October 7, 2020

October 7, 2020 By

with David Palm

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker, who was “raised Presbyterian”, runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” Delighted to oblige his wishes . . . 

Bob (for the record) virtually begged and pleaded with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by 10-3-18, following massive, childish name-calling attacks against me,  encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my rules for discussion, but (unlike him) provided detailed reasons for why it was justified.

Bob’s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. On 6-30-19, he was chiding someone for something very much like he himself: “Spoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, ‘Let me retract my previous statement of X’ or something like that.” Yeah, Bob could!  He still hasn’t yet uttered one peep in reply to — now — 57 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.

Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on 10-17-20: “Every engagement with him devolves into pointlessness. I don’t believe I’ve ever learned anything from him. But if you find a compelling argument of his, summarize it for us.” And again the next day: “He has certainly not earned a spot in my heart, so I will pass on funding his evidence-free project. Like you, I also find that he’s frustrating to talk with. Again, I evaluate such conversations as useful if I can learn something–find a mistake in my argument, uncover an error I made in Christians’ worldview, and so on. Dave is good at bluster, and that’s about it.”

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

Bob writes in his article, “Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions (3 of 4)” (10-24-18):

Jesus should’ve returned already.

Jesus promised to return within the lifetimes of those listening to him. This Apocalyptic message (Apocalypticism claims that the end times are very close) is found in the three synoptic gospels. It takes a passage in Isaiah 13 that predicts calamity for Babylon—that the sun and moon will darken and the stars will fall—and repurposes it as a prediction of the end. It also predicts:

[All people on earth will] see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds. (Matthew 24:30–31)

The prediction ends saying that this will all happen soon.

This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:34).

Let me emphasize those two points: “these things” will happen soon (within months or years, not centuries), and “these things” are obvious and world-destroyingly calamitous. The popular Christian response that this referred to the fall of the Temple won’t fly.

Earlier in the same gospel, we find other references to the imminent coming of the Son of Man:

When you are persecuted in one place [as you spread the gospel], flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10:23)

Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:28).

It’s been a lot longer than one generation. Jesus made a mistake.

I’ve already covered this general topic at least three times: including twice with other Bible-Bashing atheists or agnostics:

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

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

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

But I was just made aware of an online copy of a master’s thesis on this topic by a friend of mine, David Palm, entitled “The Signs of His Coming”: for Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois (1993). He wrote it as an evangelical Protestant, later became a Catholic, and recently noted that he would change nothing in it. I thought it would be very instructive to delve into that to give more thorough and researched answers to Bob’s cynically skeptical assertions above. Palm summarizes (his words in green henceforth):

Our view is that the predictions of Mark 13:5-29 [parallel passage to Matthew 24] depict events leading up to and surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and not some mixture of Jerusalem’s demise and the parousia . 4 Instead of mingling the destruction of the Temple and the parousia in his answer to the disciple’s query, Jesus clearly demarcates the two. Verses 5-29 concern the events leading up to the Jewish War, culminating in the destruction of the Temple. Jesus declares that, “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (v.30). But then, switching topics to discuss the time of his parousia he states, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (v.32). The disciples are told to watch diligently for this event because, unlike the fall of Jerusalem, it may be a long time in coming and will not be accompanied by such remarkable signs. Thus the two events, which were mingled in the disciple’s minds, are separated and expounded individually by Jesus. (pp. 4-6)

Palm finds clues in the text of an interpretation other than the end times:

[W]hy would the elect need to be concerned to flee to the mountains [Mt 24:16; Mk 13:14] if the parousia and the end of time were to occur “immediately” after that tribulation [Mt 24:29-31; Mk 13:24-26]? And why would it matter if their flight was in the winter, if their ultimate deliverance was so close at hand [Mt 24:20; Mk 13:18]? . . . In the same vein, the statement that, “those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning . . . and never to be equaled again,” (v.19) [Mt 24:21] may be somewhat hyperbolic if applied to the Jewish War, but makes little sense if applied to a final catastrophe that precedes the end of the world. If some Great Tribulation at the end of history is portrayed here, then it goes without saying that its severity will not be equaled again. (pp. 14-15)

Another significant change in the text, Palm argues (p. 28), is in the switch from the terminology of “those days” (Mt 24:19, 22 [2], 29; Mk 13:17, 19, 24, RSV) — i.e., plural –or “days” (Mk 13:20 [2]) to “that day” or “day” (Mt 24:36, 42, 50; Mk 13:32): the latter referring to the last day or the final judgment. Palm adds:

Jesus had already spoken of “that day” in connection with the universal day of judgment at the end of all things (Matt 7:22; 11:22). 48 It seems likely that he is speaking of that same event here. This is borne out further by Matthew’s insertion of the parables of the talents (25:14-30) and of the sheep and goats (25:31-46) with their depiction of eternal punishment. (p. 29)

The two separate sections of the discourse differ in how events (or lack thereof) are described:

There is no set time frame, such as one generation, in which this will take place; instead, “not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father knows the time,” (v.32) and, “you do not know when that time will come” (v.33). They need to “stay alert ” (vv.33) and “keep watch” (v.35), presumably because the long delay and lack of signs could cause them to become lackadaisical in their faith. The first section is dominated by signs that the disciples are to look for and act upon, because all will certainly take place very shortly. The second section, on the other hand, assumes that there may be a long delay before the Lord’s coming. The disciples are told that patient watchfulness is paramount, “because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn” (v.35). The parousia will not be preceded by signs as will the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no corollary in this section to the parable of the fig tree. Whereas earlier the disciples are bidden to look around and see the wars, earthquakes, famines, persecution, spread of the gospel and finally the abomination of desolation, which all point to Jerusalem’s imminent downfall, here they are given no signs that will evidence the parousia but are instead told only to “watch” (vv.34-35). The Master can come back at any time and if his servants are not looking for him they will be caught unaware (v.36). Whereas Jesus tells them “everything ahead of time” (v.23) about the fall of Jerusalem he gives them no details at all about what signs might precede his parousia. (pp. 29-30)

Matthew has made all of this even more explicit by including a number of parables to heighten the contrast between the soon-coming destruction of Jerusalem and the potentially distant parousia. The second section depicts an almost tranquil scene. Life continues normally—with people “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” (24:38), tending their fields and caring for their households (vv.40-41)—right up to the time when they are “taken”. All of this is in contrast to the time preceding the fall of Jerusalem in which the peace is shattered by calamitous events: wars, famines, earthquakes, persecution and a “great tribulation”. And while there will be ample time for some to flee to the mountains before Jerusalem’s downfall (v.16), the people in the latter section are taken totally by surprise, for the Son of Man comes like a “thief” (v.43), 49 Again, there is no fixing of a time frame such as “this generation” in which the parousia must take place. Rather, the parable of the two servants shows that a long delay is anticipated, for the wicked servant schemes to himself, “My master is staying away a long time” (v.48). The parable of the ten virgins (25:1-13) again highlights the possibility of long delay. Both the “wise” and “foolish” virgins fall asleep because “the bridegroom was a long time coming” (v.5) . The same is true of the parable of the talents (25:14-30); the master returns after a “long time” (v.19). So we find that while a transition between the near and distant future in vv.5-31 does not readily present itself, we find just such a transition in v.32ff. All of the material that follows assumes that the parousia may be far in the future. (pp. 30-32)

Palm cites Old Testament analogies of the mingling of historical, place-bound events and the last day:

[W]e again see imagery of almost cosmic proportions attached to events that occur within history. In an oracle concerning judgment on Nineveh (ca. 615 B.C.), Nahum says:

The Lord is slow to anger and great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebukes the sea and dries it up; he makes all the rivers run dry. Bashan and Carmel wither and the blossoms of Lebanon fade. The mountains quake before him and the hills melt away. The earth trembles at his presence, the world and all who live in it. Who can withstand his indignation? Who can endure his fierce anger? His wrath is poured out like fire; the rocks are shattered before him. [Nahum 1:2-6]

Micah says of God’s coming in judgment against Samaria and Jerusalem (ca. 722 and 701 B.C.):

Look! The Lord is coming from his dwelling place; he comes down and treads the high places of the earth. The mountains melt beneath him and the valleys split apart, like wax before the fire, like water rushing down a slope. [Micah 1:3-4]

In both of these passages we have a blend of the universal and the local. Nahum states that “the earth and all who live in it” tremble when the Lord comes in judgment (1:5), and yet the oracle is very specifically confined to Nineveh (cf. 1:1, 8, 11, 14). And Micah calls all the nations of the earth to account (1:2), even though God’s vengeance is relegated in this instance to Judea and Samaria (1: 5-6). (pp. 57-58)

In Ezekiel political upheaval and impending judgment is portrayed as signs among the heavenly bodies:

When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars. I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you; I will bring darkness over your land, declares the Sovereign Lord. [Ezek 32:7-8]

We see in the passages cited above evidence that descriptions of celestial signs are not found exclusively in passages that deal with universal disaster. Rather, it appears that the ancient Hebrew used such phrases idiomatically, much as we might speak of a particularly bad event in our life as a time when “the world came to an end,” or when “my world came crashing down,” or perhaps as “a dark, dark day.” (pp. 58-59)

In several places, a judgment on Israel, and specifically the destruction of Jerusalem, is described as if it were the destruction of the whole world. For instance, Deut 32:22 says, “For a fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below. It will devour the earth and its harvests and set afire the foundations of the mountains.”   Here the judgment that will fall on Israel if she forsakes the Covenant is depicted as engulfing the entire earth. (pp. 59-60)

In Mark 13:24-27, Jesus uses language replete with references to the Old Testament prophets. Although the majority of scholars have concluded that his statements must be taken literally, we believe that the evidence cited above demonstrates that it was common for the Hebrew prophets to speak of calamitous events within history using the language of cosmic doom. Thus, it seems entirely reasonable that Jesus also could speak of an event as monumental as the fall of Jerusalem using the extravagant imagery of the prophets, without intending his words to be interpreted literally. And the context of the Olivet Discourse seems to bear out our conclusion that the parousia is not in view until Mark 13:32. (p. 73)

Palm notes how “cosmic events” were often used symbolically to denote the fall of cities or nations in the Old Testament:

[T]his language in its original Old Testament context refers not to actual astronomical phenomena that signal the end of the world, but to the fall of nations within history. It is probably safe to say that the authors never intended their language to be taken in a strictly literal sense. The sun, moon, and stars symbolize what is immovable and steadfast; when they are darkened or cast down it symbolizes great change and upheaval. In the Old Testament it is the kind of language used first and foremost to refer to the downfall of nations: Babylon (Isa 13:10), Edom (Isa 34:4), Egypt (Ezek 32:7), and Israel (Jer 4:23; Joel 2:10; Mic 3:6). Thus, its application is primarily to the political, not the astronomical, sphere. Luke adds that in addition to, “signs in the sun, moon and stars” the nations of the earth, “will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea” (Luke 21:25). . . . But the background to this verse, Isa 17:12, says, “Oh, the raging of many nations—they rage like the raging sea! Oh the uproar of the peoples—they roar like the roaring of great waters!” It seems clear that here the churning of the ocean is an apocalyptic symbol for national upheaval. . . . 

We contend, then, that the darkening of sun and moon, and falling of the stars have nothing to do with literal disturbances of the heavenly bodies but rather is a metaphorical way of describing the fall of a nation. (pp. 105-106)

Palm tackles a passage that atheists and pother biblical skeptics feel to be an ironclad proof that He made an error:

Jesus solemnly affirms that, “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” We have already responded to the many different ways that exegetes have attempted to evade the force of this verse. But we believe that the intent is clear. Jesus expected the whole of what he had predicted prior to this verse to take place within the lifetimes of his contemporaries. This verse sets the definitive terminus ad queum for the events described, including the coming of the Son of man on the clouds. But it is important to note that our view in no way assumes that there is no future parousia presented in the Olivet Discourse.

As we have argued at length above, Jesus addresses two subjects in the Olivet Discourse; the fall of Jerusalem and his Second Coming. But he does so separately. “But of that day or that hour no one knows” (Mark 13:32; RSV) . With this statement we believe Jesus introduces a new topic, his parousia at the end of history. Matthew expands this material (Matt 24:36ff.) and in doing so makes more clear the contrast. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple will be preceded by clearly visible signs and will take place within the lifetimes of the disciples. The parousia, on the other hand, will come like a thief, completely unannounced, and may be a long time in the future. (pp. 131-132)

It’s clear, then, I submit, that the interpretation of these passages is not nearly as simple as Bob the Bible-Basher makes out.

