:20-23, Armstrong writes, “The Catholic position on Christian unity is fully in accord with biblical texts like this one. We believe that doctrine should be unified and that all Christians should be of one mind and spirit. It is to uphold this biblical injunction that we believe in dogma, hierarchical authority, apostolic Tradition, and a papacy. One may think what he will about all that, but it cannot be denied that Catholicism has traditionally been highly concerned with oneness of doctrine and avoidance of sectarianism and division.” p. 21.

Elsewhere he states, “In my opinion, this (i.e., division and denominationalism) is one of the most compelling and unanswerable disproofs of Protestantism as a system to be found in the Bible.” p. 25.

I completely agree with Armstrong regarding the Bible passages quoted above, that the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles desired that all Christians be united in doctrine and practice, . . .

This is very significant because, with this statement, Tom concedes the entire argument. Denominationalism (which necessarily — by nature — entails multiple conflicting doctrines, and hence much error, since two contradictory beliefs cannot both be correct) can’t be defended from Holy Scripture. I do give him a lot of credit for honestly recognizing this.

but there were tremendous challenges to that ideal from the very beginning. In his epistles, apostle Paul, relates that he was already alarmed at the Judaizers who were entering into the church and subverting the Gospel by insisting on works being added to grace.

The discussion is already over with, based on his previous sweeping concession. But Tom can’t stop with his concession and agreement, because then he would have no reply at all. Note, then, what he does next. Protestants, in dealing with denominationalism, almost always move from the biblical command and ideal, to the actual state of affairs. This is one of their many fatal errors. In effect, Protestants reason that “we can’t possibly live up to what we are commanded about unity, so we will invent new institutional structures that ignore and rationalize away these biblical commands.”

If we treated other doctrines in the Bible like this, the situation would be far worse than it is already. No Christian says, for example, that we can’t possibly live up to the prohibition of fornication and adultery, so we just have to accept fallen human nature as it is (“boys will be boys” etc.). That’s the world’s mentality: teenagers and young adults can’t possibly be sexually pure and abstinent. This is a lie. I have four children, ages 21-32, and they all did so (as my wife and I also did). So do many millions of other Christian unmarried young people. Christianity always requires a striving to live up to God’s sublime level of teaching and behavior, by His grace. What He commands us to do, He gives us the power and ability to do. This includes Christian unity and adherence to one unified body of doctrinal and moral truth, not multiple hundreds of competing, contradictory belief-systems.

Secondly, the fact that differing opinions exist, in contradiction to received apostolic tradition and the one Christian truth, doesn’t disprove that the one true Church exists. This is a fallacy. There have always been heresies and schisms, because these are people who decided to rebel against and depart from the received Catholic tradition. But the fact that some people may think 2+2=5 or that the earth is flat or that the sun goes around it, doesn’t change the facts that the truth is known in these instances, and that 2+2+4, and that the earth is a globe and travels around the sun. We don’t deny those truths because uninformed people exist and deny them.

Paul had to confront Peter, the alleged first infallible pope, at Antioch because of his compromise with the Judaizers.

This was an instance of Peter being a hypocrite for a time; not a doctrinal disagreement. Paul and Peter completely agreed, as to their opposition to the Judaizers, as seen clearly in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

A response to Armstrong requires some knowledge of church history. It’s true that the bishops of Rome were eventually able to consolidate their power and impose a standardized and increasingly legalistic and ritualistic theology upon their subjects, but conformity was achieved often by means of intimidation and physical force.

This is another huge concession. Tom admits that a “standardized . . . theology” and doctrinal “conformity” exists within Catholicism. But for some reason he doesn’t like this, and so has to run it down and slant his presentation of it. It’s a big discussion, but I would merely note the humor and irony of what Martin Luther stated about his own self-willed “authority” and infallibility when he decided to separate himself from the Catholic Church (having rejected fifty of its doctrines before his excommunication):

I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522, from Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan [vols. 1-30] and Helmut T. Lehmann [vols. 31-55], St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House [vols. 1-30]; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [vols. 31-55], 1955. This work is from Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I [edited by J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann]; pages 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch; citation from pp. 248-249)

I have described Luther’s mentality here as “self-proclaimed super-duper infallibility and virtual inspiration.” Luther claimed far more authority than any pope has ever claimed. He thought he couldn’t possibly be wrong, even if an angel told him so. And let no one be deceived about early Lutherans’ use of the death penalty (with Luther’s express permission) to persecute the Anabaptists who disagreed on baptism. There was no religious liberty in early Lutheranism (as Luther’s most famous biographer, Roland Bainton freely admits and detests). If Tom believes in adult “believer’s baptism” he could very well have been executed in Luther’s Saxony in the 16th century. The leading anti-Catholic today, James White, certainly could have been, since he is a Reformed Baptist.

So Protestants want to bring up the Catholic Inquisition? I used to often do so myself before I converted. It was probably my favorite contra-Catholic “argument.” Protestants — in fact — had their own inquisition, which is rarely mentioned by Protestants (if they even ever learn about it). I have interacted with wives of Lutheran pastors, who weren’t aware that Luther advocated the execution of Anabaptists. I learned this in 1984, reading Bainton’s book on the drive down to my honeymoon, and I was a good evangelical Protestant then, and Luther was my hero (warts and all, as it were).

Was the authoritarian and imperialistic Roman Catholic church, which tortured and slaughtered millions in its quest for power, control, and wealth, what Jesus Christ and the apostles had in mind with regards to unity?

Now we enter the realm of the ridiculous, surreal, and hyper-slanderous charges. Tom reveals that he hasn’t done any serious research about numbers killed in the Inquisition. I have. John Bugay, a particularly ignorant anti-Catholic, claimed that 4.9 million were killed. I shot that down in 2010. Another man, who has since become a Catholic (so I won’t name him, in charity) claimed that the Catholic Inquisition claimed “50-68 million” lives (!!!). In fact, these are grotesque, comical, outrageous, know-nothing, brain-dead estimates. Actual scholars who have studied the Inquisition (including several non-Catholic ones) tell the truth about what we know.

I want to make it clear that I do not “defend” the Inquisition as a practice (because I know that when I bring this up, often I am falsely accused of that by anti-Catholics). I don’t defend such things committed by any Christian group. I never have. My position is that the early Church and current view of almost all Christians, of religious tolerance, is infinitely preferable. That said, what I do do is try to properly and accurately understand it in the context of its time (the Middle Ages and early modern periods).

In those days, almost all Christians (not just Catholics; minus only a few small groups like Anabaptists and Quakers) believed in corporal and capital punishment for heresy, because they thought (here is the correct premise) that heresy was far more dangerous to a person and society than physical disease was. That is exactly right: heresy can land one in hell; no disease could ever do that. So they believed in punishing the heretic for the sake of the good of the society. I deal with these issues at length, on my web page, “Inquisition, Crusades, and ‘Catholic Scandals’”.

It’s thought that the population of Europe was 73.5 million in 1340 and 50 million in 1450, due to the Black Death. It was about 70 million in 1550 and 78 million in 1600; 150 million by 1800. There is no way — from demographics and population research alone — that the numbers killed could be anything remotely approaching the ridiculous figures of 50-68 million. We know that they weren’t, anyway, by consulting actual historians and experts on the Middle Ages.

Edward Peters, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). On page 87 of his book, Peters states: “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.”

Henry Kamen, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and professor of history at various universities, including the University of Wisconsin – Madison, is the author of The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998; fourth revised edition, 2014). Both Peters’ and Kamen’s work are featured in the Wikipedia article, “Historical Revision of the Inquisition”.

These two books are in the forefront of an emerging, very different perspective on the Inquisitions: an understanding that they were exponentially less inclined to issue death penalties than had previously been commonly assumed, and also quite different in character and even essence than the longstanding anti-Catholic stereotypes would have us believe. Dr. Kamen states in his book:

Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition. (p. 60)

[I]t is clear that for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability. . . . it would seem that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. (p. 203)

For copiously documented facts and figures, see: “Beyond the Myth of The Inquisition: Ours Is ‘The Golden Age’”, by Fr. Brian Van Hove, S. J., Faith and Reason (Winter, 1992).

One tires of these figures of “millions” thrown out, in complete ignorance of the actual scholarly research now available. Tom claims “millions” were killed by the Catholic Church. He offers no substantiation for this (as is his usual modus operandi; he rarely does serious research in this series). We don’t know how many “millions” he has in mind. Let’s assume for a moment that he meant two million, since he used the plural, “millions”; therefore, this would be his minimum figure.

Dr. Kamen says that about “two thousand” were killed in the Spanish Inquisition (the most famous one) “up to about 1530.” Dr. Peters adds that there were “around 3000 death sentences . . . between 1550 and 1800.” So that is 5,000 altogether. This means that an estimate of two million is 400 times more numbers than scholars assert. Conclusion: Tom has no idea what he is talking about when dealing with this topic. That being the case, I suggest (in charity) that he shut up about it, before he embarrasses himself and destroys his own intellectual credibility (assuming there is any left) even further. Sadly, it’s all par for the course in anti-Catholic polemics.

50 million supposed deaths is 10,000 times more than the scholarly estimates. 68 million is 13,600 times more. Bugay’s “modest” figure of 4.9 million is 980 times more. This is ignoramus stuff. And that’s putting it mildly. In charity, I assume ignorance is in play and not deliberate lying. But I wouldn’t put it past many anti-Catholics, to deliberately lie about the Catholic Church that they hate so much (though they invariably hate a “Catholic Church” of their own making, not the real one). I can’t read Tom’s heart, so I don’t know if he is an ignoramus in historical matters or a liar. But those are the only two choices regarding this discussion, given his claim. If he is honest, he will read this article and recant his claim and repent and apologize for misleading his readers.

Catholic apologists see the multitude of Protestant denominations as a proof of their illegitimacy, but the growth of denominations was actually the fruit of constant reform and a check against wholesale heresy as had happened with Roman Catholicism. Catholics deride the decentralized patchquilt of evangelicalism, which bases its authority solely upon God’s Holy Word, but that is precisely where the Holy Spirit has done His work, not within the corruption of the Vatican’s regal hallways.

This is shoddy, unbiblical thinking. There is so much wrong with this mindset, that I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. Where to begin? I will cite two of my many past critiques of denominationalism:

I’ve been saying for years that this currently very fashionable fetish for uncertainty is a species of postmodernism or liberalism. The sad thing now is that many thinking evangelical or Calvinist Protestants are now adopting these liberal, skeptical modes of thought without being aware (or so it seems) of where they derive, or how contrary they are not only to Catholicism, but even to their own Protestant traditions (folks like Luther and Calvin).

The New Testament doesn’t offer the slightest hint of doctrinal relativism (to any degree), permitted differences on anything other than non-doctrinal matters such as what food to eat. It has not the remotest trace of the current (not historic) Protestant fascination with doctrinal diversity and subjective struggle, or the notion of “primary vs. secondary” doctrines; with the latter up for grabs and entirely optional.

Instead, what is found in the New Testament is a constant, unchanging casual assumption (above all in St. Paul) that there is but one truth, one faith, one commandment, one doctrine, one teaching, one message, one gospel, etc.

The “quest for uncertainty” is the same mentality that has led to Episcopalianism accepting practicing homosexual bishops, and the ELCA (Lutheran) recently adopting the same thing for clergy, and PCUSA (Presbyterian) voting to remove fornication from the roster of sins, and all the mainline denominations sanctioning childkilling. (3-15-06; modified and condensed a bit)

Many Protestants are on a “quest for uncertainty” that never ends. It’s a very common theme. They glory in it. They think it’s great (rather than a tragic scandal) that they can’t figure lots of things out in Christianity and that their sects endlessly contradict each other.

They are forever searching (i.e., those who think like this). I like the treasure hunt as much as the next guy, but God wants us to know the truth, so we can fully live by it, rather than spend our whole lives searching, as if faith and spirituality were mere philosophy or a sort of “whodunit” where the (lifelong?) search is for the fullness of Christian truth rather than the murderer.

Many Protestants don’t think that the fullness of Christian truth is possible to find at all. They go beyond the endless quest and questioning to a sort of apathy or “worldly wise” cynicism. They’ve long since given up and resigned themselves to Protestant institutional chaos, and play self-deluded games that there is such a thing as “secondary doctrines” where it’s fine to disagree and contradict each other, since God supposedly didn’t make it clear enough in Scripture (how ironic!).

There are only so many ways to rationalize a violently, utterly unbiblical denominationalism. You either keep searching forever among the infinite choices, or become apathetic that the fullness of Christian truth can be found amidst the chaos and anarchism.

One of the leading arguments of atheists is: “how can Christians have any credibility because they disagree with each other so much?” In this sense, the atheist often understands the utter scandal of division and disunity even more than many Protestants do, who rationalize it away and glory in it. Luther and Calvin are certainly turning over in their graves. Despite their many errors, they never believed ideas as silly as these. They believed that there was one fullness of Christian truth and that they had it in their own camp (precisely as Catholics continue to believe). (2-12-14; condensed citation)

What good is Protestantism “bas[ing] its authority solely upon God’s Holy Word” when, sadly and tragically, in so many cases, Protestants can’t even figure out what the truth is? I always use the example of baptism, which is a pretty basic Christian doctrine, and believed to be absolutely necessary and supremely important by almost all Christians. Protestants can’t even agree on the nature and practice of that. I wrote about Protestants and baptism in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don’t baptize at all (the latter doesn’t even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism. (p. 242)

It’s the same with the Eucharist (regarded by many Protestants — as is baptism — as a sacrament. Some believe in the Real Presence as we do (Lutherans and some “high church” or Anglo-Catholic Anglicans). Others believe in a mystical presence (Calvinists), and still others, that it is pure symbolism and no more (Baptists and many denominations and non-denominational Christians, including myself in the past). They can’t resolve these differences to “save their lives.” And it’s scandalous, because it is a biblically condemned disunity, and because falsehood must be present in one or more of these views, by the laws of logic and contradiction.

The devil is the father of lies. Falsehood and untruth do no one any good. Yet Protestants like Tom pretend that this is a good thing, in saying that it’s “where the Holy Spirit has done His work.” Sorry; the Holy Spirit does not cooperate with false doctrines and falsehoods generally. We know who it is that lies behind those. And there are plenty of false doctrines in Protestantism. There must be, since contradictions are rampant. They just can’t figure out — in many cases — which doctrines are false and which are true. Thus, Protestantism in these instances reduces to mere subjectivism and relativism, rather than the biblical ideal of absolute truth and certainty by God’s grace and guidance.

Evangelical Protestants may be divided over secondary doctrinal beliefs, but we are united in our belief in the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Protestants get the gospel of grace right, through Jesus Christ. Praise God. They don’t get everything wrong. When they agree with us (as here, and in many doctrines), they’re right! because we are the only ones who have preserved biblical and apostolic doctrine and morality in its fullness and completeness.

Armstrong describes this as “de facto doctrinal relativism” (p. 28), and dismisses it completely.

That’s false. Here I am quoted out of context. I was referring specifically to so-called “secondary” doctrines “on which Protestants disagree.” The centrality of grace and Jesus Christ for salvation is not one of these doctrines, and they agree with us regarding this particular belief.

The only legitimate unity in Armstrong’s opinion is institutional homogeneity,

Yes; in accordance with the biblical notion that there is but one theological and spiritual “truth”, one “faith”, one “doctrine”, one “commandment”, one “teaching”, and one “message”. I have collected the NT instances of those words in one of my books. It took up thirteen pages.

which he would have the reader believe is the case with Catholicism, but how true is that claim?

Very true, and in fact anti-Catholic rhetoric and railing against our distinctive doctrines, which they hate and reject, absolutely proves this. Every anti-Catholic knows full well that we believe in papal infallibility, hierarchical Church government, private confession to priests, absolution, mortal and venial sins, transubstantiation, infant baptismal regeneration, penance, all the Marian doctrines, seven sacraments, eucharistic adoration, the invocation and veneration of saints, the necessary coupling of works with faith, the “three-legged stool” rule of faith (infallible Bible-tradition-Church), canonization of saints, purgatory, 73 OT books, and (on the moral plane) the prohibition of contraception and homosexual acts and divorce.

None of this is a mystery, and the anti-Catholic vigorously opposes and despises all of these beliefs, and never for a second wonders what we believe with regard to them. Nevertheless they — oddly enough — turn around — as Tom will do in his next comment — and claim that we don’t have doctrinal unity. We certainly do, when one consults our actual manuals of dogma, the Catechism, Vatican II, papal encyclicals, etc. But it’s equally certain to one and all that Protestantism has not, and can never achieve doctrinal unity, because of its rejection of conciliar and papal infallibility.

As I mentioned previously, the pope and his bishops were able to impose their man-made traditions as dogma by force with the support of civil authorities from the 500s right up into the 20th Century. That, thankfully, is no longer the case.

Catholics willingly accept Church teaching because that is what we believe. No one “forces” us to do so. What, is this the “millions” that Tom claims were killed for not accepting Church authority? Even in the Inquisition, almost all executions were performed by the civil authority of the state, not by Churchmen.

In present-day Catholicism, one can find a broad range of beliefs, even among the clergy, from the most liberal type of Bible-denying modernism to pre-Vatican II militant intransigence.

That’s right: among individual Catholics. But individual erroneous and/or rebellious opinions are not the same as dogmatic Church teachings and infallible doctrines. See my articles:

Dissident Catholics: Disproof of Catholic Doctrinal Unity? [6-3-96]

Have Heterodox Catholics Overthrown Official Doctrine? (vs. Eric Svendsen, James White, Phillip Johnson, & Andrew Webb) [6-3-96]

This book was published fourteen years ago and Armstrong could not have possibly foreseen the current crisis in the Catholic church, with many conservatives now publicly opposing pope Francis

Yes, when they do that, they are no different from Protestants or Catholic liberal heterodox dissidents. They have lost faith in papal indefectibility, which is binding doctrine, most clearly formulated in Vatican I in 1870. In 2004, when this book was published, I was defending Pope St. John Paul the Great from unjust criticisms from Catholics. I have defended the next pope, Benedict XVI as well, and I will defend the next one in the future. There are always folks in any group that don’t “get it.” This doesn’t change the nature of the official teachings of said group.

and his doctrine-bending reforms.

This is nonsense. Pope Francis has not changed a single required doctrine of Catholicism. He has modified a few practices, which is, of course, altogether permissible and within his prerogative as pope to do (requiring priestly celibacy was an example of this, hundreds of years ago). I know what I’m talking about, as I have defended him against scurrilous charges 220 times and collected another 299 defenses from others. If he had actually changed doctrines (which is impossible to do by the nature of the Catholic system (very unlike Protestantism), he would be a heretic. But even a strong papal critic like Phil Lawler, author of the book, Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (2018), which I have dissected and exposed many times, admits that there is no case against him as a heretic:

Well, is the Pope a heretic? I am not qualified to address that question. . . . Who could make the authoritative judgment that the Pope had fallen into heresy and therefore lost his authority? Certainly not a handful of independent scholars.

To their credit, the authors of the Easter Letter recognize the need for an authoritative statement, for a judgment by the world’s bishops. But if that is their goal, should they not have approached sympathetic bishops privately, quietly, to make their case? . . .

Peter Kwasniewski, one of the principal authors of the letter, now says that the document lists “instances of heresy that cannot be denied.” This, I’m afraid, is a demonstrably false statement. The “instances of heresy” mentioned in the letter have been denied, and repeatedly. The authors of the letter are convinced of their own arguments, but they have not convinced others. In fact they have not convinced me, and if they cannot persuade a sympathetic reader, they are very unlikely to convince a skeptical world. . . . (“Is the Pope a heretic? The danger of asking the wrong question,” Catholic Culture, 3 May 2019)

In a follow-up article of 16 May 2019, Lawler added: “the authors of the open letter made a tactical mistake, because the charge of heresy is very difficult to prove . . .”

Yet we are to believe that anonymous anti-Catholic polemicist Tom knows more about Catholic teachings and what is heretical, than someone like Phil Lawler (or any adequately educated Catholic)? It’s beyond ridiculous. Therefore, this line of argument that he is attempting has not proven anything, either about the alleged heresy of the pope, or some supposed disproof of Catholic doctrinal unity. He needs to examine his own house and stop spouting ignorant and unsubstantiated statements.

Catholicism is certainly no unified monolith as its apologists would like you to believe.

Again, among individuals it is not, but they are not the magisterium of the Church. Actual, “official” Church doctrine (which is what we should be discussing, in any examination of what a given Christian communion creedally believes) is indeed unified and has not essentially changed.

It would be wonderful if all genuine Christians were united in doctrine and practice

Yes, wouldn’t it be nice (to quote the Beach Boys) if all Christians took all of the commands and teachings of the Bible seriously and professed allegiance to the one true Church established by Jesus Christ?

but this side of eternity we gladly rejoice in our unity in the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

In other words, “we don’t have enough faith to believe in all of the biblical teachings, commanded in inspired revelation, or enough faith to believe that the Holy Spirit could prevent the one Church from descending into doctrinal error, so we will ignore the question of the truth with regard to many doctrines and keep spouting our slogans for the few things that we still hold in common as Protestants (minus several liberal denominations that have rejected even those). God could produce an inspired, inerrant Bible written by sinful men, but He can’t preserve an infallible Church inhabited by sinful men.”