Matthew 10:23 (RSV) When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.

Bob highlights this passage as supposedly referring to the Second Coming of Jesus very soon: in the disciples’ lifetime? But is that necessarily the meaning here? The entire context of the saying (chapter 10) is not about the last days: it is about the present age. There is nothing whatsoever about Jesus coming, nothing about seeing “the sign of the Son of man in heaven” or “the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Mt 24:30).

Moreover, there are different senses of Jesus “coming” to the disciples. Jesus stated at the Last Supper:

John 14:18-19, 28 “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. [19] Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also. . . . [28] You heard me say to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.’ . . .

What happened in “a little while” was that Jesus was resurrected and came to, or appeared to the disciples: which was indeed during the time that they were still evangelizing in the towns of Israel. Thus, in the same book, a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples is recounted (Jn 19:20-23) and the word “came” is used  to describe it: “Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came” (Jn 20:24). We see the same terminology again, two verses later:

John 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.”

A similar reference appears also in Matthew, referring to another post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus: “And Jesus came . . .” (Mt 28:18).

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This is another alleged “problem verse” that Bob submits as proof that Jesus was wrong, and in error (a thing that Christians believe is not possible). Presbyterian Bible scholar Keith Mathison offers a plausible explanation of it:

In order to come to an understanding of this saying, we must again be reminded that when Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man,” he is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13–14. And again we must recall that the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is set within a judgment scene before the throne of God (cf. Dan. 7:9–10). Unlike the saying in Matthew 10:23, the saying in 16:28 is found in the immediate context of words regarding judgment (v. 27). The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.

A comparison of Matthew 16:28 with its parallels in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 lends support to this interpretation. All three sayings are set within the same context immediately before the Transfiguration, yet whereas Matthew speaks of some living long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man, Mark and Luke speak of some living long enough to see the coming of the kingdom of God. The “coming of the Son of Man” then is simply another way of saying “the coming of the kingdom of God.” It is the assumption that the words “coming of the Son of Man” must mean “Second Coming” that has caused much of the confusion. Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy, texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasn’t speaking of the Second Coming at all.v He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers (cf. Matt. 28:18). (“Some Standing Here Will Not Taste Death — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology,” Ligonier Ministries, 5-14-12)

Of course, such extensive cross-referencing, exegesis, and systematic theology is far beyond Bible-Bashing Bob’s capacity to grasp: which shortcoming has been glaringly obvious throughout these 58 refutations of his critical assertions.

But that is no skin off of our backs. His ignorance and ridiculous, foolish presumption of “knowledge of the Bible and Christianity” doesn’t change the fact that there are students of the Bible who have an infinitely deeper and more accurate comprehension of the Bible than Bob does.

***

Photo credit: Daniel Arrhakis, Jesus – The Second Coming (2018) [Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0 license]

***

December 19, 2019

December 19, 2019 By

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]

***

December 18, 2019

December 18, 2019 By

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

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.

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.”

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 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.

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.

***

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

***

December 12, 2019

December 12, 2019 By

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

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.

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 21st-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.

***

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 Woman of Canaan at the Feet of Christ (1784, by Jean Germain Drouais (1763-1788) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
December 10, 2019

December 10, 2019 By

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, atheist author and polemicist, the extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the notoriously insulting Debunking Christianity blog.

Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, in order for himself and Dr. Madison to avoid replying to me. Obviously, I have “hit a nerve” over there. In any event, their utter non-responses and intellectual cowardice do not affect me in the slightest. No skin off of my back. If I want to critique more of their material, I will. If my replies go out unopposed, all the better for my cause.

This is a reply to a portion of Dr. Madison’s article, Christianity Gets Slam-Dunked (8-16-19).  Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

A review of Tim Sledge’s Four Disturbing Questions with One Simple Answer

. . . I always welcome books that expose the flaws, especially one that is as highly readable as Tim Sledge’s short new book (120 pages), Four Disturbing Questions with One Simple Answer: Breaking the Spell of Christian Belief. With ease and precision, Sledge focuses on just four realities that do indeed shatter the Christian spell.

. . . for thirty years he was an evangelical Southern Baptist minister, a Number 10 Christian. In his longer book, Goodbye Jesus: An Evangelical Preacher’s Journey Beyond Faith [my review is here], Sledge mentions his practice over the years of relegating his reservations—things about the faith that didn’t make sense—to a corner of his mind that he labeled, Exceptions to the Rule of Faith. Eventually the items deposited there became too weighty.

In his new book he distills many of these into four knockout categories, hence the title, Four Disturbing Questions:

(1) The Power Failure Question
(2) The Mixed Message Question
(3) The Germ Warfare Question
(4) The Better Plan Question

[. . . ]

This is the Germ Warfare Question:

“Why didn’t Jesus say anything about germs.” (p. 46)

We may wonder: Just when did Jesus become a full participant in the Holy Trinity, i.e., knowing everything that God knows? John’s gospel tells us that Jesus was present right there at creation. It’s bit difficult to reconcile this with a Galilean peasant preacher who could very well have been illiterate.

Really? It’s pretty tough to be illiterate when one reads biblical texts in a synagogue:

Luke 4:16 (RSV) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read;

Moreover, there are the several instances of Jesus rhetorically asking about whether His detractors had read various Old Testament passages (ones that He had obviously read), with the words, “have you not read . . . ?” And there are His many references to “scripture[s]”: with which He was obviously familiar. But I guess this is the sort of “higher-level learning” and logic that is (amazingly enough) beyond Dr. David Madison, doctorate (in biblical studies) and all. For him, Jesus was — more likely than not — illiterate.

But if John got it right, why not use his time on earth to pass along really useful knowledge?

Sledge provides a helpful survey of discoveries about microbes in the 19th and 20th centuries, after billions of humans had suffered horrible deaths from disease. Yet we have a thousand pages of Bible that gives no information at all about how the real world works. “But it’s hard to argue,” Sledge says, “that any time was too soon for humans to learn about the microscopic organisms that cause so much sickness and death—germs.” (p. 35)

Yet Jesus the moralist was more concerned about sin. “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” (Mark 7:15). Sledge is generous, but gets in his zinger: “…Jesus was focused on the importance of inner spiritual change over outward religious ceremony. But wouldn’t this have been a great time to explain that they should wash their hands for health purposes, a good time to tell people about germs, a good time to talk about why they should be careful where they get their drinking water, along with a few tips about sewage disposal?” (p. 42)

“Why didn’t the God of the universe—walking among mankind in the flesh as Jesus—do a sidebar talk on germs?” (p. 43)

“God had been watching silently for thousands of years by the time Jesus came along. It was late in the game, but couldn’t the Son of God—the one described as the Great Physician—have made a greater contribution to human health than healing a few people while he was on earth?” (p. 46)

Horrendous suffering—both human and animal—is built in; it’s just how the world works. Any theism that posits a caring, Master-Craftsman god, collapses on that fact alone, and this Sledge chapter is a good primer for those who rarely consider the implication of germs for their concept of a good God.

***

It so happens that I have already thoroughly answered this challenge. Atheists mostly recycle old chestnuts in their arsenal of Christian-bashing pseudo-pseudo [fallacious] supposed “arguments”. Thus, we observe that atheist Bob Seidensticker, whom I have also refuted 35 times (and again with utterly no reply back, since he is just as much an intellectual coward as Dr. Madison) brought this up in his hit-piece, “Yet More on the Bible’s Confused Relationship with Science (2 of 2)” (12-2-15), where he pontificated:

10. Germs? What germs?

The Bible isn’t a reliable source of health information. . . . physical health and basic hygienic precautions are not obvious and are worth a mention somewhere. How about telling us that boiling water minimizes disease? Or how to site latrines to safeguard the water supply?

I’ll re-post my lengthy and (I think) devastating reply to this accusation in a moment. But first let me provide my previous answer to his closing lie / potshot:

Let me close with a paraphrase of an idea from AronRa: When the answer is known, science knows it. But when science doesn’t know it, neither does religion.

That’s not true. As shown, Hippocrates, the pagan Greek “father of medicine” didn’t understand the causes of contagious disease. Nor did medical science until the 19th century. But the hygienic principles that would have prevented the spread of such diseases were in the Bible: in the Laws of Moses.

St. Augustine in the 5th century and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, both rejected astrology long before modern science, while even the most prominent modern scientists in the 16th-17th centuries, such as Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler firmly believed in it.

I could go on and on, but just a few examples suffice to decisively refute a foolishly ignorant universal negative claim.

And of course, modern science (virtually the atheist’s religion: “scientism”), for all its admirable qualities and glories (I love science!) is not without much embarrassing error and foolishness, and skeletons in its own closet: like belief in the 41-year successful hoax of “Piltdown Man”. This is true even up to very recent times, as I have detailed for atheists’ convenience.

***

Here, then, is my reply (from over two months ago, contra Seidensticker’s similar “argument”) to the supposed “slam-dunk” against Christianity (made by Tim Sledge and ballyhooed by Dr. David Madison): alleged ignorance of God and the Bible regarding germs and their devastating effects:

***

Once again, five minutes searching on Google would have prevented Bob from spewing more ignorance about the Bible. The Bible Ask site has an article, “Did the Bible teach the germs theory?” (5-30-16):

The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . .

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 –1865), who was a Hungarian physician, . . . [He] proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 . . . He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of his successful results, Semmelweis’s suggestions were not accepted by the medical community of his time.

Why was Semmelweis research rejected? Because germs were virtually a foreign concept for the Europeans in the middle-19th-century. . . .

Had the medical community paid attention to God’s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46).

Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the Encyclopedia of Medical History: “The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease” (1985, pp. 77-78).

Some other interesting facts regarding the Bible and germ theory:

1. The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes in running water if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else’s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22; Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33; Deut 23:12).

2. Leviticus 13 and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52).

3. It was not until 1873 that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary. Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that (Lev 13, 14, 22; Num 19:20). It contains instructions about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly. The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.

4. Hippocrates, the “father of medicine” (born 460 BC), thought “bad air” from swampy areas was the cause of disease.

See also: “Old Testament Laws About Infectious Diseases.”

The entry on “Health” in Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn’t solely a belief that sin or demons caused all disease (as Bob often implies in his anti-Christian writings, and in this paper: “According to the Bible, evil spirits cause disease.”). There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:

Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm ( Gen 37:25 ) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient ( Isa 1:6 ), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine ( Luke 10:34 ). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil ( 38:21 ); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual ( Mark 8:23 ; John 5 ; 9:6-7 ). Medicine is mentioned ( Prov 17:22 ) and defended as “sensible” ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative ( Mark 15:23 ); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion ( Matt 23:23 ); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . .

Luke’s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy’s weak stomach, eye-salve for the Thyatiran church’s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).

Doctors today often note how the patient’s disposition and attitude has a strong effect on his health or recovery. The mind definitely influences the body. Solomon understood this in several of his Proverbs: written around 950 BC (Prov 14:30; 15:30; 16:24; 17:22).

***

Further note of 12-10-19: since Jesus observed Mosaic Law, including ritual washings, etc., He tacitly accepted (by His example of following it) the aspects of it that anticipated and “understood” germ theory. The knowledge was already in existence.

***

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: Portrait of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818-1865), the Hungarian-Austrian physician, who discovered the principles of germ theory and hygiene, some 3000 years after Moses taught them in what became the Old Testament. Better late than never! This file comes from Wellcome Images, a website operated by Wellcome Trust, a global charitable foundation based in the United Kingdom. Refer to Wellcome blog post (archive). [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license]
***
December 10, 2019

December 10, 2019 By

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  (since 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, atheist author and polemicist, the extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the notoriously insulting Debunking Christianity blog.

Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, in order for himself and Dr. Madison to avoid replying to me. Obviously, I have “hit a nerve” over there. In any event, their utter non-responses and intellectual cowardice do not affect me in the slightest. No skin off of my back. If I want to critique more of their material, I will. If my replies go out unopposed, all the better for my cause.

This is a reply to Dr. Madison’s article, O Holy Night! How Matthew Screwed Up the Christmas Story (12-21-18).  Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

We can imagine the literary agents for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John meeting for drinks one Friday evening after work. They all get texts that the church’s Authorized Bible Committee has decided to publish the four gospels together, back-to-back. They all wince. Not a good idea! This will encourage the faithful to compare the four Jesus accounts. Matthew and Luke plagiarized (and altered) Mark extensively—without telling anyone—and the author of John’s gospel was pretty sure that the other three hadn’t told the story well at all, and made up stuff to ‘improve’ to tale. What a mess.