Rome can keep its false gospel of sacramental grace and merit and its faux, worldly-patterned, institutional unity. . . . an objective analysis reveals the only unity Catholicism can boast of is its un-Biblical and anti-Biblical error.

This is simply boilerplate anti-Catholic polemics. Each issue has to be discussed on its own; so, nice try.

I have presented what the Bible teaches regarding Christian and doctrinal unity, and even Tom agrees that “all Christians” ought to “be united in doctrine and practice.” But he concludes in despair that it’s not possible for God’s Church to be doctrinally unified. Catholics refuse to sink to that hyper-skeptical level. We accept and seek to follow all of the Bible’s teaching, as opposed to Protestants picking and choosing — in an attitude of lack of faith in God’s power and providence — what they will adhere to, and what is “impossible” for God to accomplish “this side of eternity.”

I rest my case.

*
*****

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***
*

Summary: Anti-Catholic Tom concedes that the Bible teaches required doctrinal unity among Christians, but then oddly proceeds to argue for Protestant relativism and chaos.

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#126-150)

April 9, 2022 By Dave Armstrong

I will be resolving all of the alleged “contradictions” from the web page entitled “194 CONTRADICTIONS, New Testament.” It’s perpetually striking to observe how many of these are obviously not logical contradictions, and how very easy they are to refute (many being patently and evidently absurd). A few here and there do seem to be genuinely perplexing (at first glance) and require at least some thought and study and serious examination (they save my patience). But all are ultimately able to be (in my humble opinion) decisively resolved. Readers can decide whether I succeed in my task or not, in any given case. My biblical citations are from RSV. The words from the web page above will be in blue.

See further installments:

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#26-50) [4-6-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75) [4-7-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#76-100) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#101-125) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#151-175) [4-11-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#176-194) [4-11-22]

*****

126) At the time of the ascension, there were about 120 brethren. Acts 1:15.
At the time of the ascension, there were about 500 brethren. 1 Cor.15:6.

Acts doesn’t say that is the entire number of Christians in the world; only the amount in that place, who were living together. It’s sheer speculation to assert otherwise. Jesus appeared for forty days after He rose again (Acts 1:3), and so 500 Christians could have easily existed by the end of that period, seeing how wildly enthusiastic the early Christians were to spread the Good News of His resurrection. 500 doesn’t contradict 120, as long as the latter is not stated to be the sum total of all Christians. Paul doesn’t say 500 is the total, either, but we know there were at least that many before the Ascension took place.

127) The moneychangers incident occurred at the end of Jesus’ career. Mt.21:11,12.
The moneychangers incident occurred at the beginning of Jesus’ career. Jn.2:11-15.

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press answers this:

There were two temple cleansings.

Why not? Who is to say that Jesus could not have cleansed the temple of money-hungry, hypocritical Jews on two separate occasions—once earlier in His ministry, and again near the end of His life as He entered Jerusalem for the last time? Are we so naïve as to think that the temple could not have been corrupted at two different times during the three years of Jesus’ ministry? Jesus likely visited the temple several times during the last few years of His life on Earth (especially when celebrating the Passover—cf. John 2:13,23; 6:4; 11:55), likely finding inappropriate things going on there more than once. . . .

[T]he different details recorded by John likely are due to the fact that we are dealing with two different temple cleansings. Only John mentioned (1) the oxen and sheep, (2) the whip of cords, (3) the scattering of the money, (4) Jesus’ command, “Take these things away,” and (5) the disciples’ remembrance of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up” (2:17). Furthermore, John did not include Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7 [“my house shall be called a house of prayer”], which is found in all three of the other accounts, and stands as a prominent part of their accounts of the temple cleansing. (“Chronology and the Cleansing of the Temple”, 26 May 2004)

128) Zacharias was the son of Jehoida, the priest. 2 Chr.24:20.
Jesus said that Zacharias was the son of Barachias. Mt.23:35. (Note: The name Barachias or Barachiah does not appear in the OT.)

In the Bible, people often had multiple names, and people were also not infrequently called “son of so-and-so” when in fact they were a grandson. Those are two possible explanations of this. But I think the more plausible explanation is that Jesus was referring to the prophet Zechariah, in saying, “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.” It was a sort of “beginning and end / A to Z” saying, seeing as Zechariah was perhaps the last prophet of Old Testament times. How he was murdered is not in the OT, but that could have been a Jewish tradition, or simply known by Jesus in His omniscience (being God).

There are many Zechariahs mentioned in the Bible. So Jesus narrows in on the specific one He meant by giving his (presumed) father. Our beloved skeptic claims that the father’s name never appears in the Old Testament. This is untrue (sometimes spellings of names can slightly change, for various reasons):

Zechariah 1:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Zechari’ah the son of Berechi’ah, son of Iddo, the prophet, . . .

Seems pretty clear, huh? Zechariah, son of Jehoiada lived some 400 years before Zechariah son of Berechiah. With an explanation this plain, I don’t think we need to probe this supposed “contradiction” any further.

129) The coming of the kingdom will be accompanied by signs and miracles. Mt.24:29-33; Mk.13:24-29.
It will not be accompanied by signs and miracles since it occurs from within. Lk.17:20,21.

Matthew and Mark are talking about the Last Days or Day of Judgment; the Second Coming. That’s one sense of the “kingdom” yes, but Jesus also uses it in the sense of referring to His first coming, and this is the case with Luke 17:20-21. There are many other indications of His use of the word with the same meaning. For example:

Matthew 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Mark 4:11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables;”

Luke 10:8-9 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; [9] heal the sick in it and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

Luke 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

“Apples and oranges”; hence, no contradiction. It must be frustrating for the skeptic who is systematically refuted by the Christian, but that’s how it goes.

130) The kingdom was prepared from the beginning. Mt.25:34.
Jesus said that he was going to go and prepare the kingdom. Jn.14:2,3.

It was “from the beginning” in the sense that God knew all about it: being out of time and knowing all things. To “prepare something” when it is about to be implemented is not the same thing as having known about the thing for a long time beforehand. So, for example, one of my two granddaughters is having her first birthday party tomorrow. Her parents are busy preparing for it. They have known that there would be such a party (for whatever children they had) from the time even before she was born (and we knew it, too). That’s not “contradictory” to preparing for it when the time arrives. This is one of the many “plain silly” charges in this relentlessly faulty and weak list.

131) Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.

Generally speaking, yes: all sins are forgivable. But as in most things, there is an exception. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of God altogether, which in a sense is not “forgivable” because the person hasn’t repented and asked to be forgiven, by the definition of having rejected God. In that sense, it can’t be forgiven, because “it takes two.”

One could say, as an analogy, “all horses are able to drink from the stream. But I can’t force my horse to do so if it doesn’t want to or choose to do so. I can only bring it to the stream. There are things that are made impossible by the contrary will of the creature involved. God can offer the free gift of grace and salvation to all, but we have to accept it. He won’t violate our free will because He thought it was senseless to create robots who could only do wat He commanded. Once free will is present, rebellion is always possible and can’t be altogether avoided.

132) The ascension took place while the disciples were seated together at a table. Mk.16:14-19.
The ascension took place outdoors at Bethany. Lk.24:50,51.
The ascension took place outdoors at Mt. Olivet. Acts 1:9-12.

Mark is an example of what is called “compression” or “telescoping”: techniques which were common, especially in ancient literature, and sometimes appear in the Bible. The text simply “jumps to a future occurrence. It’s obvious that the disciples weren’t indoors watching the Ascension, for how could they see Jesus being “taken up into heaven” (Mk 16:19)?

Bethany is located on the Mount of Olives (I’ve been there). That takes care of all the alleged “difficulties” here!

133) The holy spirit was with John from before he was born. Lk.1:15,41.
The holy spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. Lk.1:41.
The holy spirit was with Zechariah. Lk.1:67.
The holy spirit was with Simeon. Lk.2:25.
The holy spirit is obtained by asking. Lk.11:13.
The holy spirit did not come into the world until after Jesus had departed. Jn.7:39; Jn.16:7; Acts 1:3-8.

Nice try. So much effort there! The Bible has many passages about the Holy Spirit being especially present with holy and especially “chosen” people, in both Testaments. That explains the first four instances. Anyone can search “Holy Spirit” in the Bible and find many more. In Luke Jesus was referring to that and also anticipating what was to come: which was every Christian believer being indwelt with the Holy Spirit as a matter of course: from the time of baptism (John 3:5-6; Acts 2:38; 9:17-18; 1 Cor 12:13; Titus 3:5).

Acts 1 and 2 are about the Day of Pentecost: the beginning of the Christian Church and the ability of every Christians to be filled with the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference: not that no one ever had the Spirit before, but that all Christians could henceforth. This was what John 7:39 and 16:7 were referring to. This was “developing Christian theology” so to speak. Developments are not contradictory because they always build on what went before.

134) Sometimes God is responsible for unbelief. 2 Thes.2:11,12.
Sometimes Jesus is responsible for unbelief. Mk.4:11,12.
The devil causes unbelief. Lk.8:12.

God never causes unbelief. Note regarding the first passage above, in the verse before it, it was human rebellion that brought it about: “those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess 2:10). Mark is an instance of sarcasm: very common in the Bible. Jesus was telling parables at first, because He knew they would be understood by those who want to understand (“If any man has ears to hear, let him hear”: Mk 4:23) and not by those who don’t (hence the sarcasm). It was a matter of the will and being open (Mt 7:7-8). Jesus always wants [any and all of] us to believe (Mt 23:37) and to be saved (Lk 19:10; Jn 12:47).

Yes, the devil will cause unbelief and try to tempt us and get us to fall, but only if we let him. The late great comic Flip Wilson had an ongoing joke based on that: “the devil made me do it.” People laughed at that. Why? Well, it’s because we instinctively know that that mentality is a cop-out: that the devil can only “make” us do what we choose to do by our free will. Ultimately, we are responsible for our actions. We stand before God in the end to give account for ourselves, and “the devil made me do it” won’t cut it when the game is up at that time.

135) Whoever hates his brother is a murderer. 1 Jn.3:15.
If anyone claims to love God but hates his brother, he is a liar. 1 Jn.4:20.
No one can be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his brother. Lk.14:26.

1 John 3:15 expresses the principle (stressed in the Sermon on the Mount) that murder and every other sin have to start in our hearty first” in our thoughts and intentions. Law recognizes this based on degrees of guilt, based in turn on how premeditated and “voluntary” it was.

1 John 4:20 is about rank hypocrisy. One can’t love God and hate other people, because loving God includes in it obedience to His command to love all people, even our enemies.

Luke 14:26 is an instance of exaggeration or hyperbole: the typically Hebraic way of expressing contrast. Literally it means “if you love your brother more than Me [God] you can’t follow Me” [since that would be idolatry]. For more on this, see: Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family? [8-1-19] / Madison vs. Jesus #5: Cultlike Forsaking of Family? [8-5-19].

As you can see, these “contradictions” [?????!!!!!] are “apples and oranges.” They have northing directly to do with each other.

136) Believers do not come into judgment. Jn.5:24.
All people come into judgment. Mt.12:36; 2 Cor.5:10; Heb.9:27; 1 Pet.1:17; Jude 14,15; Rev.20:12,13.

John 5:24 means that a believer will be saved (“has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life”). “Judgment” there has the specific meaning of “judged as worthy of damnation” or more broadly, “conviction” in a legal sense. But everyone will be judged in the wider sense of having to give account before God, Who then declares if we are saved or not. John 5:24 doesn’t conflict with that, so this is much ado about nothing.

137) Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14.
Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true. Jn.5:31.

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press tackles this one:

When Jesus conceded to the Jews the fact that His witness was “not true,” He was not confessing to being a liar. Rather, Jesus was reacting to a well-known law of His day. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case (Robertson, 1997). “Witness to anyone must always be borne by someone else” (Morris, 1995, p. 287). The Law of Moses stated: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15; cf. Matthew 18:15-17). The Pharisees understood this law well, as is evident by their statement to Jesus: “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true” (John 8:13). . . .

But why is it that Jesus said to the Pharisees at a later time that His “witness is true” (John 8:14)? The difference is that, in this instance, Jesus was stressing the fact that His words were true. Even if in a court of law two witnesses are required for a fact to be established (a law Jesus enunciated in verse 17), that law does not take away the fact that Jesus was telling the truth, . . . (“Was Jesus’ Witness ‘True’ or ‘Not True’?”, 26 April 2009)

138) Men can choose whether or not to believe. Jn.5:38-47.
Only God chooses who will believe. Jn.6:44.

We have free will to accept God’s free offer of grace and salvation or reject it, as I have discussed in many previous replies. John 6:44 is expressing a truth that goes alongside what I just wrote: that only by grace is anyone saved at all. God’s grace draws all person who are eventually saved, but we have to cooperate with it. If we do so, there is a sense in which both things are true: 1) “we’re saved because we repented and accepted God’s free gift” and 2) “all who are saved are ultimately saved due to the enabling power of God’s grace.” The denial of this grace alone doctrine is the heresy of Pelagianism (being saved by works), which was condemned early on in Church history, along with the relatively better (but still heretical) view of Semi-Pelagianism. If we reject God’s grace, that’s all on us, not on God, who gives sufficient grace for anyone who wishes to be saved.

139) None of Jesus’ followers would be lost. Jn.10:27-29.
Some of Jesus’ followers would be lost. 1 Tim.4:1.

This is basically a rehash of the idea in #86. See my reply to that in the fourth installment.

140) Jesus is the ruling prince of this world. Rev.1:5.
The prince of this world will be cast out. Jn.12:31.

This is a strained, implausible interpretation in the desperate effort to find a contradiction. As with most words in the Bible, this one can and does have different meanings and applications. John 12:31 refers to the devil, who is the ruler of this world-system or kosmos in Greek. Jesus says (in the same sense): “My kingship is not of this world” (Jn 18:36). Yet in the next verse He uses the first sense: “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.”

141) Jesus says all men will be saved. Jn.3:17.
Only 144,000 virgin men will be saved. Rev. 14:1-4.

John 3:17 means universal atonement: that all who wish to be — who are willing to be disciples of Jesus with all that that entails — can be saved. This is biblical teaching. Revelation 14 doesn’t teach that this was the sum total of all who are saved. It specifically calls them the “first fruits” (14:4); in other words, there are many more to come and these are only the “first batch.”

142) God wants all men to be saved. 1 Tim.2:3,4; 2 Pet.3:9.
God does not want all men to be saved. Jn.12:40.

See #86 in the fourth installment and my article on universal atonement. John 12:40 refers to the phenomenon of hardening hearts, which is very poorly understood. See my article explaining that, too. In fact, it is no proof at all of God supposedly not wanting all men to be saved.

143) Peter asks Jesus where he is going. Jn.13:36.
Thomas asks Jesus where he is going. Jn.14:5.
Jesus said that no one asked where he was going. Jn.16:5.

Erik Manning explains this:

Peter had a bit of a bodyguard complex and didn’t want to hear about Jesus taking off by himself. So when he asks the question in John 13:36 about where Jesus is going, he doesn’t get it.

And in John 14:1-5, Jesus talks about going to his Father to prepare places for them. Thomas asks a question, but it’s because he’s not picking up what Jesus is laying down. He doesn’t ask what Jesus means by any of these things. And we know Thomas is a bit slow on the uptake, as we find out later in John’s Gospel. Thomas and Peter were both thinking naturally.

We see that Jesus is disrupted with another question in John 14 but isn’t asked another question in John 15. Jesus so far has mentioned his departure, but then in John 15:22-16:4, he talks about persecution headed their way. You know, some heavy stuff. Now their hearts are sorrowful. They fall silent with sadness after being so inquisitive earlier.

It’s at 16:5 that Jesus is saying, “guys…you still don’t get it. You went quiet on me with all these hard sayings of persecution and me leaving. But I’m not leaving you alone. I’m sending the Spirit in my place. Now is the time to be asking questions again, but this time let’s be a little sharper and ditch the gloomy pessimism.”

After this, they interrupt Jesus again twice more in John 16, showing they still don’t understand what he’s talking about. Read John 16:17-19: . . .

Jesus then answers their questions, and finishes by saying “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

The light bulb finally seems to turn on. They quit looking at earthly things and start to see the spiritual realities Jesus is talking about. In John 16:28-30 the disciples exclaim, his disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?“

The metaphors are over in their minds. Jesus is now speaking clearly. They fell silent after some heavy sayings from Jesus, but now it’s dawning on them after Jesus prompts them to probe further. . . .

Only when we leave no room for conversational nuance would we have to conclude Jesus had a mental lapse or that something strange is going on with the writer of John. (“Busting One of Bart Ehrman’s Favorite Bible Contradictions”, Cross-Examined.Org, 8-12-20)

144) Jesus lost only one disciple. Jn.17:12.
Jesus lost no disciples. Jn.18:9.

This is yet another rehash of #86 in the fourth installment. I don’t need to re-answer what I’ve already answered.

145) Jesus came into the world to bear witness to the truth. Jn.18:37.
The truth has always been evident. Rom.1:18-20.

Yes, the second thing is true, but the same passage notes how men deliberately reject what they know to be true. So Jesus had to come to offer more evidence for the truth and to bear witness to the character of God. That goes beyond what Romans 1 was addressing: which was only “his eternal power and deity” as evident “in the things that have been made” (1:20). Jesus revealed much more than that. Some truth about God has always been evident in His creation; Jesus brought a much fuller revelation of spiritual truth.

146) During his first resurrection appearance, Jesus gave his disciples the holy spirit. Jn.20:22.
The holy spirit was given to the disciples after his ascension. Acts 1:3-8.

This is a variation of #133 above.

147) The world could not contain all that could be written of Jesus. Jn.21:25.
All was written. Acts.1:1.

Acts 1:1 is a general statement. Luke was saying that his Gospel dealt with “all that Jesus began to do and teach” in a broad sense. We do this all the time in how we use language today. We might say, for example, “I’ve been all over the world.” No doubt there are several dozen countries where we haven’t been. This is understood by the hearers, who know that it is a broad, generalized statement. Or a woman says, “I’ve been unhappy all of my life.” Are we to understand that literally for every second she was unhappy? No. It’s understood that it means, “unhappiness is a recurrent problem and dominant theme in my life that I can’t seem to shake off or resolve.”

Thus, analogously, Acts 1:1 is general and broad, whereas John 21:25 exaggerates to make the point that “there is a lot more material out there about Jesus than what I have recorded.” There is no conflict, once the different use of language is understood, just as we do all the time in life in interpreting people using literal or non-literal language. Usually context helps us understand which is being employed. It’s the same in the Bible.

148) Obey the laws of men for it is the will of God. 1 Pet.2:13-15.
The disciples disobey the council. Acts 5:40-42.

149) Obey God, not men. Acts 5:29.
Obey men. It is God’s will. Rom.13:1-4; 1 Pet.2:13-15.

There is always an exception to the rule. Peter gave the general good principle that — all in all — we obey laws and governments and rulers. But the Jewish council in Acts laid down an unjust law that no Christian could follow: “they . . .charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus.” Early Christians were murdered by the Roman government because they wouldn’t swear an oath to Caesar that violated their consciences. We mustn’t do the latter, and that sometimes means going against laws. Many laws have been unjust and wicked, such as those upholding slavery and legalizing childkilling and infanticide, along with a host of other immoral practices that laws sometimes protect and sanction.

150) God hated Esau and loved Jacob even before they were born. Rom.9:10-13.
God shows no partiality and treats all alike. Acts 10:34; Rom.2:11.

Romans 9 has to be properly understood. See my article on that.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

***

Photo credit: mohamed hassan (2-22-21) [public domain / Pxhere.com]

***

Summary: A Bible skeptic has come up with 194 alleged biblical “contradictions” (usually recycled from old lists). I am systematically going through the list and refuting each one.

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75)

April 7, 2022 By Dave Armstrong

See further installments:

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#26-50) [4-6-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#76-100) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#101-125) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#126-150) [4-9-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#151-175) [4-11-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#176-194) [4-11-22]

*****

51) Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.

Salvation, in the biblical view (all the relevant and harmonious verses considered), comes by God’s grace, through faith, with works being part and parcel of the “outworking” of faith. See my papers on these topics:

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

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

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

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

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

52) The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.

The ones who persevere in good works (as a general proposition) will have eternal life, according to the context of Matthew 25. At the same time, salvation is difficult to attain (another general proposition). No conflict here (apples and oranges).

53) Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the “Lord” to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

All of this has to be understood as a harmonious whole. All these factors work together and are aspects of the salvation process. I have dealt with these issues in #46-50 of the second installment, and in the previous two entries in this article. Baptism is also a factor in salvation, having to do with regeneration. It’s one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, which are physical means to attain grace and salvation.

54) Backsliders are condemned. 2 Pet.2:20.
Backsliders are saved regardless. Jn.10:27-29.