Very cute. Of course, this is sheer cynical speculation, and so has no argumentative value whatsoever. It’s simply thrown out as red meat for online anti-theist atheist audiences, who will (as long experience invariably illustrates) sop up any dig at Christianity, no matter how imbecilic or devoid of substance. Of course, what atheists like Madison never seem to realize is: why in the world would this “Authorized Bible Committee” publish all four gospels if in fact (assuming for the sake of argument), they are a mess of endless contradictions? It makes no sense. But that’s what this silly atheist “scenario” would entail.

But, never fear, it would be many centuries before the faithful would have access to the Bible, and even when they could have their own copies, they would never develop the habit of critically comparing the four gospels. These were holy books, after all, and anything that seemed fishy or hard to swallow was just part of the mystery.

There came a time, however, when pious New Testament scholars decided to study the gospels using the methods of historians, and it became a challenge to explain the mess. Specifically, this was the beginning of the end for the familiar birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, which fail on all accounts as history. But let’s take a close look at Matthew’s version as if he thought he was telling the truth.

For dissident liberals, who deny the inspiration of the Bible and approach Scripture like a butcher does a hog, they will end up finding what they desire to find, based on their prior lack of faith and incoherent worldview. For them (at least the most extreme ones) and for Dr. Madison, Matthew is simply a deliberate liar with an agenda.

But  there is quite a bit of literature, too, from serious historic Christians, dealing with difficulties that naturally come up (as with all complex issues) and with all the so-called, trumped-up alleged “contradictions” that atheists imagine: which are almost always not even logical contradictions at all, but simply different but complementary texts. I’ve dealt with this mentality time and again in my own apologetics (and in my previous 35 replies to Dr. Madison). But again, it sounds good to the anti-theists, so (like all good sophists) Madison uses it.

Familiar traditions have staying power, and Christians aren’t about to give up their Nativity Scenes, with shepherds and Wise Men worshipping the baby Jesus in a stable. The folks in the pews don’t seem to notice that this depiction is an impossible mash-up of Matthew and Luke. These two authors wrote different stories about the birth of Jesus—

This is actually correct, and it’s the Bible scholars who tell us that the wise men actually visited two years later. The Nativity scenes are simply engaging in what might be called “dramatic compression.” As an analogy, in the recent movie about the musical group The Four Seasons (Jersey Boys), it portrayed lead singer Frankie Valli sadly enduring the death of his youngest daughter Francine in the year 1967, whereas it was actually in 1980. There were other liberties taken as to when there were dramatic conflicts and departures of certain members of the band (with “errors” as much as five years off). I’m sure similar anomalies could be found in the recent biopics of Freddie Mercury of Queen and Elton John.

Movies do this all the time (mostly because biopics have two hours or so to deal with biographies and the entire lives of real people, so they conflate or compress events). So why is it inconceivable that Christians (with the sanction of the Church) might do it with regard to nativity scenes and the wise men? It’s simply putting different elements of the early life of Jesus together, for the sake of devotion and reflection. The time of the visit of the wise men is not nearly as important as the fact that they visited Jesus at all. The time isn’t the essence of it. This sort of thing doesn’t have to be either ignorance or dishonesty.

actually, Matthew doesn’t describe the birth of Jesus at all—and if Christians paid attention, they could figure it out. . . . Matthew’s story doesn’t even take place at Christmas time; he says nothing whatever about the night Jesus was born. No stable, no shepherds, no angels.

Why does he have to do that? In other words, I question Dr. Madison’s false premise. Where is it written that every Gospel account must include details of Jesus’ birth? Christians believe that, in God’s providence, the Gospels complement each other and have different emphases. What in the world is wrong with that? It’s just plain dumb “reasoning.” Luke was the one with the details of the birth and the Annunciation nine months prior. Matthew just offers a few bare facts (“Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king”: 2:1, RSV), Mark offers none (it starts with John the Baptist and Jesus at age 30, at the start of His public ministry), and John has no “birth facts” (it starts with theological words about trinitarianism, the incarnation, and the divinity of Christ; again, a different emphasis).

he seems to have timed their [the wise men’s] visit well after Jesus’ birth. . . . When they arrived in Bethlehem—after a detour to Jerusalem (more about that later)—they came to the house (not a stable) where Mary and the child were Matthew 2:11). Not a newborn, but a paidion—the Greek word for little child. In Matthew 19:14 Jesus himself uses the same word, “Permit the children to come unto me.” 

Exactly! Now how is this a supposed “difficulty” for Christianity, or some kind of “lie”? I won’t hold my breath for an answer, since — as I noted above — Dr. Madison completely ignores every criticism of his articles I make. My readers can see how silly all of this is.

The newborn babe (Greek brephos), in swaddling clothes in a manger, is found in Luke’s account of the night Jesus was born, presumably weeks or months earlier. So the Nativity Scenes that include the Wise Men kneeling in front of a trough to present their gifts is part of the impossible mash-up. Note also Matthew 2:16, which reports Herod’s dragnet to eliminate Jesus: “…he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.”

That’s precisely how Bible scholars have deduced that he wise men visited Jesus at about two years of age. Ho hum . . .

The Jesus in Matthew’s story could have been a toddler. So please, Christians, get those Wise Men out of the stable!

Again: why do we have to: anymore than the film Jersey Boys must be meticulously accurate as to the years that events portrayed in it actually happened. Once again: the essence of the thing is that the wise men (who were Gentiles, not Jews, and of a different religion: probably Zoroastrianism) visited Jesus, offering gifts and adoration, not when they visited. So the nativities simply compress the time frame to present all of it together, just as biographical films do all the time.

It’s much ado about nothing: which is a good summary of the entirety of the Bible-bashing work of Dr. Madison. I have shown myself (now literally 36 times) how he is in error and commits illogical fallacies over and over and over. But he doesn’t care. His goal isn’t to arrive at the truth or fuller understanding of these matters, but rather, to drive as many Christians away from Christianity, and into a hatred of their former belief, as possible. It’s all “chum” for the hungry anti-theist atheist sharks circling the Christian “boat.” It reduces to humorous folly in our view, but we also pity and pray for the poor man, to emerge from his self-imposed bondage to falsehoods and the slop of atheist disbelief.

Mixing Theology with Astrology

Even more inept, however, is Matthew’s invention of astrologers ‘from the East’ in the first place. Why would they even bother with the birth of a Jewish messiah? How in the world could they ‘see a star’ and infer that it had anything do to with a bit of Jewish theology? Well, astrologers talk even more nonsense than theologians do, so No, Matthew, this doesn’t make sense.

There have been several in-depth treatments of the wise men. Dr. Madison asks questions only rhetorically and polemically: never hoping to actually receive any sort of answer from us stupid Christians. But we actually examine the thing in the greatest depth:

Catholic Encyclopedia (“Magi”)

“The Magi” (Fr. William Saunders)

“Who Were the Three Wise Men?” (Fr. Dwight Longenecker)

Mystery of the Magi: The Quest to Identify the Three Wise Men (2017 book by Fr. Dwight Longenecker)

“Wise Men from the East and the Feast of the Epiphany of the Lord” (Sandra Miesel)

“The Magi” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

“Magi” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

And how can Christians be comfortable with the embrace of astrology anyway, especially concerning the story of Jesus? That omens in the sky relate to famous humans was a common superstition of the time; do Christians really want to go there? It would be hard to figure how astrology—the notion that human destinies are determined by star and planetary alignments—can be spliced into Christian theology. Astrology thrives where there is no grasp of confirmation bias and the capacity for critical thought has collapsed; theology has weak epistemology, astrology has none at all.

We don’t embrace astrology, nor does the Bible. It simply recounts the story of people who believed in astrology finding out about a very significant birth. All truth is God’s truth. Many great scientists (even those lionized by atheists) like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were enamored of astrology (and Newton with alchemy and the occult), while folks like Augustine and Aquinas (lowly theologian types) were not at all.

Why the Nile?

Matthew’s goofs get even worse. He is well known for his outrageous out-of-context quotes from the Old Testament to ‘prove’ that Jesus was the messiah, and perhaps the most egregious example is his use (Matt 2:15) of Hosea 11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Yes, Hosea meant Israel. But Matthew wanted desperately to make this apply to Jesus. How was he to get Joseph, Mary, and Jesus to Egypt?

Well, here is an excellent article that deals with the question: “Out of Egypt I Called My Son” (Kevin DeYoung).

God told Joseph in a dream that Herod was about to go on a rampage, so they should flee to…where? Why would they go to Egypt of all places? It’s not as if the toddler Jesus had been branded somehow (the halo wasn’t added until artists worked on the story much later), so the Holy Family could have blended in among the peasantry almost anywhere away from Bethlehem. But for Matthew’s contrived plot, it had to be Egypt.

They probably went there because Herod had no jurisdiction there. It was a populated place relatively close, away from Roman Judea. Dr. Madison simply assumes without proof that Matthew “made it up” so as to dishonestly fulfill and Old Testament prophecy. When it comes to the Bible, he’s usually a stranger to rational argument. How odd for a man who has a doctorate in biblical studies. It depends on what one studies and whether one is operating with false premises.

Eventually they had to go home again. But where was home? Joseph planned to return to Judea (Matt. 2:22)—back to Bethlehem, presumably—but that was still unsafe, so “…he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth…” Sounds like for the first time! Matthew’s assumption was that Joseph and Mary had lived in Bethlehem all along.

Luke thought they were originally based in Nazareth, and he had to contrive a way to get them to Bethlehem for the birth. Hence he told of a census that required people to go to their ancestral homes to be ‘registered.’ On several grounds historians have dismissed the story as nonsense. There obviously was a strong tradition that Jesus was from Nazareth; Luke had Mary and Joseph there from the beginning; Matthew got them there after abandoning their home in Bethlehem. More of the impossible mash-up.

There is no problem here. Much ado about nothing. I dealt with these sorts of groundless assertions in the following articles:

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

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” (with Jimmy Akin) [7-25-17]

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

The Star Screws Up

Earlier I called the story of the Wise Men ‘disastrous” because, the way Matthew spins it, a lot of babies ended up getting killed. He reports that the astrologers headed to Jerusalem to inquire where the holy child could be found. The top religious bureaucrats, consulted by an alarmed King Herod, agreed that Bethlehem was the place, based on Micah 5:2, “…for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.” So the Wise Men set out for Bethlehem, but now—wait for it—the star had turned into a GPS!

“…and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen …until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.” (Matthew 2:9-10) . . . 

In fact we are talking about a major plot flaw, and a bungling God who didn’t think things through; or was it just Matthew who didn’t notice God’s incompetence? 

For thorough Christian treatments of the topic of the star of Bethlehem, see:

“The Star of Bethlehem” (T. Michael Davis)

“Star of the Magi” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

“Seeking the Star of Bethlehem” (Jimmy Akin)

That Other Famous Misquote

I might get pushback for my suggestion earlier that Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 was his most egregious misquote. His biggest blunder, no doubt, which was noticed long ago and has been discussed ad infinitum, is his use of a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Greek version of the Old Testament: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son…” In the original Hebrew, the word isn’t virgin at all, but simply young woman and, in the context of Isaiah 7 concerned a political/military situation at the time. It had nothing whatever to do with the birth of a messiah centuries later. In pulling this text into his story, Matthew was sloppy or devious—maybe both.

I and many others have dealt with this false accusation, too:

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

But the even bigger question is why Matthew thought it was a good idea to graft virgin birth onto the Jesus story. This concept clearly derived from other religions of the ancient world . . . Was it a matter of ‘anything your god can do, my god can do better’? Or did Matthew just want to make sure that Jesus’ divine pedigree was guaranteed? “…the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matt 1:20).

Maybe because . . . it was actually true? Just a thought . . .  We can’t prove that it was true (i.e., we can’t examine the actual conception — be there before it took place — to see if it was miraculous).  But neither can Madison and our overlord atheist superiors prove that it did not happen. Dr. Madison simply assumes it didn’t, because his overall belief that miracles are either impossible or cannot and have not in fact been sufficiently proven / documented, precludes him from accepting the virgin birth even before he ever examines the question.

This is a minority opinion in the New Testament, by the way. Luke ran with it enthusiastically, but Mark knew nothing about it; for him the status of Jesus was sealed at his baptism and his Transfiguration. For the apostle Paul, the resurrection was all that mattered, and he probably wouldn’t have mentioned virgin birth even if he had heard of it. The author of John’s gospel most certainly knew of Matthew’s story, but didn’t need it, didn’t want it: his Jesus had been present at creation! Maybe he thought virgin birth was, by his time, a cliché.