Yes, it’s bad news “if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them” (2 Pet 2:20; read the entire chapter for context and completeness). John 10:27-29 doesn’t teach what it supposedly teaches, according to the above. Rather, it asserts that the elect and predestines; the one who will make it to heaven (whom Jesus knows about in His omniscience) will never be lost. It’s simply saying a=a (“those who are saved in the end are saved” or “the elect are saved” or “the predestined are saved”).

55) Forgive seventy times seven. Mt.18:22.
Forgiveness is not possible for renewed sin. Heb.6:4-6.

Yes, human beings must always be willing to forgive: to have that spirit, because all of us have been forgiven by God. But God is not obliged to forgive forever. He provides enough grace for anyone who chooses, to be saved, but if they reject it, that’s their choice, and they make forgiveness impossible to grant, because it must be preceded by acceptance and repentance. That’s what Hebrews 6 addresses: those who have received this grace and who were on the road to salvation, but then rejected it. It’s then impossible, as long as they continue rebelling and rejecting God and His grace. Many of these are simply variations on a single theme. I keep explaining the biblical theology of salvation (soteriology) over and over.

56) Divorce, except for unfaithfulness, is wrong. Mt.5:32.
Divorce for any reason is wrong. Mk.10:11,12.

See my papers:

Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce [2004]

Dialogue on the Matthew 19:19 Exception Clause & Divorce [11-10-08]

Biblical Evidence for Annulments [2002]

Annulment is Not “Catholic Divorce” [11-17-15]

57) Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.

Luke 19:27 is a parable about the final judgment (which is God’s sole prerogative). As such it has nothing directly to do with how we should approach enemies in this life, with a loving and forgiving spirit. Apples and oranges . . .

58) God resides in heaven. Mt.5:45; Mt.6:9; Mt.7:21.
Angels reside in heaven. Mk.13:32.
Jesus is with God in heaven. Acts 7:55,56
Believers go to heaven. 1 Pet.1:3,4.
Heaven will pass away. Mt.24:35; Mk.13:31; Lk.21:33.

Matthew 24:35 refers to the present “heaven and earth” coming to an end (“heaven” there meaning the skies or the universe). Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33 report the same saying. But there will be a new heaven and a new earth:

Revelation 21:1-2 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. [2] And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;

The spiritual heaven and hell both last indefinitely; forever (Mt 25:46).

59) Pray that you don’t enter temptation. Mt.26:41.
Temptation is a joy. Jms.1:2.

James 1:2 refers not to temptation (hence, this is “apples and oranges” again), but to “trials”. The “joy” that comes through trials is spelled out: “the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:3-4). This “testing” need not be a temptation at all. I could have a rock fall on my head from an avalanche. That would be a “test” of my faith: the more severe the effects are, but it wasn’t a temptation. Temptation is allowing ourselves to fall into being led astray by sexual immorality (lust), greed, gluttony, etc. It proceeds from the inside: in our soul.

The Bible never teaches that temptation is a joy. That’s determined by a search of both words together.

60) God leads you into temptation. Mt.6:13.
God tempts no one. Jms.1:13.

This is another understandable, “respectable” objection. James 1:13 is literally true. The difficulty is interpreting Matthew 6:13, which seems to contradict it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, in commenting on this clause:

CCC 2846 This petition goes to the root of the preceding one, for our sins result from our consenting to temptation; we therefore ask our Father not to “lead” us into temptation. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both “do not allow us to enter into temptation” and “do not let us yield to temptation.”

“Lead us not into temptation” can be understood as a poetic, rhetorical way of expressing the notion: “keep us from temptation” or “we know (in faith) that you won’t lead us into temptation.” Hence, lovers will say to each other, “don’t break my heart”: which usually means, literally, “I believe you won’t break my heart like those others have.” In other words, the literal “won’t” is changed to the rhetorical, more emotional, “don’t.” Instead of saying, “please do this [good thing]” we change it to requesting the person to “please don’t do [the opposite bad thing]”. The Old Testament (appropriately, in the poetic Psalms) offers some analogical parallels:

Psalm 38:21 Do not forsake me, O LORD! . . .

Psalm 40:11 Do not thou, O LORD, withhold thy mercy from me, let thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness ever preserve me! [both senses in one verse]

Psalm 44:23 . . . Do not cast us off for ever!

Psalm 70:5 . . . Thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, do not tarry! [again, both senses in one verse]

Psalm 138:8 The LORD will fulfil his purpose for me; thy steadfast love, O LORD, endures for ever. Do not forsake the work of thy hands. [third example of both senses in one verse]

Psalm 140:8 Grant not, O LORD, the desires of the wicked; do not further his evil plot!

The Psalms addressed God just as the Lord’s Prayer / “Our Father” does.

61) Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you. Mt.6:25-34; Lk.12:22-31.
A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. 1 Tim.5:8.

Matthew 6:25-34 (Luke as a parallel passage) is about anxiety, and how God provides our basic needs, and it’s very good, practical advice: especially “Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day” (Mt 6:34). In other words: “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” or “one day at a time.” We can’t worry about all the “what ifs”. That will drive us crazy. It’s not a denial that we should be responsible in providing a living for ourselves and our families. “Don’t worry” is not the same thought as “don’t provide” or “don’t work and be a lazy bum.”

So it’s apples and oranges, as so many of these are. They have nothing to do with each other. It has to be the same subject matter to possibly be a contradiction. The first two passages simply don’t disagree with the third. St. Paul is quite firm about sloth and able-bodied people not working:

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. [7] For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, [8] we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. [9] It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate. [10] For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat. [11] For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. [12] Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living.

62) Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Mt.7:21.
Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved. Acts 2:39.

This is a variation of #49, which I answered last time.

63) We are justified by works and not by faith. Mt.7:21; Rom.2:6,13; Jms.2:24.
We are justified by faith and not by works. Jn.3:16; Rom.3:27; Eph.2:8,9.; Gal.2:16.

Variation of #51 above; already answered. An error repeated doesn’t become any less false.

64) Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves. Mt.10:10.
Take only sandals (shoes) and staves. Mk.6:8,9.

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press, offers a good reply:

The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. The word “provide” (NKJV) in Matthew 10:9 [“take” in RSV] is translated from the Greek ktesthe, which is derived from ktaomai. According to Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, this verb means “to gain possession of, procure for oneself, acquire, get” (p. 572). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb “acquire” in Matthew 10:9 (“Do not acquire….”), instead of “provide” (as in the NKJV). Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus is saying (in essence): “Go as you are and do not take the time to go procure for yourself anything in addition to what you already have.” 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. (“Take It or Leave It”, 26 May 2004)

Several Bible translations reflect this meaning for Matthew 10:9 and ktesthe more clearly:

CSB Don’t acquire gold, silver, or copper for your money-belts.

DLNT Do not acquire gold nor silver nor copper [money] for your [money] belts—

ESV Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts,

LEB Do not procure gold or silver or copper for your belts.

NIRV Do not get any gold, silver or copper to take with you in your belts.

NIV Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts—

*

Wuest Do not begin to acquire . . .

Kleist & Lilly Do not procure . . .

A. T. Robertson’s standard reference work Word Pictures in the New Testament, concurs:

It is not, “Do not possess” or “own,” but “do not acquire” or “procure” for yourselves, indirect middle aorist subjunctive. Gold, silver, brass (copper) in a descending scale (nor even bronze).

65) Jesus said that in him there was peace. Jn.16:33.
Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace. Mt.10:34; Lk.12:51.

John 16:33 refers to personal / soul level peace and fulfillment (“in me you may have peace”). He makes the meaning absolutely clear in the following similar passage:

Matthew 11:28-29 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

The other passages, in contrast, have to do with those in one’s family not liking the fact that one is a follower of Jesus; thereby bringing about division, which Jesus expressed with Hebraic hyperbolic exaggeration as “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt 10:34). In Luke 12:51, Jesus uses the literal description, “division.” It’s a social dynamic, as opposed to individual and personal. Another way of expressing the same dynamic was to say (with exaggeration of degree): “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Mt 10:22). Apples and oranges . . .

66) Jesus said that John the Baptist was a prophet and Elijah. Mt.11:9; Mt.17:12,13.
John said that he was not a prophet nor was he Elijah. Jn.1:21.

The passages in Matthew are in the sense of prototype: John the Baptist was a type of Elijah; the last prophet, who had the same role as he did: to cause Israel to repent. Luke 1:17 makes this clear. An angel says about John: “he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli’jah”. The repeated New Testament use of “son of David” for Jesus is an instance of the same thing, because David was a prototype of the Messiah. Jeremiah proclaimed, some 400 years after David’s death: “But they shall serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them” (Jer 30:9; cf. 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5).

John the Baptist himself spoke literally in John 1:21, in denying that he was Elijah, returned from the dead. Since we have instances of metaphorical and literal, it’s no contradiction.

67) Jesus said that he was meek and lowly. Mt.11:29.
Jesus makes whips and drives the moneychangers out from the temple. Mt. 21:12; Mk.11:15,16; Jn.2:15.

Jesus was meek and lowly and humble. It doesn’t follow, however, that He can never express righteous indignation. The most “meek and mild” father will become a roaring lion if someone tries to kidnap his son or daughter. And this is entirely proper. Likewise, if a judge gives a life sentence to a proven-guilty murderer, we don’t say that the judge failed to be personally “meek and mild.” He was doing his duty and protecting society.

Likewise, Jesus (Who was God) was disgusted that money-grubbing merchants had turned the temple into “a den of robbers” (Mt 21:13). It was a time for righteous indignation and God’s wrath, and Jesus acted accordingly. For more details as to what exactly these merchants were doing, that made Jesus so rightfully angry, see my paper, David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #10: Chapter 11 (Two Donkeys? / Fig Tree / Moneychangers) [8-20-19]. Dr. David Madison is also one who loves to try to pick apart the Bible. He asked: “What provoked Jesus to do this? Why was he upset about money-changers and dove-sellers?” I provided a thorough answer in this article of mine. I think what these moneychangers were doing would disgust anyone who has a caring, compassionate concern for the poor being treated fairly and not being taken advantage of for monetary gain: and in a holy place at that.

68) Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”. Lk.12:1.
Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees”. Mt.16:6,11.
Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod”. Mk.8:15.

Sure: they were all being hypocrites. It’s not a “contradiction” to point out that more than one person or group can act like hypocrites and bad influences. This is a rather silly example of a supposed biblical “problem.” Jesus used “leaven” as a synonym for hypocrisy. This isn’t speculation. He expressly said so:

Luke 12:1-3 In the meantime, when so many thousands of the multitude had gathered together that they trod upon one another, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. [2] Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. [3] Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

For much more on this, see my paper, “Leaven” of the Pharisees: Hypocrisy or False Doctrine? (11-3-11).

69) Jesus founds his church on Peter. Mt.16:18.
Jesus calls Peter “Satan” and a hindrance. Mt.16:23.

To the first passage: yes He did. The second is about something different. Being the leader of the Church doesn’t mean Peter is perfect at all times. In the second passage, Jesus was saying that He would “go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (16:21). Peter responded by saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you” (16:22).

Jesus then rebukes him, because his advice, if followed, would ruin God’s predetermined plan for how to save the human race: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (16:23). It was a graphic way of expressing the idea that Satan was speaking through Peter; unduly influencing him. It was a rebuke about this one thing: not a total character appraisal. Peter was quite well-intentioned, but ignorant about the fact (as all the disciples seemed to be at first) that Jesus had to die to redeem mankind. In any event, that has no bearing on his status as leader of the Church. That’s made very clear in Scripture. See my paper, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994].

70) The mother of James and John asks Jesus to favor her sons. Mt.20:20,21.
They ask for themselves. Mk.10:35-37.

Why can’t both ask the same thing? This is ridiculous and deserves no further attention.

71) Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40.
Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn.3:35.

In some things Jesus freely “defers” to the Father. It’s part of the voluntary limitation of becoming a man. The “classic” passage related to this is in Philippians:

Philippians 2:6-8 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Jesus is both fully God and fully man (agree or disagree, or understand or not, this is Christian and biblical teaching). As a man, and the Son in the Holy Trinity, at times He submits to (or seems “lesser” than) God the Father. But in His Divine Nature He is every bit the equal of God the Father, and can and does say things like, “All that the Father has is mine” (Jn 16:15) or “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and this extraordinary utterance:

John 5:21-23 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. [22] The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, [23] that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

All of this backdrop explains the first two passages above. The second couplet expresses His equality with the Father in the Holy Trinity (“the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand”: Jn 3:35 / “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”: Mt 28:18). It’s not contradictory; it’s the Two Natures of Christ or what theologians call the Hypostatic Union.

72) Jesus heals two unnamed blind men. Mt.20:29,30.
Jesus heals one named blind man. Mk.10:46-52.

I tend to believe in an instance like this that there were two similar traditions in existence about one event (just as eyewitnesses in a court trial will differ on some details): one of them had one blind man and the other had two. But as far as contradictoriness goes, what we know about this incident doesn’t establish it. The Domain for Truth website provided some good insight on the nature of a logical contradiction:

Formally the two claims “Only one blind man was healed near Jericho” and “Only two blind man was healed near Jericho” are contradictory. There can’t be “only one blind man” while there’s “two blind men.” But the next question is whether the Bible verses cited actually supply those two claims.
Matthew 20:30 does mention two blind men.
Both Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 mention one blind man. But neither of those passages assert that there was “only one blind man.” Thus the claim that there’s “Only one blind man was healed near Jericho” is not supported by the text. If it’s not there in the Scriptures one cannot claim there’s a Bible contradiction here.
Mentioning “a man” is not the same thing as saying there’s “only one man.” “A man” and “two men” are not contradictory; it is logically possible that “a man” would be from one of those “two men.” Logically, “a man” is a subset of “two men” and hence are not contradictory. (“Bible Contradiction? How many blind men were healed near Jericho?”, 10-4-18)

73) Jesus healed all that were sick. Mt.8:16; Lk.4:40.
Jesus healed many that were sick – but not all. Mk.1:34.

All these accounts refer to the same incident, and so at first glance it seems contradictory. But several things need to be taken into consideration. Mark 1:34 records that “he healed many”. There could be several reasons for this qualification, but the most likely — in context –, is because of the sheer numbers of people: “And the whole city was gathered together about the door” (Mk 1:33). This was in Capernaum (Mk 1:21), which had an estimated population of 1,500 at that time.

So let’s say that 10% of all these people needed to be healed of something (which is 150), and let’s assume Jesus spent five minutes with each one. That would add up to 750 minutes or twelve-and-a-half hours. It’s not physically possible that He could heal all of them (because He generally touched those whom He healed). And it probably wasn’t just people in Capernaum, either. Mark 1:28 states that “at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.” There were two towns fairly close by. Bethsaida was six miles away and Chorazin was only two miles.

Moreover, we know from the text: “at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons” (1:32). Let’s say that sundown was 6 PM. Jesus would be healing them until 6:30 the next morning and get no sleep at all. That’s just not feasible. And so He healed “many” but not all. Even if we say He spent two minutes with each person, that would take five hours. And there very well may have been more than 150. That was just a “generous” guess (that 10% of the whole town would need healing). And sunset could have been three hours later, too, depending on the season. This was the situation: described in all three accounts: lots of people, and after sunset.

In Matthew 8:16, where it says He “healed all who were sick” it depends on what one means by “all.” I say that because two verses later we learn that that “when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side [of the Sea of Galilee]” (8:18). We can be quite sure that in this crowd of people that He deliberately avoided by crossing the sea, there would have been many more asking to be healed (since they observed healing taking place). So in a very real sense, He didn’t heal absolutely all in this instance. “All” is necessarily limited in scope. In fact, He healed all that asked and were able in a crowd to get to Him before He departed to the other side of the sea.

Luke 4:40 states: “he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them” but that, too, could simply have meant “all” until such time as He left and went across the sea (as in Matthew): which simply wasn’t mentioned. Luke implies that there were “never-ending” crowds, too, in noting that “reports of him went out into every place in the surrounding region” (4:37) and (the next day) “the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them” (4:42), so “every one” has to have a limit at some point. In effect, then, all three passages are saying the same thing: He healed as many as He possibly could (who were able to get access to Him) before having to leave. It’s not likely that Jesus healed “absolutely every person” in such a great crowd, in one evening before the usual bed-time.

Language always has to be understood in context. Even in Mark’s account, where it is more literal and says “he healed many” it states three verses later that His disciples told Him: “Every one is searching for you” (Mk 1:37): which is non-literal language. That has to have some limit, too. It obviously can’t mean “everyone in the whole country” (or world, for that matter). Therefore, it’s obviously exaggeration, meaning, “a great number; a lot.” We talk the same way today in saying things like, “everyone likes ice cream” or “everyone loves [so-and-so] . . .”, “everyone loves a good story”, etc.

74) The council asks Jesus if he is the Son of God. Lk.22:70. The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God. Mt.26:63.
The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ the Son of the Blessed. Mk.14:61.
The high priest asks Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Jn.18:19.

All of this could have happened; no problem. Different people ask the same question; individuals ask multiple question. How is it contradictory?

75) Jesus answers to the effect of “You said it, not me”. Mt.26:64; Lk.22:70.
Jesus answers definitely, “I am”. Mk.14:62.

When Jesus said, “You have said so” (Mt 26:64), it was the same thing as replying “yes” and He proves this by what he said next: “But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” That was a claim to be the Messiah, based on Daniel 7, which He applied to Himself (hence answering the question). This resulted in the high priest and others there accusing Him of blasphemy (26:65-66). So to claim that this scenario somehow “contradicts” the “I am” of Mark is absurd. Luke is the same, since Jesus cited Daniel 7 in that account, too (without saying, “I am”), and His enemies knew exactly what He meant, since they said: “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips” (Lk 22:71).

No “difficulty” or “problem” here, then! 75 out of 75 “contradictions” have now been resolved. I’m 39% done. The weak and unsubstantial, groundless nature of these arguments is manifest to one and all. Some took much more work than others (and it always takes much more ink to refute an error than to assert one), but ultimately I’ve had no trouble answering any or all of them so far. I have no reason to believe that the remaining ones will be any more difficult to solve. These sorts of thoroughly biased efforts to attack the Bible are equal parts unfair and unreasonable. In terms of intellectual argument they amount to desperate special pleading. Something has to account for them being relentlessly wrong. I would say that the main reason is that the Bible truly is inspired revelation; hence can withstand all that the skeptics bring to bear against it.

***

Photo credit: mohamed hassan (2-22-21) [public domain / Pxhere.com]

***

Summary: A Bible skeptic has come up with 194 alleged biblical “contradictions” (usually recycled from old lists). I am systematically going through the list and refuting each one.

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#26-50)

April 6, 2022 By Dave Armstrong

See further installments:

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#51-75) [4-7-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#76-100) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#101-125) [4-8-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#126-150) [4-9-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#151-175) [4-11-22]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#176-194) [4-11-22]

*****

26) The centurion’s servant was healed in between the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. Mt.8:2-15.
The centurion’s servant was healed after the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:12,13; 7:1-10.

As I discussed last time: the StackExchange website has a page called “When was Peter’s mother-in-law healed? Chronological contradiction?” An excellent answer was provided (posted on 12 April 2021):

My own study of the argument from order has led me to four conclusions . . .:

None of the Synoptic authors were trying to present the material in a strictly chronological sequence

Matthew principally organizes his Gospel by topic (like an encyclopedia)

Luke principally organizes his Gospel by geography (like an atlas)

Mark borrows from Matthew & Luke, sometimes following the order of one and sometimes the other (like somebody telling stories from memory) . . .

If we expect the Gospel authors to write in a 21st century style, we will be disappointed. They were not trying to present a day-by-day travel log, but a collection (from what must have been a much larger pool of material) of the teachings and sayings of Jesus they believed were most important for the audiences they had in mind . . .

The Synoptic Gospels do not present their material in the same order, because the authors never intended them to do so. [italics added]

27) The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.

It’s not “the people” referred to in Mark, but rather, the disciples (see 6:45, 51-52). They didn’t grasp the miracle of loaves and fish because “their hearts were hardened” (6:52). But John 6:14 refers to the crowds (“the people”) being impressed. Therefore, because it’s two different sets of people being referred to in these two passages, there is no contradiction. One wonders (after a ludicrous example like this) whether these Bible skeptics even read the passages they rush to use in these warmed-over lists of supposed “contradictions” that they churn out . . .

28) After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.

Gennesaret is a plain on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, between Capernaum to the north and Magdala to the south. Both Mark 6 and John 6 refer to the feeding of the 5,000. In Mark’s account, Jesus and the disciples “moored to the shore” (Mk 6:53) at Gennesaret. John 6:14-17, oddly enough, never states that Jesus went to Capernaum. It says that the “disciples . . . started across the sea to Caper’na-um” (6:16-17). Jesus was walking on the water (6:19), got into the boat with them (6:21), and “immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going” (6:21).