Now here is a classic example of a trumped-up “contradiction” or “difficulty” in Scripture that is in fact none at all. It’s Dr. Madison who is thinking illogically. Here’s a bit of logical analysis at no extra charge: to not mention a thing is not the equivalent of a denial of the same thing. Let me illustrate by analogy. The two following statements are both true:

Dave: “Yesterday we visited downtown and went ice skating.”

Dave’s wife Judy: “Yesterday we visited downtown, had lunch at a great Italian restaurant, went ice skating, and caught the bus home.” 

Are these two statements contradictory? No, not at all. One simply has more information and a recounting of facts than the other (which happens in the Gospel accounts innumerable times). Judy’s account includes the information that lunch was enjoyed downtown, and that a bus was taken home. Did Dave deny those two things? Not logically. He simply highlighted the most important aspects of the visit: the place and their main reason for going (eating lunch and taking a bus being “secondary” details). If — logically speaking — Dave were to truly contradict Judy’s account, he would have to say something like:

“Yesterday we visited downtown and ice skating is all that we did, before returning by car.”

That is undeniably a contradiction to Judy’s account, by the rules of logic, because it denied that lunch was also eaten downtown, and differs in the mode of transportation. But in “Madison-logic” and that of so many atheists in analyzing the Bible, the first two statements above would be “contradictory.” Madison would conclude that Dave denied the fact of the downtown lunch and the bus trip home, because he didn’t see fit to mention them. After all, he claims that Gospel writer Mark “knew nothing about” the virgin birth because he didn’t mention that.

For Dr. Madison, the virgin birth is a “minority opinion in the New Testament” because it’s mentioned very few times. For Christians and logical thinkers, we believe in the inspiration of Scripture (for many good reasons, but ultimately as an article of faith and belief). If in fact all of the Bible is inspired (which means literally “God-breathed” and God’s revelation of Himself), the virgin birth need not be noted or recorded in every book. Even once is enough to suffice. That’s the outlook of Christian faith. But my primary concern here is to show how Dr. Madison is not even thinking logically: even before we get to questions of faith.

One of the unfortunate consequences has been the idealization of chastity, and the exaggeration of Mary’s virtue. Indeed, in Catholic piety, Mary had to remain a virgin to preserve her special holiness; this is a challenge to Catholic apologists since the gospels mention Jesus’ siblings!

Actually, in Catholic thinking and theology, Mary didn’t have to (that is, necessarily in all possible worlds) be a perpetual virgin, anymore than she “had to” be immaculately conceived. In this strict sense, Jesus didn’t even have to necessarily become a man and die on the cross, either, if God the Father had in fact simply decided to proclaim all human beings (or a certain number) forgiven: a forgiveness that they would have to receive on their end. We believe that both things are fitting and appropriate and that they both actually happened in fact.

The Bible has more than enough information in it to explain the use of the term “brothers” in the Hebraic sense, which could refer to (just as it also does in English) far more than merely siblings. Since that is a rabbit trail, I refer readers to many of my articles on the topic in its own section, on my web page about the Blessed Virgin Mary. And it’s not only “Catholic piety.” All of the original Protestant “Reformers” believed the same thing, as have the Orthodox all along.

Virgin Birth = another installment of magical thinking. This doesn’t help make the case for Christianity.

The virgin birth is what it is: an actual historical event. It was a miracle, fitting for the incarnate God, Who is a pretty special human being, after all. Dr. Madison denies and ridicules all miracles, and for him they can only be fictional “magic.” He’s bound and prohibited from free inquiry by his false presuppositions, that have no basis themselves. No one has ever “proven” that no miracle could ever possibly occur, or that an omnipotent God (assuming for a moment that He exists) could not bring one about.

In Dreamland

Matthew reports that Joseph heard from God in dreams, and even the Wise Men were “warned about Herod” in a dream. A novelist has the ‘omniscient perspective,’ i.e., he/she knows what’s going on inside the heads of the characters. Those who claim that Matthew’s story is history have to explain how the author knew the content of the dreams.

I can think of at least two scenarios right off the bat:

1) Since biblical writing is divinely inspired, God could have directly revealed this fact to Matthew, just as He revealed things to Abraham and Moses, and the prophets, and St. Paul at his conversion, and St. John in the revelations of the last book of the New Testament, and to many other people.

2) The disciples knew Mary the mother of Jesus, who lived some years after Jesus’ death. For example, the Bible informs us that Mary was with the disciples in the upper room, when they received the Holy Spirit  on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Early Christian tradition tells us that the apostle John lived with her in Ephesus. Thus, it’s a simple matter (and possibility): Joseph could have told Mary about the dream he had. Later Mary told Matthew, or told someone else, from whom he heard the story. It’s “earwitness” testimony of a second person, in relation to the person who experienced it.

Now ask yourselves: why is it that Dr. Madison didn’t seem to be able to imagine or comprehend such a scenario?

Of course, people have dreams, so that’s not the issue. However, for Matthew the historian to report the content of the dreams—what God said to Joseph, for example—he would have needed access to some kind of contemporary documentation: that’s how history is written. If Joseph had kept a diary in which he wrote down what God told him, well, that’s the kind of documentation Matthew could have used. It doesn’t mean that a god really did speak to Joseph, but it would be documentation of what Joseph thought his god told him.

I just explained in #2 above a perfectly plausible, sensible, rational scenario where this very thing could have happened.

Since there is no evidence whatever that there was a diary and since we know that Matthew fails as a careful historian, then it’s no surprise that we find his use of the omniscient perspective in creating this fantasy literature.

Rather, it’s no surprise that Dr. Madison has so “dumbed himself down” in his rejection of the gospel and Christianity, that he can’t even imagine a simple procedure: “Joseph told Mary about x; Mary told Matthew about x, or told someone else who told Matthew.” Such skepticism causes folks to become less rational and logical.

***

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: St. Matthew and the Angel (bet. 1635-1640), by Guido Reni (1575-1642) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
September 9, 2019

September 9, 2019 By

I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist John W. Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” He also claimed that Dr. Madison was “planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques. It’s what he’s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I’m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 5 is entitled, “Does Morality Come from God?” (pp. 103-126).

Christians claim their moral foundation is superior to others in that their faith provides the only sufficient standard for morality. Other moral systems either do not, or cannot provide one. (p. 103)

This is simply untrue. To the contrary, we believe in natural law and conscience, and believe that it is innate in all human beings, and put there by God. St. Paul appears to teach this in Romans 2, and we have no less of an apologist than C. S. Lewis stating:

I send you back to your nurse and your father, to all the poets and sages and law givers, because, in a sense, I hold that you are already there whether you recognize it or not: that there is really no ethical alternative: that those who urge us to adopt new moralities are only offering us the mutilated or expurgated text of a book which we already possess in the original manuscript. (Christian Reflections, chapter four, “On Ethics” [1943?])

(1) The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum.

(2) Every attempt to do so consists in arbitrarily selecting one maxim of traditional morality, isolating it from the rest, and erecting in into an unum necessarium. (Christian Reflections, chapter six, “The Poison of Subjectivism” [1943])

I noted in installment #4 of this series how Lewis compiled a list of common ethical precepts in different moral / religious systems:

All religions and indeed ethical systems (whether religious or not) have great commonalities. This was a central thesis of C. S. Lewis’s book The Abolition of Man. Anyone can word-search the free online version for “Appendix Illustrations of the Tao” to find many examples of commonalities in ethics. For example, Lewis found the Golden Rule in the Analects of Confucius: “Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.”

It’s been argued that Confucianism is not even (technically) a religion, and that it is either a form of atheism, or that — for all practical purposes — an atheist could at least consistently practice it. The Wikipedia article “Confucianism” explains:

Tiān (天), a key concept in Chinese thought, refers to the God of Heaven, the northern culmen of the skies and its spinning stars, earthly nature and its laws which come from Heaven, to “Heaven and Earth” (that is, “all things”), and to the awe-inspiring forces beyond human control. . . . 

The scholar Ronnie Littlejohn warns that Tian was not to be interpreted as personal God comparable to that of the Abrahamic faiths, in the sense of an otherworldly or transcendent creator. Rather it is similar to what Taoists meant by Dao: “the way things are” or “the regularities of the world”, which Stephan Feuchtwang equates with the ancient Greek concept of physis, “nature” as the generation and regenerations of things and of the moral order.

Lewis is very widely considered the greatest Christian apologist in the second third of the 20th century. G. K. Chesterton (most would agree) filled that role in the first third. And he concurs with Lewis:

It seems to me that the mass of men do agree on the mass of morality, but differ disastrously about the proportions of it.  The difference between men is not in what merits they confess, but what merits they emphasise. Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. (Illustrated London News, “The Proper Emphasis in Morality,” 10-23-09)

Christianity satisfied the previous cravings of mankind. (Illustrated London News, “The Neglect of Christmas,” 1-13-06)

Nobody ever disputed that humanity was human before it was Christian; . . . One of the chief claims of Christian civilisation is to have preserved things of pagan origin. (The Superstition of Divorce, 1920, chapter six)

Now, if the great Chesterton and Lewis and even (I contend) St. Paul all agree with this natural law which is universal and innate in all human beings, and enshrined in the conscience, I think we can safely say that Loftus has grossly misunderstood, if not misrepresented, this aspect of Christian belief as regards morality.

Loftus’ caricature above might apply to the fundamentalist Christianity that he (and so many other atheists) came out of, but not to the vast mainstream of thinking man’s Christianity. He would do well to better comprehend the latter, or else he should change this book’s subtitle to “. . . Rejects Fundamentalism” rather than “. . . Rejects Christianity.”

I agree (over against divine command theory) with Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland, cited in the book (p. 105): “Morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of God, not independently of God.”

In a quick potshot against the Bible’s moral injunctions, Loftus notes, “the man would be the domineering patriarchal head of the house in which a wife is to ‘obey’ her husband just like Sarah obeyed Abraham (1 Pet. 3:6).” Of course, Loftus conveniently omits the next verse: “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered” (RSV). Dr. Scott Hahn in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, comments: 

Genesis gives no indication that Abraham, for his part, lacked respect for Sarah or considered her a mere slave under his authority. . . . the weaker sex: The statement is made in reference to a woman’s physical constitution, not her moral character or intellectual ability. Because a man’s natural strength exceeds that of a woman, the husband is called to honor his bride, lest he misuse his physical advantage to intimidate or abuse her.

And as to “submission” we should also briefly consider the “classic” passage: Ephesians 5:21-29. Paul makes a general statement to all Christians:  “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). Then after saying “Wives, be subject to your husbands” (5:22): the passage so despised by radical feminists and atheists alike, we see what he commanded the husbands to do: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” (5:25).

This is a far more difficult command. The husband has to love the wife like Christ loved, which is the royal commandment: “love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). And how does Jesus love His disciples? He washed their feet (Jn 13:5). Then He explained to them:

John 13:13-17 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. [14] If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. [15] For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. [16] Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. [17] If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 

This is the furthest imaginable thing from a husband “lording it over his wife” or abusing her as an inferior. Jesus elaborated on this same theme:

Matthew 20:25-26  . . . “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. [26] It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,” 

This is true Christianity: not the caricatures of the skeptic and the atheist polemicist. Loftus took his shot by citing one passage out of its overall context of biblical teaching on marriage (which I provided in a nutshell form). He knew he could get “mileage” out of it. All he sees is legalistic bondage and oppression. The true teaching, on the other hand, is a beautiful partnership (not an ugly thing), with the husband (of the two partners) having the greater responsibility to serve his wife.

Now, do Christians husbands habitually fall short? Of course; this is the human condition (it’s why we continually need grace, the Holy Spirit, the sacraments, and a Savior). But Loftus attacked the biblical teaching on marriage, and I have shown how it was unwarranted. 

Loftus soon moves onto a long laundry list of alleged characteristics of God (especially as revealed in the Old Testament), claiming that Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is a “moral monster” (section title on p. 108). It’s a full-fledged attack upon God Himself: arguing that He is evil and wicked (like Satan).

Since this sort of thing is often the “passionate heart” of much anti-theist atheist polemics (what they feel is one of their “silver bullets”), and because the portrayals are so unjust and outright twisting of biblical teachings, I would like to spend considerable time on it. Fortunately, I have already dealt in depth with many of these “anti-God” claims in other papers, and so can simply link to them, where applicable.

[T]he biblical God, Yahweh, is a hateful, racist, and sexist God . . . (p. 108)

He customarily punishes people, even babies, for the sins of others beginning in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:16-18) . . . (p. 108)

This gets into original sin, which is a long discussion, but suffice it to say that Christianity believes that the fall of man was a corporate one:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 

We all rebelled through Adam’s disobedience (Adam represented mankind), and we all can be saved (sufficient grace is available) through Christ our savior. So in that sense it is not judging one person for the sin of someone else. When it comes to the actual sin that each person commits, Scripture makes it clear that we’re all accountable for our own sin and no one else’s:

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (cf. 2 Ki 14:6; 2 Chr 25:4)

Jeremiah 31:30 But every one shall die for his own sin . . .

Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Yet you say, `Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. [20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 

[H]e punishes . . . the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren of the parents who worship other gods (Exodus 20:3-5) . . . (p. 108)

I have dealt with this very passage in depth.

He even makes the parents of Jerusalem cannibalize their own children . . . (Jeremiah 19:9) (p. 108)

Jeremiah 19:9 And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and every one shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.

Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger explains this in his 1104-page tome, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898). It’s also available for free, online. He explains the linguistic factors that explain this odd verse (pp. 823-824):

4. Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do. Thus: . . . 

Ex. iv. 21. — ” I will harden his heart (i.e., I will permit or suffer his heart to be hardened), that he shall not let the people go.” So in all the passages which speak of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. . . . 

[I have written about this at some length, showing how all the passages taken together indication God’s permission, not causation]

[ . . . ]

So the A.V. Jer. iv. 10. — ” Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people ” : i.e., thou hast suffered this People to be greatly deceived, by the false prophets, saying : Ye shall have peace, etc.

Ezek. xiv. 9. — ” If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet “: i.e., I have permitted him to deceive himself.

[the previous chapter 13 describes the “foolish prophets” (13:3) who “prophesy out of their own minds” (13:2), who have “spoken falsehood and divined a lie; they say, ‘Says the LORD,’ when the LORD has not sent them” (13:6). God is “against” (13:8-9) “the prophets who see delusive visions and who give lying divinations” (13:9). Clearly God utterly opposes them, and 14:9 is non-literal metaphor for God allowing them to prophesy falsely]

Ezek. XX. 25. — ” Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good ” : i.e., I permitted them to follow the wicked statutes of the surrounding nations, mentioned and forbidden in Lev. xviii. 3.

Jeremiah 19:9 utilizes the same figure of speech. In similar cross-references (Dt 28:53-57; Lev 26:29; 2 Ki 6:26-29; Ezek 5:10; Lam 4:10), it’s clear that God is not in favor of cannibalism, but rather, is describing free will sinful actions of the Israelites. Jeremiah 19:9 has the same meaning, but contains the figure of speech, so it can be misinterpreted, as Loftus and other atheists have done for their purposes: not understanding this aspect of Hebrew literary genre.

Many other passages that Loftus cites in order to indict God have to do with judgment, including the death penalty in many cases regarding Jewish Law: which God as the prerogative to do. This is perfectly plausible and understandable, by the analogy of human laws and judges who enforce those laws. I’ve written about this many times:

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

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

Did Moses (and God) Sin In Judging the Midianites (Numbers 31)? [5-21-08]

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

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

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

Did God Immorally “Murder” King David’s Innocent Child? (God’s Providence and Permissive Will, and Hebrew Non-Literal Anthropomorphism) [5-6-19]

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

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

Loftus argues that hell is unjust and indefensible (pp. 108-109). I’ve written about that many times, too:

Dialogue w Agnostic on Basic Differences and Hell [5-17-05]

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

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]

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]

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

Loftus (p. 109) goes after references to slavery in the Bible. I’ve dealt with that, also:

*
*
Loftus claims that God favors rape (p. 109). No, He does not, as I have explained: Seidensticker Folly #6: God Has “No Problem with Rape”?  On the same page, he attacks the divorce of foreign wives (Ezra 10:1-19, 44; cf. 9:1-2, 14-15). But God had forbidden this practice, due to the influence of false religions which the foreign wives adhered to (e.g., Dt 17:17, Neh 13:23-28). That‘s why they were sent away.
*
Loftus falsely claims that God commands child sacrifice (p. 110). This is sheer nonsense, which I have refuted. He cites Exodus 22:29-30 and Ezekiel 20:25-26 as supposed proofs of this. The argumentation here is among the most shoddy and embarrassing of Loftus’ long list of alleged errors and eisegesis of Holy Scripture. Amy K. Hall at the Stand to Reason blog demolishes this very argument (citing Loftus’ use of it), and shows that all that was meant was a dedication or consecration of the firstborn child to God.
*
The Ezekiel passage uses the same figure of speech seen above, in the discussion of Jeremiah 9:9, and in fact, the scholar and expert on biblical figures of speech, E. W. Bullinger, included this very passage, in what I cited from him (see above). See a long list of biblical condemnations of child sacrifice (and abortion, which is a species of that).
*
Loftus (p. 111) goes after the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac. I’ve written about it. Nor can God be blamed for Jephthah’s daughter (same page).  Loftus argues (p. 111) that the prophet Micah is advocating child sacrifice (Micah 6:6-8) . He’s not at all. Pulpit Commentary explains:
Micah exactly represents the people’s feeling; they would do anything but what God required; they would make the costliest sacrifice, even, in their exaggerated devotion, holding themselves ready to make a forbidden offering; but they would not attend to the moral requirements of the Law. It is probably by a mere hyperbole that the question in the text is asked. The practice of human sacrifice was founded on the notion that man ought to offer to God his dearest and costliest, and that the acceptability of an offering was proportioned to its preciousness. The Hebrews had learned the custom from their neighbours, e.g. the Phoenicians and Moabites (comp. 2 Kings 3:27), and had for centuries offered their children to Moloch, in defiance of the stern prohibitions of Moses and their prophets (Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 16:3; Isaiah 57:5). They might have learned, from many facts and inferences, that man’s self-surrender was not to be realized by this ritual; the sanctity of human life (Genesis 9:6), the substitution of the ram for Isaac (Genesis 22:13), the redemption of the firstborn (Exodus 13:13), all made for this truth. But the heathen idea retained its hold among them, so that the inquiry above is in strict keeping with the circumstances.

We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son, which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath” (ketzef) . . . indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab (2 Kings 3:26-27). (p. 111)

I dealt with this very passage when fellow Bible-bashing atheist Bob Seidensticker tried to eisegete it:

There is nothing whatsoever in the text about some supposed defeat of God (Yahweh) by a false Moabite god. . . . Nor is it proof that God turned against Israel / Judah simply because the word “wrath” (RSV) is present (KJV: “indignation”). Bob assumes that too. The Hebrew is qetseph, which is usually used of God’s wrath, but not always, and not necessarily. For example, Esther 1:18 (RSV): “This very day the ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s behavior will be telling it to all the king’s princes, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty” (cf. Ecclesiastes 5:17). It can also be plausibly interpreted as the wrath of the king of Moab against Israel. The Bible refers (RSV) to “a king’s wrath” twice (Proverbs 16:14; 19:12).

The translation of 2 Kings 3:27 that Bob uses is the NET Bible: a relatively obscure translation. It’s very unusual (perhaps even singular) in that it inserts “divine” into the passage, making it definitively a case of God’s wrath against Israel. But I can’t find any other translation that does this. No one need merely take my word on this. They can consult the online pages with multiple translations of the passage (one / two) just as I did.

God’s prohibition of child sacrifice as an outrageous abomination is very clear. I found 18 passages concerning this in my paper, The Bible’s Teaching on Abortion. Jesus compared the ancient sacrifice of children to hell itself (particularly, child sacrifice to Ba’al or Molech).

Seidensticker ignored this counter-argument, as he has 34 more of my papers that respond to his arguments. Loftus gets in a dig against Jesus, implying that He was a bigot, and he employs an old atheist chestnut (these things are simply recycled over and over) that distorts a Bible passage, as usual:

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

Mark 7:25-30 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet. [26] Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoeni’cian by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. [27] And he said to her, “Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” [28] But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” [29] And he said to her, “For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” [30] And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon gone.

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

To our 21st-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). . . . 

[see my related paper, David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #7: Ch. 7 (Gentiles) ]

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.”

***

Photo credit: John Loftus at SASHAcon 2016 at the University of Missouri; Mark Schierbecker (3-19-16) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

September 5, 2019

September 5, 2019 By

I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist John W. Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” He also claimed that Dr. Madison was “planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks and probably months.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques. It’s what he’s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I’m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 2 is entitled, “Faith, Reason, and My Approach to Christianity” (pp. 39-63).

It’s well beyond my purview and purpose in these critiques to tackle all of the various brands of philosophy of religion and strains and varieties of Christian apologetics. Reasonable Christians (and atheists) can differ in good faith about their relative strengths and weaknesses.

So I’ll confine myself to what I think are outright misunderstandings of misrepresentations of  Christian views: particularly as expressed in inspired Scripture. I agree with Loftus when he writes (p. 44): “I understand these are complex issues, which unfortunately, I can’t devote the needed space to . . .” He knows that this is a “large and lumpy” area of thinking; so do I.

I maintain a very extensive Philosophy, Science & Christianity web page, if readers want to see how I argue various positions, and how I come down on all the internal differences about how to defend Christianity and larger theism. I summed up on Facebook — in a very “nutshell” way — my overall philosophy of religion:

My Opinion on “Proofs for God’s Existence” Summarized in Two Sentences

My view remains what it has been for many years: nothing strictly / absolutely “proves” God’s existence. But . . .

I think His existence is exponentially more probable and plausible than atheism, based on the cumulative effect of a multitude of good and different types of (rational) theistic arguments, and the utter implausibility, incoherence, irrationality, and unacceptable level of blind faith of alternatives.

In my first installment, I noted how Loftus stated that “I present a cumulative case argument against Christianity. . . . I consider this book to be one single argument against Christianity, and as such it should be evaluated as a whole.” (p. 15; his italics)

I replied:

That’s exactly how I view my body of apologetics (50 books and over 2500 blog articles) in favor of Christianity and (in particular) the collection of diverse argumentation I have set forth in critique of atheism.

Just as Loftus considers his overall case against Christianity long and multi-faceted and complex (laid out in “one single argument” in a densely argued 536-page book); likewise, I consider my case for Christianity and against atheism to be very multi-faceted and complex and only able to be fully understood with very extensive reading of my 2500+ articles and 50 books (not all, of course, but quite a few!).

What our views have in common is that we both regard them as “a cumulative case.” There is no one single argument on either side (I think he’d agree, as I’m pretty sure would most atheists and apologists and philosophers of religion) that is a “knockout punch”. Loftus agrees, on page 54:

When it comes to Christian apologetics, the best approach seems to be the cumulative case method of the late Paul D. Feinberg . . . This best explains why there is no single apologetical approach that will cause people to convert, and it bets explains why there is no silver bullet argument that will convince believing Christians to abandon their faith.

***

Scientific evidence, the evidence of the senses, and reasoning based on this evidence is what counts. (p. 44)

[W]hen I came to see things differently, sufficient evidence derived from science-based reasoning became the only game in town, so to speak, . . . the scientific method is the best (and probably the only) reliable guide we have for gaining the truth . . . (p. 57)

Here is where Loftus runs into what I consider to be insuperable problems, and self-refuting tenets. What he just described is empiricism, which is the philosophical outlook that senses and observations of physical things allow us to discover facts and truth. It’s fine as far as it goes (it’s the fundamental basis of science), but it just doesn’t go far enough or explain everything. There are many different ways of knowing (even mathematics and logic: both basic building-blocks of science, are axiomatic and non-empirical). We readily observe that this very sentence from Loftus is self-defeating:

1) He makes an epistemological statement about “what counts” [strongly implied, all that counts] in determining truth.

2) This very statement is not empirical. It is strictly philosophical, or metaphysical: about the relative value or worth of empiricism.

3) But if empirical observations are all that we can trust, and all that “count”, then his sentence has to be discounted, since it is not an empirical observation.

4) Ergo, it is self-defeating and self-refuting.