But it doesn’t say exactly where they landed, as in Mark. I think it’s plausible to hold that the strong winds and their being “beaten by waves” (Mt 14:24; cf. Mk 6:48; Jn 6:18) blew them off course a bit, so that they landed at Gennesaret, some three miles south of Capernaum (consistent with Mark’s report). In any event, John 6 doesn’t inform us that “Jesus went to Capernaum”. It says that the crowds sought Jesus in Capernaum (6:24) but that He wasn’t there. He was “on the other side of the sea” (6:25). Of course, He could have gone from Gennesaret to Capernaum at some undisclosed later point in time after they landed in the former plain, and John 6:59 says He was there, at the synagogue.

The parallel account in Matthew (14:22-34) verifies Mark’s specific report of the boat landing. It was windy, Jesus walked on the water (so did Peter, for a short time), they both got into the boat, which “came to land at Gennesaret” (14:34). If two sources agree on all these details and both say “the boat landed at location X” and a third agrees with them about almost all details, except the exact (unspecified) landing location, it is perfectly sensible to assume that the boat did indeed land at location X. To deny it based on the third source is merely the ineffectual argument from silence again.

In any event, I see no contradiction here whatsoever. Whoever came up with this “contradiction” didn’t read the texts very carefully. Foiled again!

29) A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.

This is at least a clever and understandable one, that is worthy of an explanation. What 1 John says is generally true. He speaks mostly proverbially: meaning that it expresses general truths, that sometimes have exceptions (just as we see in the book of Proverbs). For example, he states:

1 John 3:6-9 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. [7] Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. [8] He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. [9] No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.

These are all proverbial and idealistic truths: “textbook” examples. What he means is that “the good, serious Christian is typified or characterized by the absence of sin, and this is the high goal of the Christian life.” But we can’t possibly interpret all of these passages absolutely literally, because we know that even very good Christians are imperfect and sin, and it doesn’t follow that it makes them automatically “of the devil” (3:8). John knows this, too, because he writes elsewhere in his epistle:

1 John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin [the high ideal]; but if any one does sin [the frequent sad reality], we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; [2] and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Moreover, and directly to the present point, Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15-23 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. [16] You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? [17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

And so, in light of this, even a demon can and does state, “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (Mk 1:24). It doesn’t follow, however, that it is a follower of Jesus. Words alone (even if true) mean little unless they are backed up by action, and demons do nothing good. It’s for this reason that Jesus rebuked the demon who said these things, by saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” (Mk 1:25). The demon was probably expressing the truth in a mocking, blasphemous manner in the first place (as they are known to habitually do). We don’t get the tone of voice and inflection in the written words of Scripture.

30) Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would not bear fruit. Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14.
It wasn’t time for the fig tree to bear fruit. Mk.11:13.

To note that it wasn’t the season for figs (Mk 1:13) is different from Jesus saying “May no fruit ever come from you again!” (Mt 21:19) and “May no one ever eat fruit from you again” (Mk 11:14); therefore, this is no contradiction.

31) The fig tree withers immediately, and the disciples are amazed. Mt.21:19,20.
The disciples first notice the withered tree the next day. Mk.11:20,21.

Apologetics Press offers one of their always-superb rebuttals:

The fact of the matter is, the gospel writers never claimed to have recorded all of the events of Jesus’ life in the exact order in which they occurred. Unless an action or event is denoted by a specific marker (such as “the next day,” “ on the morrow,” “on the Sabbath,” etc.), there can be time gaps between the verses. . . .

In Mark, the Lord cursed the fig tree, but the account does not say when it withered. The disciples saw it withered the next day, and Peter remembered what the Lord had said. Matthew’s account says that the Lord cursed the tree, and it withered immediately, but it does not say when the disciples saw it. Matthew 21:20 merely says “And when the disciples saw it…,” with no regard to the exact time. . . . The verse in Matthew provides no time span between when it withered and when the disciples noticed.

However, Mark 11:12,19-20 does give the exact span of time between the curse and the time the disciples noticed it—one day. Since the gospels do not claim to be in exact chronological order, both Matthew and Mark offer a portion of the story. The best thing to do is to extrapolate—from both passages—exactly what happened. Both Mark 11:12 and Matthew 21:18 record that Jesus was hungry, and both recount how He approached a fig tree and, finding no figs, cursed it. Matthew then records that it withered immediately (21:19), and Mark records that the disciples heard Jesus curse the tree, but he does not say whether or not they noticed the tree withered at that time (11:14). Mark then continues the narrative of Jesus cleansing the temple in Jerusalem (11:15-19). Both writers then recount the astonishment of the disciples at seeing the fig tree withered, with Mark designating it as the next day (11:20-21) and Matthew not specifying how much time passed between 21:19 and 21:20. (26 May 2004)

32) Jesus is the mediator of the “Father”. 1 Tim.2:5; 1 Jn.2:1.
Jesus sits on “his” right hand. Mk. 16:19.

I’m afraid I don’t have the slightest idea what is thought to be contradictory here. If I did, I would offer some sort of resolution. There is no conflict here that I can discern.

33) There is one “God”. 1 Tim.2:5; Jms.2:19.
There are three. 1 Jn.5:7.

Indeed, there is one God. The “traditional” 1 John 5:7 is a verse that isn’t in the earliest manuscripts, so those who place a high priority on accurate manuscripts say that it’s simply not part of the biblical canon (therefore, not inspired). But let’s accept the view that it is in the Bible for the sake of argument. Here is the KJV version of the disputed verse:

1 John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This doesn’t state that there are three gods. It says that there are three [implied, Persons] and that “these three are one” [implied, God]. The Holy Trinity is the belief that the one God subsists in three persons (trinitarian monotheism), not that there are three gods (tri-theism).

For hundreds of biblical arguments for the Holy Trinity, see my papers:

Jesus is God: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]

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

34) Jesus said to honor your father and mother. Mt.15:4; Mt.19:19; Mk.7:10; Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20.
Jesus said that he came to set people against their parents. Mt.10:35-37; Lk.12:51-53; Lk.14:26.
Jesus said to call no man father. Mt.23:9.

I’ve dealt with the falsely alleged “contradiction” between the first two propositions above:

Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family? [8-1-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #5: Cultlike Forsaking of Family? [8-5-19]

Did Jesus Teach His Disciples to Hate Their Families? [National Catholic Register, 8-17-19]

And I have disposed of the notorious “call no man father” issue:

Biblical Evidence Regarding Calling Priests “Father” [2-24-16]

35) Jesus/God said, “You fool…”. Lk.12:20; Mt.23:17.
Paul calls people fools. 1 Cor.15:36.
Call someone a fool and you go to hell. Mt.5:22.

I’ve already addressed this issue as well:

Did Paul and Peter Disobey Jesus and Risk Hellfire (Calling Folks “Fools”)? Did Jesus Contradict Himself? Or Do Proverbs and Hyperbolic Utterances Allow Exceptions? [2-5-14]

On [Not?] Calling People “Fools”: Biblical Reflections [10-13-17]

36) Anger by itself is a sin. Mt.5:22.
But not necessarily. Eph.4:26.

Matthew 5:22 is a proverbial-type utterances, which by nature allows of exceptions. The exception is precisely shown in Ephesians 4:26: “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,”. If it’s possible to be angry without sin, as this passage proves, then we can’t possibly make a blanket statement that all anger is sin, period. Matthew is not asserting that because Jesus is uttering a proverb. But Paul in Ephesians is being literal. Therefore, no contradiction is in play. Keep trying, guys! Give it the ol’ college try . . .

37) Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you. Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10.
Ask and you shall be refused. Seek and you won’t find. Knock and you will be refused entrance. Lk.13:24-27.

The first statement provides utterances from Jesus that are general, proverbial truths, that are qualified elsewhere in Scripture, in literal passages. For example: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (Jas 4:3); “if we ask anything according to his will he hears us” (1 Jn 5:14).

Luke 13:24-27 is very different, and is specifically about those who are reprobate or damned. They had every chance to repent during their lives and be saved, but now it is too late; it’s time to be judged; so at that point they can’t seek any more; “the game’s up.”

No conflict here. It’s apples and oranges again.

38) Do not judge. Mt.7:1,2.
Unless it is necessary, of course. 1 Jn.4:1-3.

Again, we have the proverbial statement, that allows exceptions, in Matthew 7:1-2. Matthew’s expressing a sort of “reverse golden rule.” If we judge harshly, unfairly, uncharitably, then chances are such judgment will come back to us at some point. It doesn’t follow that no one can ever rightly judge, ever. 1 John 4:1-3 is actually about spiritual discernment, so it’s a non sequitur and no contradiction by the same token. But there are many verses about rightful, non-sinful judging:

Luke 11:19 And if I cast out demons by Be-el’zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.

Luke 11:31-32 The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. [32] The men of Nin’eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Luke 12:57 And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?

Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

1 Corinthians 10:15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves; . . .

39) Jesus is thankful that some things are hidden. Mt.11:25; Mk.4:11,12.
Jesus said that all things should be made known. Mk.4:22.

In Matthew 11:25 Jesus states: “”I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;”. Mark 4:11-12 is about Jesus’ use of parables. He deliberately used them, knowing that those who don’t want to know the truth won’t grasp them. The He sarcastically decries the notion of their freely chosen obstinacy: “that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven” (Mk 4:12).

In Mark 4:22 Jesus teaches that the state of affairs just described will not be permanent; that one day “there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.” Thus a temporary, limited “hiddenness” isn’t contrary to the idea that things won’t always be this way.

40) Jesus said that no sign would be given. Mk.8:12.
Jesus said that no sign would be given except for that of Jonas. Mt.12:39; Lk.11:29.
Jesus showed many signs. Jn.20:30; Acts 2:22.

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 (“And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.”). 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) Jesus stated that the law was until heaven and earth ended. Mt. 5:17-19.
Jesus stated that the law was only until the time of John. Lk.16:16.

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.

Where’s the contradiction? This is a classic case of the skeptic not even reading the very next verse in order to grasp the proper context.

42) The “Sermon on the Mount” took place on the mountain. Mt.5:1.
The “Sermon on the Mount” took place on a plain. Lu.6:17.

Matthew 5:1-2 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. [2] And he opened his mouth and taught them, . . . (cf. 8:1)

Luke 6:12-13, 17 In these days he went out to the mountain to pray; and all night he continued in prayer to God. [13] And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, . . . [17] And he came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases;

Before I visited Israel in 2014, I used to say that Jesus preached from a mountain that had a flat top. Now that I have been to the place where the sermon was preached, I can report that both things are true (but in a different manner). Note that Matthew 5:1 doesn’t state “on the top of the mountain.” A little ways up from the water and base of the hill, there is a flat area. So He preached from the plain or “level place”. But it’s also “on the mount” as well (since if one is part of the way up a mountainside, we still say he is “on the mountain”). One can see a photograph confirming this in an article about the Sermon on the Mount. The general topography of the area is confirmed, for example, by the article on “Palestine” in The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1859 (Vol. 17, p. 182):

It is one peculiarity of the Galilean hills, as distinct from those of Ephraim and Judah, that they contain or sustain green basins of table-land just below their topmost ridges. (Stanley.)