I’ve dealt with this false, misguided, tunnel vision “science only” or “scientism” mentality (very common in atheism) many times and from many different angles:

Atheist Myths: “Christianity vs. Science & Reason” (vs. “drunkentune”) [1-3-07]

Reply to Atheist Scientist Jerry Coyne: Are Science and Religion Utterly Incompatible? [7-13-10]

Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science [8-1-10]

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

Simultaneously Dumb & Smart Christians, Atheists, & Scientists [10-9-15]

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

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

Science: “only discipline that tells us new things about reality” [???]: Scientism or Near-Scientism as a Very Common Shortcoming of Atheist Epistemology [8-9-18]

Rebuttal of Seidensticker’s Anti-Christian Science “History” [8-11-18]

*
I have never thought that Pascal’s wager was a particularly strong argument: if an argument at all. But it is a clever thought experiment and something to definitely seriously consider. Again, this is beyond the purview of my purposes, so I’ll pass. Though I love Pascal (and Alvin Plantinga, Kierkegaard, William Lane Craig, the Late Norman Geisler, gary Habermas, and others he mentions in this chapter), I’m not here to defend every school and argument of the entire history of apologetics. I’m already devoting what will be many hundreds of hours to this long project. My purpose is to critique errors I see in Loftus’ own views, per my titles: “Loftus Atheist Error # . . .” 
*
On pages 50-51, Loftus develops an interesting (though thoroughly fallacious and weak) “New and Better Kind of Wager.” He reasons that it would be a better state of affairs if God asked us “if we want to be born, knowing the risks involved”: including the calculus and consideration of a possibility of ending up in an eternal hell. “Why wouldn’t God give us a choice in the matter? It seems unethical for him not to do so . . . If I were given the choice, I would simply say, ‘No, count me out! Put me out of existence now.’ “
*
This stimulates several responses in my mind (which is a major reason why I absolutely love dialogue and back-and-forth discussion: because it can do that):
*
1) I think it’s foolish to imagine and posit that he himself and many or most people would choose to be annihilated rather than to live a life on the earth. There is no good reason to believe this, that I can see. It’s essentially the view that we would all commit suicide, given the choice in the beginning: except that it would be an assisted suicide, with God’s help. I see no indication — by analogy of how relatively few people commit suicide in this world — that many folks would make this choice.
*
And if Loftus would have done so, then, by his own reasoning (and a reductio ad absurdum) he would have to argue that people (including he himself) should kill themselves today (if they thought there was a God and a hell, or even that both might exist), since the potentialities and hypotheticals remain the same. Atheist or no, the great bulk of people in the world are simply not that hopeless and nihilistic.  Of course, Loftus doesn’t believe in God, and all of this is a mere hypothetical and mind game. But he is attempting to make a reasoned argument against the biblical God, and this doesn’t succeed in that purpose at all.
*
2) I note in passing (consider this a “footnote”) that it is highly ironic that a person who believes in legal abortion is making an argument that all of us: at the beginning of our existence, should be asked whether we want to live or not. To be consistent, the one who is pro-abortion and who has an abortion, would contradict this: all the more so in the atheist’s case, since they eliminate the only life that baby will ever have (there being no afterlife). If Loftus thinks “it seems unethical for him [God] not to do so” I don’t see how he can possibly favor legal abortion, since it is radically anti-choice for the baby about to be killed (and in atheist metaphysics and ontology, annihilated and made nonexistent forever).
*
3) I submit that it is absurd for God to ask a question of a human baby (which would presuppose that God temporarily gave them a mind that could reason enough to even have such a momentous discussion) about these things, when there are so many unknown factors. Obviously, in Christian belief, God is omniscient, and He deems it a good thing for human beings to “be fruitful and multiply.” For God, and for us Christians and pro-lifers, who consider life infinitely valuable and priceless, the very scenario is meaningless. Of course, life and creation as a whole is good and wonderful, and it is better to exist than not to. This is virtually self-evident for all who haven’t committed suicide, and the extremely strong instinct to preserve our own lives is evidence of it as well.
*
4) In making his argument, Loftus smuggles in many notions that are false premises, to start with: thus making his conclusion erroneous or at the very least, dubious and indefensible.
*
a) He says “we might not be raised in the right Christian family and might therefore be sent to hell because of it.” This is silly, simplistic argumentation. Granted, we all can have good or bad influences in many ways, that was beyond our choice.  But in the end, the biblical view is that each individual is given enough grace and power to be saved, if they make that choice, and that each will be individually responsible:
Ezekiel 33:17-20 (RSV) “Yet your people say, `The way of the Lord is not just’; when it is their own way that is not just. [18] When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it. [19] And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it. [20] Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.”
*
Romans 14:10-12 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;  [11] for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” [12] So each of us shall give account of himself to God. 
We’re not sent to hell, so much as we choose to go there, by rejecting God’s free offer of grace for salvation and eternal life in heavenly bliss:
Joshua 24:15 And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” 
b) [T]he odds, according to most evangelicals anyway, are that most of the people who are born in this world will end up in hell.
*
First of all, Christian theology is not determined by a head count of evangelicals, but by Scripture and unbroken apostolic tradition, passed down. Appealing to what evangelicals think is silly on two levels: 1) it’s the genetic fallacy, and 2) evangelicals are only a portion of Protestants, who are a small minority of all Christians, now and through history (they didn’t even exist until the 16th century).
*
Secondly, the mainstream Christian position is that we simply don’t know how many end up in heaven and hell, proportionately. Jesus said:
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. [14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
*
Luke 18:8 “. . . when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
On the other hand, in a recent argument that I came up with myself, I examined two of Jesus’ parables, which were about salvation and damnation, to see if they provided any clues about this, in a reply to atheist David Madison:
In the next chapter we have the great scene of the separation of the sheep and goats at the last judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). . . .  No indication in this text is given of relative numbers of the saved and the damned. In two of His parables nearby, however, He does give indication. . . . 
*
In the parable of the ten maidens with lamps (Matthew 25:1-13), five were foolish and were damned (“the door was shut . . . I do not know you”: 25:10, 12) and five were wise and received eternal life (“went in with him to the marriage feast”: 25:10). . . . It’s a 50-50 proposition.
*
The parable of the talents follows (25:14-30). Here, there are three servants, who are given five talents, two talents, and one talent [a form of money], respectively. The ones who are saved are the first two (“enter into the joy of your master”: 25:21, 23), while the servant with one talent, who did nothing with it, was damned (“cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness”: 25:30). So this parable suggests a 67% rate of final salvation and a 33% rate of damnation. 
Moreover, St. Paul expressly taught that even those who have not heard the gospel or Christian message could be saved, based on what they know (thus leaving open a wide potential for salvation indeed):
Romans 2:13-16  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.  

Bottom line: we just don’t know for sure, but we know that there is grace for all and that there is significant indication that a huge proportionate number will attain heaven. In the end, each of us has to live our life and be judged as to how well we have done, by others, and by God.

c) “God should already know what the odds are and not choose that risk for us.”

This is what free will entails. God gives us all a choice: to follow Him and His moral laws or reject Him and go our own way. He can’t reasonably be blamed if we deliberately reject Him, in our free will. He thought that was better than a bunch of robots who could do not other than what He programmed them to do at every instant. I totally agree! I want free will to choose as I wish; not to have no choice and be totally controlled.

d) “And yet here I am, without any choice in the matter apparently condemned to hell.”

He is not “condemned to hell” at all. He has a free will and choice to repent and become a Christian again, and get on the road to salvation. What he says may be the Calvinist view, but of course they are a minority of a minority (with very few remaining adherents today), and not the be-all of Christianity. They believe in predestination to hell; virtually all other Christians today and throughout history do not. But even John Calvin stated that no one could know for sure who was among the elect. So Calvinists and fundamentalists can’t say John he is definitely hellbound, nor can I, nor can anyone else or he himself. If he repents, he can be reasonably assured that he is heaven-bound, provided he stays the course.

None of us could decide to be born into this earthly life (many now are prevented by abortion and infanticide from even having this life, whether they would have wanted to or not). Sorry, John: your parents thought your existence was a good thing. But we have a full choice as to where we decide to spend eternity., which is far, far more important if indeed we do have an eternal existence, since if that is the case, this life represents only an infinitesimally small portion of our entire existence (like one atom compared to the entire universe):

Psalms 39:4-5 “LORD, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting my life is! [5] Behold, thou hast made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing in thy sight. Surely every man stands as a mere breath! . . .” (cf. 39:11)

Psalms 144:4 Man is like a breath, his days are like a passing shadow. (cf. 78:39)

James 4:14 . . . What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.

***

Loftus argues (pp. 59-60) that the Israelite worldview prior to the exile to Babylon (after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC) was polytheistic (just as neighboring cultures’ religious view was). Well, duh! This is why God judged them (through Nebuchadnezzar) in the first place: precisely because they had forsaken Him, and monotheism, and adopted polytheism and idolatry: directly and deliberately against what He had urged and commanded them to do, for their own good.

This was the prophet Jeremiah’s message of warning prior to the Babylonian exile:

Jeremiah 1:15-16 For, lo, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, says the LORD; and they shall come and every one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls round about, and against all the cities of Judah. [16] And I will utter my judgments against them, for all their wickedness in forsaking me; they have burned incense to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands. 

Jeremiah 7:9-15 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!’ — only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. [12] Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. [13] And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, [14] therefore I will do to the house which is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. [15] And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of E’phraim. 

Jeremiah 11:9-13 Again the LORD said to me, “There is revolt among the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. [10] They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words; they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. [11] Therefore, thus says the LORD, Behold, I am bringing evil upon them which they cannot escape; though they cry to me, I will not listen to them. [12] Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they cannot save them in the time of their trouble. [13] For your gods have become as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to shame, altars to burn incense to Ba’al. (cf. 13:10; 16:11-13; 19:1-9; 22:8-9; 35:15; 44:2-6, 15-17)

God allowed the temple to be destroyed because He had had enough of the disobedience and idolatrous compromises and hypocrisy and empty worship of too many of the Jews who worshiped there. They had to learn the hard way (so often sadly true of human beings and whole cultures), and so off they went in slavery to Babylon.

But alas, here comes Loftus “informing”us that the 6th century BC Israelites were polytheistic, as were their neighbors, as if this is some startling new insight unknown to Christians (or Jews)? It’s almost comical. It doesn’t follow at all that the actual teachings preserved in the Old Testament and the very rich Jewish oral tradition were not known and taught back then (which is, no doubt, what Loftus is driving at or insinuating). They were, but they were rejected and not followed.

This, in fact, is the central theme of the entire Old Testament: the continual straying of the Jews, followed by judgment and renewal, and then cycling toward to rebellion again. It was still happening in the New Testament when most of the Jews rejected Jesus, Who was indeed their expected Messiah.

So how is it that this supposedly casts doubt on the Bible: when it is teaching exactly the same thing? I hope that Loftus will explain this if he ever interacts with these series of critiques of his book. I’ve dealt with this nonsense that the earliest “formal” Jewish belief (not what was always practiced) in the times of Abraham, Moses, and even into David’s time (1000 BC) was in fact, polytheistic, in two replies to atheist Bob Seidensticker:

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? (God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, & Omnipresence in Early Bible Books & Ancient Jewish Understanding) [9-18-18]
*
In every case when it comes to my reasons for adopting my skeptical presumption, the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must continually retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or that it’s “not impossible.” (p. 62)
*
[W]e want to know what is probable, not what is possible . . . Probability is what matters. (p. 63)
*
As I’ve already stated above, this is not my view at all. I’ll repeat my view again:
I think His existence is exponentially more probable and plausible than atheism, based on the cumulative effect of a multitude of good and different types of (rational) theistic arguments, and the utter implausibility, incoherence, irrationality, and unacceptable level of blind faith of alternatives.

One sees nothing of “possible” or “not impossible” here.  I’m arguing from accumulation of various arguments and probability (exactly as Loftus advocates) and also plausibility.

***

Photo credit: John Loftus at SASHAcon 2016 at the University of Missouri; Mark Schierbecker (3-19-16) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

 

August 29, 2019

August 29, 2019 By

Meaning of “Flesh” / Original Sin & Man’s Rebellion / Paul’s Triumphant Solution / Paul & Greek Culture

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on the epistle to the Romans (written by St. Paul) 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, “Bad Bible Theology: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Let me count the ways…that Paul got it wrong” (2-26-18). He devotes a paper to each chapter. Unless he repeats himself (a bad habit of his) or descends to sheer biblical skepticism (which I have less than no interest in), I will reply to all. 

The introduction is basically a catalogue of rank insults, where he calls St. Paul “a crank” and a “delusional cult fanatic” and “the prototype for Christian crazies” and “an obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian” and “an embarrassment.” He adds: “how can anyone take this guy seriously?” That about covers the “content” there. Bears poop in the woods, brats throw fits, squirrels walk telephone lines, and the prevalent anti-theist brand of atheists insult Christians. Ho hum. What else is new?