Again: Jesus didn’t preach this sermon on top of a mountain. He preached it from halfway down the mountain, with His hearers above Him, in a “natural amphitheater.” Now that I’ve seen it with my own eyes, it makes perfect sense. Sound projects upwards and is “caught” by the amphitheater shape (precisely why the ancient Greeks and others used that shape). Our guide n Israel said that he has visited the Church of the Beatitudes at night with no one around, and could clearly hear fishermen talking down by the sea.

This is confirmed also by textual evidence in the New Testament. Jesus is described at least once as being in the water and teaching from the boat (Lk 5:3). I think it’s fairly clear that He was utilizing the same acoustic principle when He did that. The Sea of Galilee is ringed by pretty high hills all the way around.

My tour group later tested the theory in a similar “amphitheater” location where Jesus fed the 4,000 (across the Sea of Galilee; on its east shore). It was absolutely correct: we could hear each other — talking fairly softly, to test it — perfectly from bottom-to-top and vice versa.

43) The “Lord’s Prayer” was taught to many during the “Sermon on the Mount”. Mt.6:9.
The “Lord’s Prayer” was taught only to the disciples at another time. Lu.11:1.

It looks like Jesus simply repeated the prayer (no law against that!): seeing what importance it would have in the history of the Church, as the collective Christian prayer: the most well-known of all. Repetition is a great teacher. In Luke, He taught it to His disciples in a shorter version. Then He expanded the prayer and taught it to the “crowds” (5:1; 7:28) in the Sermon on the Mount. None of this is implausible or unlikely to the slightest degree, and it certainly isn’t a “contradiction.”

44) Jesus had his own house. Mk.2:15.
Jesus did not have his own house. Lu.9:58.

The verse is a bit ambiguous as to whose house is referred to. Cross-reference Luke 5:29, however, in the midst of reporting the same story, asserts that it was definitely Levi‘s (i.e., Matthew’s) house: “And Levi made him a great feast in his house; and there was a large company of tax collectors and others sitting at table with them” (Lk 5:29). On the other hand, Mark 2:1 states about Jesus: “And when he returned to Caper’na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home” (cf. Mt 9:1: “his own city.”). And Matthew 4:13 adds: “he went and dwelt in Caper’na-um.” Thus, we know that Jesus lived in Capernaum for some undetermined length of time, either in His own house or in Peter’s home.

Luke 9:58 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.”

This is more indicative of the many travels of Jesus and His disciples, whether He had a house in one place or not. He was responding to man who said, “I will follow you wherever you go” (9:57) and pointing out the sorts of hardships that would be expected. The context was: “they went on to another village. . . . they were going along the road” (9:56-57). Sometimes, no doubt, they had to sleep outside, like most travelers have had to do, when no lodging was to be had. I think this is what the passage refers to, without reference to whether He also had a house somewhere to stay. It doesn’t deny that He has a house somewhere. Therefore, no contradiction necessarily exists here.

45) Good works should be seen. Mt.5:16.
Good works should not be seen. Mt.6:1-4.

Matthew 5:16 lays out the principle that good works are good in and of themselves and are a witness to Christianity; therefore, it’s good that they are seen, so that people can “give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 6:1-4 is talking about a more specific, internal thing: the mentality of pridefulness and doing works not simply because it is the right thing to do, but “in order to be seen” (6:1); in other words, an outlook of “look how wonderful I am, since I am doing all this good stuff. Come and praise me!” In the first scenario, the intention is to glorify God; in the second, it is one’s own inflated ego and pride.

In Matthew 6:2 Jesus gives the example of people sounding trumpets when they give alms “that they may be praised by men.” That’s what He’s talking about: pride when doing good works; being sure to be noticed and seen, out of a prideful motivation; not that good works should never be seen at all. It’s two different topics, and so it’s no contradiction.

46) Jesus said that Salvation was only for the Jews. Mt.15:24; Mt.10:5,6; Jn.4:22; Rom.11:26,27.
Paul said that salvation was also for the Gentiles. Acts 13:47,48.

This is basically a variation of what was discussed in alleged contradiction #21, in my first installment. Readers may read that reply if they wish. In a nutshell, Jesus and the disciples first concentrated on the Jews, because they were God’s chosen people, who had carried the message of His salvation for the previous 1700 or so years: since at least Abraham (and they were all Jews as well). Then the plan was for the gospel to be preached to all and sundry:

Matthew 24:14 [Jesus] And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; . . .

Matthew 28:19 [Jesus] 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,

Acts 10:34-35 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, [35] but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Romans 2:9-16 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.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord . . . is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

47) Repentance is necessary. Acts 3:19; Lu.3:3.
Repentance is not necessary. Rom.11:29.

Of course it’s necessary. Romans 11:29 has nothing to do with repentance. It simply states: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” This alleged “contradiction seems to have antinomianism in its thinking: the notion that once you are saved, you can do anything and it’s fine and dandy: no need for continuous sanctification and good works (or an extreme “faith alone / eternal security” view). This isn’t true. The Bible (and Paul) teach sanctification and the necessity of good works all through the Christian life.

St. Paul in Scripture refers to repentance ten times (see a list: passages from Acts 13:24 to 2 Tim 2:25). He refers to sanctification twelve times, and to holiness eight times. All of this requires repeated repentance, because we fail and fall and have to be restored to a right relationship with God through repentance. Confession of sins (after one becomes a Christian) is also referred to in James 5:16 and 1 John 1:9. That is part and parcel with repentance as well.

48) Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
Mercy cannot be predetermined. Rom.9:18.

John 3:36 doesn’t say this at all. It states: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” The Bible doesn’t teach universal salvation to all, regardless of how they act. We all have free will to accept or reject God’s free gift of mercy, grace, and salvation. Some people reject that, but it isn’t due to a lack of God’s mercy. They refuse to repent and to follow God’s guidance. They would rather rebel against Him. The famous “gospel” passage John 3:16 laid out God’s free gift:

John 3:16-18 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. [18] He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Romans 14:23 is about conscience (the whole chapter is about that) and proper foods to eat and has nothing to do with mercy. It’s a non sequitur in this discussion.

Mark 16:16 reiterates the teaching of John 3. One who refuses to believe in Jesus and Christianity — who deliberately rejects it, knowing full well what it is — cannot be saved. This doesn’t deny God’s mercy, which is always there for everyone. But they must reform their sinful ways and repent. God being merciful doesn’t mean that He saves everyone whatsoever, regardless of what they do. We have to repent and cooperate with Hi grace. We want what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace” without cost or responsibility. And this alleged “contradiction” exhibits that stunted mentality.

Romans 9 is a complex and poorly understood chapter. See my article, Romans 9: Plausible Non-Calvinist Interpretation [4-22-10].

None of this proves that there are contradictory teachings in Scripture regarding God’s mercy. That teaching is crystal-clear:

Psalm 103:2-4, 8 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, [3] who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, [4] who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, . . . [8]The LORD is merciful and gracious, . . .

Psalm 116:5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful.

Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Acts 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace (cf. Col 1:14; 2:13; 3:13)

Ephesians 2:4 . . . God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us,

49) All who call on the “Lord” will be saved. Rom.10:13; Acts 2:21.
Only those predestined will be saved. Acts 13:48; Eph.1:4,5; 2 Thes.2:13; Acts 2:47.

Predestination is very deep theological waters: perhaps among the two or three most misunderstood and mysterious aspects of theology. The unbeliever will never grasp it, according to 1 Corinthians 2:14: “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

It is true that most Christians believe that those who are saved were predestined to be saved: but that’s because we believe that God knows all things and is outside of time. He knows, therefore, who will exercise their free will, soaked in His grace, and receive His mercy, grace, and salvation (see #47-48 above). In other words, none of this is without their free will cooperation. This cooperation with God’s grace (and with His predestination) is seen in the following passages:

Romans 15:17-18 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

1 Corinthians 15:57-58 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. [58] Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:

Once all of these things are understood, it is seen that there are no contradictions. God predestines us, but He does so knowing that we would cooperate in our free will (that He gave us) with His grace and do our part of the equation. Many Christians misunderstand this, so (again) I don’t expect many unbelievers to grasp it. It’s too deep and complex, and spiritually discerned.

50) Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.

This is a variation of what has been dealt with at some length in #46-49 above. In John 6:37, Jesus refers to “All that the Father gives me will come to me”: in other words, this refers to predestination and election, which is in conjunction with our free will acceptance, repentance, and cooperation. The latter part of the verse is conditional upon this prerequisite. These are the ones who will be saved in the final analysis and go to haven. Jesus (being God and therefore omniscient) knows this, so of course He won’t cast them out. Christianity doesn’t teach universalism (all are saved); it teaches universal atonement (God’s mercy and grace are available for all who repent and accept them as a free gift, and continually cooperate through good works and sanctification).

Matthew 7:21-23 refers to false, deceitful supposed “followers” of Christ who really aren’t. They haven’t repented and allowed God to transform them in grace, and so they simply mouth the words, “Lord, Lord” and “Jesus.” They “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk” as we Christians say. But God knows His own (Jn 10:14) and He knows who is faking it. God knows men’s hearts. We can’t fool Him with our games and pretensions and outrageous hypocrisies. That’s what this is about. The biblical teaching is that Jesus accepts all who are sincerely repentant and willing to follow Him as disciples, and who persevere and don’t fall away till the end.

So again, one must understand the biblical teaching on grace and salvation. Once they do, they see that these sorts of supposedly contradictory couplets aren’t “contradictions” at all. They are misguided, uninformed false speculations, exhibiting an ignorance of the teaching of the Bible. Atheists are no experts on the Bible or Christian theology (carefully developed over nearly 2,000 years)! Believe me, I know this firsthand, having debated them hundreds of times, and usually about the content of the Bible. On the whole, they are exceedingly ignorant (many having been former fundamentalist Christians, and insufficiently “catechized”), and that lack of knowledge is fully manifest in lists such as this one that I am refuting one-by-one (and having little trouble doing it: the only “difficulty” at all is the necessary tedium and labor entailed to refute error).

***

Photo credit: mohamed hassan (2-22-21) [public domain / Pxhere.com]

***

Summary: A Bible skeptic has come up with 194 alleged biblical “contradictions” (usually recycled from old lists). I am systematically going through the list and refuting each one.