Thus far, I have counter-replied to 32 of Dr. Madison’s critiques, without hearing one peep back from him as of yet (28 days’ total time, starting on 8-1-19). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. I know he’s still alive and kicking, because I’ve seen him write other posts during this same period (example one / two / three).

Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

Dr. Madison calls his critique of Romans chapter 8, “The Force Field that Protects REAL Christians: Forget the Merit Badge. Go for the Spirit Shield” (7-7-17).

It would not be hard to come up with a list of the Top Ten Worst books or chapters of the Bible, and I suggest that one of the chapters that would get mixed reviews at best is Romans 8. Many Christians would give it thumbs-up because one of the apostle Paul’s famous “Hallmark moments” is found at the end of Romans 8 (vv. 37-39):

“No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

But the 30-some verses that lead up to this eloquent assurance don’t get as much traffic, and, I suspect, would get substantial push-back from most of the folks who fill the pews on Sunday morning. These people live in the real 21st century world—which wasn’t even supposed to happen, according to Paul—and would not be able to identify with his despondent outlook.

Yeah, the above passage sounds downright “despondent” doesn’t it? Like virtually all atheist apostates, Dr. Madison is determined to see only what he wants to see, and little or nothing else. We continue examining his “caricature-tour” of the epistle of Romans: truly an Alice-in-Wonderland world that is shaped according to Dr. Madison’s whim and fancies and wild imaginings.

Paul is not good news. And the Book of Romans is chock full of bad theology.

Thanks for that information. Whew! That was a close one. What would we do without David Madison advising us that the Apostle Paul is an idiot and raving lunatic? We’d all be lost at sea without a life jacket.

I’m pretty sure that most Christian sensibilities about living a good life would collide head on with Paul’s view of the world, 8:5-8:

“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Where does this hostility to the flesh come from? At the end of chapter 7 (vv.18-24), Paul demonstrates what an anguished soul he was, grievously wounded by low self-esteem:

As I alluded to last time, Paul’s use of the word flesh here and elsewhere is in a very specific, non-literal sense. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (“Flesh”) explains:

Frequently the distinction is made to emphasize the weakness or inferiority of the flesh, as opposed to the superiority of the spirit (Isaiah 31:3; Matthew 26:41; Mark 14:38; Romans 6:19). . . . ]

6. Applied to the Carnal Nature:

Flesh in the sense of carnal nature (sarkikos, “carnal”; the King James Version uses sarkinos in Romans 7:14). Human nature, being inferior to the spiritual, is to be in subjection to it. If man refuses to be under this higher law, and as a free agent permits the lower nature to gain an ascendancy over the spirit, the “flesh” becomes a revolting force (Genesis 6:3,12; John 1:13; Romans 7:14; 1 Corinthians 3:1,3; Colossians 2:18; 1 John 2:16). Thus, the fleshly or carnal mind, i.e. a mind in subjection to carnal nature, is opposed to the Divine spirit, who alone is a sufficient corrective, Christ having secured for us the power of overcoming (Romans 8:3), if we manifest a deep desire and an earnest endeavor to overcome (Galatians 5:17,18).

Dr. Madison shows that he understands this, later on in his article: “Please note, by the way, that Paul’s focus with the word “flesh” probably wasn’t even sex. By this he means the whole range of corporeal/material reality—as opposed to the spiritual.”

“…the law of sin that dwells in my members”? “…this body of death”? Poor Paul was obsessed about death—and finding a way to get out of it. According to Paul, all of creation was under a death sentence—not because the universe is expanding and will dissipate into nothingness—but because sin, a power that pervades everything, corrupts everything. As his tortured mind hammered out his dismal theology, Paul was sure that God’s optimism in Genesis 1:31 had been cancelled: “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” Maybe once upon a time, but no longer. In Romans 5:12 he explains that sin and death came into the world through Adam, and creation has been ‘groaning’ ever since.

It’s called original sin. It doesn’t follow that Paul is in despair. This very chapter provides the remedy, and it is a completely triumphant, positive, sunny outlook indeed. Dr. Madison must know this (he couldn’t possibly be so ignorant as to not know), so what he does is very clever: that is, from the cynical, sophistical viewpoint that he has adopted.

He quickly dismisses the glowing ending as a “Hallmark moment” (which he appears to think is an exception to Paul’s usual “dark / black” outlook) and then immediately goes back to Romans 7: the passages that led up to Romans 8, which gives the solution to the age-old miseries and problems of human sin described in the previous chapter. Dr. Madison wants no part of the answer and solution (having rejected God, and in bondage to sin as a result). So he regurgitates his silly and fallacious arguments about Romans 7.

If Paul has a “tortured mind” and “dismal theology” then so do all Christians, who believe in original sin or some type of fall from the original blissful Edenic state of mankind. We’re all in that same boat; thus, Dr. Madison is revealing his bigotry, not just towards Paul, but towards all of us who follow historic orthodox Christian teaching.

Yes, of course, God’s original creation was good. We’re the ones who rebelled and brought in sin. Dr. Madison cites Genesis 1:31 (which no one disagrees with). But he purposely omits other passages shortly afterwards in Genesis:

Genesis 6:5 (RSV) The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:11-12 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 

Genesis 18:32 Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” 

Genesis 19:13 “for we [God’s two angels: v. 1] are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.” 

Genesis 19:24-25 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor’rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; [25] and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 

Dr. Madison acts as if St. Paul were the first or the only person to note the sad, sordid history of man’s sin, wickedness, and rebellion. It’s ludicrous. It’s no different than it ever was. Has he never heard of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I just don’t think most Christians are in tune with such gloom. This is not the heartwarming faith they bargained for.

True, the wide extent of ignorance of theology can never be underestimated. Christians are generally as poorly educated as they ever were. But Christian theology holds to original sin. This is what Christianity teaches. It’s only “gloom” in terms of the continuing dominance of sin in actuality. But Paul (like all good Christian evangelists) provides the solution to the gloom.

It’s right in front of Dr. Madison, but he wants to ignore it; obviously because he doesn’t believe it. But whether he believes it or not, intellectual honesty would or should compel him to at least accurately interpret Paul’s message. He picks and chooses what he will deal with, which is a silly and dishonest method, unworthy of any serious thinker, whether atheist, Christian, or of any other belief-system.

They show up at church to worship and enjoy community, to affirm that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, and that believing in his resurrection is key to their salvation: “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…” But they are also interested in enjoying life as much as possible; they are fully engaged in jobs, hobbies, sports, vacations, charities—achieving as much contentment and as many happy outcomes as possible. Paul’s advice to his contemporaries was, “Put all such things aside. Focus instead on dwelling in the spirit, to be ready for the coming of Jesus, any day now.”

This is an absurd caricature of Paul’s teaching, as I demonstrated in installment #6.

Unless I’m much mistake[n], Christians rejoice in marriage and enjoyment of the flesh. They would balk at Paul’s dark thoughts: “the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God”… “those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” It would be a mistake to think that Paul is just making a slam against sex here, although he viewed sex with distaste. In I Corinthians 7 he says it is best for a man not to touch a woman, and only begrudgingly does he say it’s okay for couples to have sex: . . . So, away with sex! …if he had his way.

Paul is not against sex or marriage, as I covered in installment #1.

It’s no surprise that Paul shows no interest whatever in art, literature, theatre and amusements.

Really? Funny, then, that he is aware of Greek figures in literature and art (poetry), theatre, and philosophy, as shown in his discourse on Mars Hill with the philosophers in Athens and other passages in 1 Corinthians and his letter to Titus. In Acts 17:28, he cited Cretica, by Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC), a Greek philosopher-poet (whom he also cites in Titus 1:12) and the Greek poet Aratus of Cilicia (d. 240 BC); expanding upon their understanding as well (17:29):

Acts 17:28-29 for `In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.’ [29] Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 

Since he cited both of them by memory (quoting the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of Aratus’ astronomical poem Hymn to Zeus), this certainly indicates a knowledge of secular art and literature. Paul also cited the Greek comic dramatist Menander (d. c. 290 BC): “Bad company ruins good morals” (1 Cor 15:33), from his play, Thais. So much for having “no interest whatever in . . . amusements.”

Thus, it is no surprise that Dr. Madison shows no interest in accurately portraying what Paul was interested in, being dead wrong once again, and all because he made a rather stupid universal negative assertion that has now been refuted. Paul was from Tarsus. A Christian article provides a background on this city:

Tarsus was a prime city of the fertile plain of East Cilicia, in Southeast Asia Minor. It was an important and culturally rich city. The Roman Empire favored the city of Tarsus. It became the capital of the province of Cilicia, following Pompey’s victories (67 B.C.). Notable Roman leaders visited the city. The orator Cicero took up residence in the city (51-50 B.C.) and Julius Caesar visited it in 47 B.C. Strabo, the Greek geographer and historian who wrote in the early part of the first century, tells of the enthusiasm of its inhabitants for learning, and especially for philosophy. In this respect, he says, Tarsus surpasses Athens and Alexandria and every other university town (Geographica 14.5.13). Tarsus was also famous for noted Sophists such as Archademus and Antipar, and it was known for well-known philosophers like Plutiades and Diogenes (Geographica 14.5.14). While Paul received his education in Jerusalem, the place of his birth undoubtedly exerted influence.

His only obsession—and it’s a massive one—is to make sure that he has achieved the status of being “in Christ,” because that’s the only way he can get out of dying. Romans 8:11: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.”

Sounds to me like that is the best possible obsession that anyone could have. May it mightily consume all of us!

Now let’s take a look again at Paul’s famous Hallmark Moment at the end of Romans 8, i.e., “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, etc. etc. will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” These words of assurance are NOT addressed to the world at large; he says this to the select few in the congregation at Rome who have achieved the status of dwelling in Christ. . . . This text is so commonly read at funerals as if Paul had issued a come-one, come-all Jesus-loves-you statement to the world at large. Not at all. 

This is beyond ludicrous. Obviously, it’s written to Christians, but equally obvious is the fact that anyone who decides to become a Christian (the offer is open to all) can also partake of these blessings. Much ado about nothing . . . 

So anyone who doesn’t dwell in the spirit of Christ is out of luck: this assurance is not meant for those outside the cult. 

Here Dr. Madison contradicts himself. He already conceded (in an ultra-rare moment of actually being charitable and fair to St. Paul), that Paul didn’t teach such exclusivism. He did this in his commentary on Romans chapter 2: which I cited in my counter-reply:

Again, to his credit, Paul saw that being in God’s favor didn’t depend on being Jewish, i.e., in the company of those who had heard God’s law for centuries. “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (v. 13). No matter who you are, you can qualify, and I find vv. 14-15 startling; did Paul really realize what he was saying: “When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness…”

It follows that if one need not necessarily be Jewish to be saved, that they need not necessarily be Christian, either: if they have never been exposed to — or properly educated about — the gospel and Christianity. Once they hear and learn, they are responsible for that knowledge. But if they have not heard, then the criteria of salvation are a bit different, as Paul plainly taught in Romans 2:13-15.

[passing over repetitions, sheer tomfoolery, and rabbit trails]

I think I’ll take a pass on this huge helping of magical thinking. A few years ago, when I mentioned the Book of Romans to a church-going Christian friend, she said, “I don’t know it”—which I thought was pretty cool. Par for the course in terms of Christian ignorance of the Bible, but she was lucky to have escaped Paul’s creepy ramblings. “Delusional cult fanatic” is no exaggeration: Paul gives theism a bad name.

As  meme I put up yesterday states: “For people wanting to remove God from everything, good news! He won’t be in hell, either.”

***

Photo credit: St Paul before the Proconsul (1515), by Raphael (1483-1520) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

August 28, 2019

August 28, 2019 By

Conversion & Apostolic Credentials / Pre-Pauline Evangelism / “Rogue Apostle”? / Falsely Alleged Fears / Universal Atonement / Foolishness of the Cross / Unspiritual Persons

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on the epistle to the Romans (written by St. Paul) 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, “Bad Bible Theology: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Let me count the ways…that Paul got it wrong” (2-26-18). He devotes a paper to each chapter. Unless he repeats himself (a bad habit of his) or descends to sheer biblical skepticism (which I have less than no interest in), I will reply to all. 

The introduction is basically a catalogue of rank insults, where he calls St. Paul “a crank” and a “delusional cult fanatic” and “the prototype for Christian crazies” and “an obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian” and “an embarrassment.” He adds: “how can anyone take this guy seriously?” That about covers the “content” there. Bears poop in the woods, brats throw fits, squirrels walk telephone lines, and the prevalent anti-theist brand of atheists insult Christians. Ho hum. What else is new?

Thus far, I have counter-replied to / answered 28 of Dr. Madison’s critiques, from three different series, without hearing one peep back from him as of yet (25 days’ total time). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. I know he’s still alive and kicking, because I’ve seen him write other posts during this same period.

Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

Dr. Madison calls his critique of Romans chapter 5, “Theology Written Under the Influence of OCD: When you don’t bother to have your work checked…” (3-24-17).

When you don’t bother to have your work checked…

If you’re looking for Bible texts that are red-flag worthy (a good project, I might suggest, for Christian[s] who are wondering, Why am I taking this stuff seriously?) here’s one to put on your list: Galatians 1:11-12, in which the apostle Paul positions himself for maximum credibility: 

“For I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

So picture this. Paul experienced his dramatic Damascus Road conversion to Christ—he never gives the exact details in his letters—those we find in three fictionalized versions in the Book of Acts.

Why would he have to, if the book of Acts contains two firsthand accounts from him (22:5-16; 26:12-21)? Of course it is completely arbitrary and speculative to say they are “fictionalized versions”. This is more of the atheist silliness when it comes to any Bible text that they either dispute or don’t care for. But no one else is obligated to accept the “Gospel Truth” that some portion is merely a made-up story. I’ve been reading Paul and the rest of the Bible for 42 years now, and am very familiar with his style and personality. These two accounts in Acts sure sound like him to me.

Wouldn’t you think that, after bouncing back from the trauma of hearing Jesus from the sky (which included being struck blind), he would have rushed back to Galilee or Jerusalem to find the disciples? Surely there were apologies to be made for his persecution campaigns, and surely he would be desperate to learn as much as he could about Jesus, whom he had never met.

Yes, it seems like he would, but people don’t always do what we might expect them to do. We have no good reason to doubt the story as told.

But no, Paul bragged to the Galatian Christians about not getting his information from disciples and eyewitnesses. All he knows came from “revelations.”

How is this necessarily to be regarded as “bragging”? If revelations do indeed exist, it’s perfectly plausible. But of course, Dr. Madison denies that revelations exist, because he thinks there is no God to give them. So obviously for him it is all nonsense and fairy tales. He can believe whatever he likes, but the mere fact that he disbelieves something is no proof that it is nonexistent.

What? Let that sink in. Why aren’t Christians massively suspicious about this? Why would you pay any attention whatever to a man who hallucinated his way into this new Jewish cult?

Obviously because we believe in revelations and in the power of Jesus to transform lives. I’ve experienced it myself. A vision is not a hallucination. The first is a real thing; the second is not.

Paul is celebrated as the first great missionary hero, but somehow the faith had already spread to Damascus (Paul was headed there to try to put a stop to it). 

This is yet another non-issue.  “First great missionary hero” (which Paul was) is logically distinct from “first Christian missionary / missionaries”. Paul’s conversion “is normally dated to AD 33–36” (Wikipedia, “Conversion of Paul the Apostle”), whereas the death of Jesus occurred in about 30 AD. That allowed 3-6 years of missionary activity before Paul became a Christian or evangelist.

There was already outreach to Gentiles during Jesus’ ministry (as I detailed in another reply to Dr. Madison). Jesus gave His disciples the great commission, to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19), and we also had the seventy disciples (Lk 10:1-20) doing outreach: which plausibly and likely could and would have included Gentiles by this time.

Some early Christian figures, like Hippolytus (c. 170-235) believed that Ananias was one of the seventy. But whether he was or not, there was plenty of time for him to be in Damascus as a Christian, and for him and other Christians to be proclaiming the gospel there. It was only 136 miles from Jerusalem, as the crow flies. Antioch and Cyprus were further away (300 and 254 miles). But we know that missionaries arrived in both places after the scattering (Acts 8:1b, 4) as a result of the persecution of Stephen (which Paul witnessed and approved of: Acts 8:1a):

Acts 11:19-20 (RSV) Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni’cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews. [20] But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyre’ne, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.

Therefore, if they made it that far before Paul even converted, certainly some would have preached (and/or resided) in Damascus: less than half the distance from Jerusalem, compared to Antioch, and 118 miles closer than Cyprus: both of which were being evangelized before Paul became a Christian. 

Even more remarkably, early on there was a congregation in Rome—without Paul’s help. As the faith spread, we have to wonder just what, exactly, the earliest unlettered Christians believed and taught about Jesus. Actually, we have no idea.

All it would take was one zealous missionary Christian, on a boat from Israel to Rome, to start a church there.

It would seem there was no uniform message about Jesus. Paul himself complains about this, e.g., in 2 Corinthians 11:4, “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.”

That’s right. There are always heretics and false prophets. Jesus predicted it, and Paul expresses the same opinion in his letters. But the existence of counterfeits does not disprove that the authentic apostolic Christian teaching and Divine Person of Jesus exists.

When we read Paul’s self-designation as a rogue apostle, we can suspect that Paul himself was a culprit in spreading fake news about Jesus. His ‘truth’ about Jesus came out of his own head. No one seems to have asked, “Can you verify that?” or “Can you do some fact-checking with the original disciples to make sure you’ve got it right?” Paul didn’t have anyone check his work. 

It was later verified as authentic teaching and a legitimate calling from God, in consultation with other apostles (Gal 1:18-19; 2:1-9). This is certainly people “check[ing] his work,” isn’t it? Paul also participated in the Council of Jerusalem, presided over by James and Peter (Acts 15:1-29): which “official” teaching he then proclaimed on his missionary journeys (16:4).

This can hardly be construed as “rogue”: when he participated in the most important Christian council prior to Nicea in 325, and then announced its teachings as binding. It’s just one of the innumerable “Madison myths.” I’ve addressed this issue also with a Protestant: Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a “Lone Ranger”?

Nor did anyone really care: if he claimed a revelation, that was awesome enough.

This is untrue as well, as the account in Acts records with regard to his immediate post-conversion period:

Acts 9:26-27 And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. [27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 

His tortured theology, his personal terrors and OCD, shaped his hallucinated chats with the risen Jesus—and we see this full strength in Romans 5.

Quintessential example of the logical fallacy of “poisoning the well”. Nothing whatsoever in this laundry list is established beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is not hard to read between the lines that Paul was terrified of death, and he was distraught about his own unworthiness before God.

Yes, his abject fear of death is utterly apparent in these two passages (who could possibly doubt it?):

Philippians 1:21-24 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. [22] If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. [23] I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. [24] But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. 

2 Timothy 4:6-8 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. 

As to his supposed “unworthiness before God”: that is, I submit, a projection of Luther’s continual unease onto Paul (Dr. Madison again bringing false Protestant baggage into his analyses). I cited my friend Al Kresta in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, along these lines:

Unlike the modern Evangelical-Protestant revivalistic preaching tradition, the Apostle Paul was not preoccupied with his acceptance as a sinner before a holy and righteous God. That was Luther’s crisis. Protestants have tended to read Paul through the lens of Luther’s experience.

1…. Luther said he feared God but clung to the Apostle Paul. All the constitutive elements of the classic Luther-type experience, however, are missing in both the experience and the thought of the Apostle.

Unlike Luther, Paul was not preoccupied with his guilt, seeking reassurance of a gracious God. He was rather robust of conscience, even given to boasting, untroubled about whether God was gracious or not [Phil. 3:4 ff.; 2 Cor. 10, 11]. He knew God was gracious. He never pleads either with Jews or Gentiles to feel an anguished conscience and then receive release from that anguish in a message of forgiveness. . . . Paul’s burden is not to “bring people under conviction of sin,” as in revival services. Forgiveness is simply a matter of fact.

When Paul speaks of himself as a serious sinner, it is . . . very specifically because . . . he had persecuted the Church and missed God’s new move — opening the covenant community to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 15:9-10; Eph. 3:8; Gal. 1:1316; 1 Tim. 1:13-15). (p. 41) 

The wretchedness of humanity was part of the very fabric of reality as Paul perceived it: introduced by Adam, sin was a disease that cursed every human. This was so dangerous because God’s default emotion is wrath; God regards us as his enemies (v. 10). But Paul was sure he knew how to get right with God.

There is original sin, of course, but Protestants distort its extent and nature, and Dr. Madison exaggerates God’s antipathy or hostility to mankind. This is the loving God of the Bible (expressed by Paul / universal atonement):

Romans 5:6 While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass [original sin], much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (cf. 5:17, 20-21)

Romans 11:32 For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. [15] And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.. . .

1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

He had it all worked out that wrath flipped to love through the gimmick of Jesus dying (“we have been justified by his blood,” Romans 5:9): “…we will be saved through him from the wrath of God.” The essence of Paul’s theology is found in one of the most famous verses in the letter (v. 8): “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” This is so embedded in Christian piety that it’s hard to grasp that this is magical thinking; Romans 5:19 helps bring this to our attention: “For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

For Dr. Madison it is superstitious magic and a “gimmick”; for us Christians it is God’s love expressed in His merciful, gracious plan to save anyone who accepts His free offer of grace and an eternity in heaven in blissful union with Him. As always — when he comments on supernatural and purely spiritual things — , he makes no argument against God’s method of salvation and atonement. He simply assumes that his readers will agree with him that it is absurd; so all he does is mock.

That’s not how reasoned argumentation works, I’m afraid, but it sure is how echo chamber / groupthink clones and sheep atheist forums work. He does the same tired thing in his next paragraph (even bringing in the wonderful word, “Abracadabra” for effect), so I will pass over it.

This scheme should provoke a stunning this-does-not-make-sense moment. Guy P. Harrison has made one of those yes-of-course statements for which he is so well known: “No one seems to know why a god who makes all the rules and answers to no one couldn’t just pardon us and skip the barbaric crucifixion event entirely.” (Christianity in the Light of Science, Loftus, editor, 2016)

Yes, of course He could have done that, had He chosen to. God was under no obligation to be horribly tortured and die for us. He could have simply proclaimed as saved those who chose to obediently follow Him. Any educated Christian knows this, but Guy P. Harrison seems utterly unaware of it for some strange reason. But the passion and crucifixion was in fact how God set it up, in order to show the immensity of His love. We (including atheists) honor war heroes who willingly die for others, or police officers and firefighters (such as those at 9-11) who are willing to risk death for the sake of others, and sometimes actually do die.

Yet when it comes to God doing the same thing for all of us, we so often get mockery and stupefied noncomprehension and lack of gratefulness from atheists. It’s one thing to simply not believe in something; but to mock and lambast what one clearly doesn’t understand in the first place is a bit much to take. But we understand that it comes from people who are (by free choice) lacking in grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote about these things:

Romans 1:21-22 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 

1 Corinthians 1:18, 21-25 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. . . . [21] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. [22] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, [23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, [24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 

1 Corinthians 2:11-14, 16 For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. [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. . . . [16] . . . But we have the mind of Christ. 

Dr. Madison exhibits all this dumbfounded inability to understand Jesus and God’s glorious plan of salvation in spades, particularly in this ludicrous comment:

One of Richard Carrier’s more acerbic descriptions of Jesus pulls us back to the reality of how much we don’t know about the guy: “…an uneducated rural construction worker from some inglorious town in the middle of nowhere…” (The End of Christianity, Loftus editor, 2011) This was God’s instrument for diverting his wrath from the multitudes of his human enemies? 

He expresses these sad, pathetic, pitiful things because he is an apostate. St. Peter wrote about such men:

2 Peter 2:15, 20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

So did St. Paul:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. 

May God have special mercy on Dr. Madison and open his eyes. We Christians know that God wants to do so, but it’s up to . . . Dr. Madison to accept His free offer of grace and salvation. Please Lord!

***

Photo credit: Apostle Saint Paul, by El Greco (1541-1614) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Freemasons, Catholics, and American Religious Politics
Anxious Bench
2
Jesus Rebuked His Mother (Jn 2:4)?...
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
3
The Historical Context of 1 John...
The Pursuit of Holiness
4
Debate: Catholic Assurance of Salvation
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Bible on Faith / Belief, etc. "Alone" [?]...
Christian Nationalist Conspiracy Theory
This is a Hard One
The Unknown Future: God in Foundation
Is Decline Real?
Trailer: Secrets, Mysteries Unravel in Thrilling 'Conclave'
view all Family blogs