2020-11-23T14:33:51-04:00

vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei 

Dr. Steven DiMattei is a biblical scholar and author, formally trained in the New Testament and early Christianity, with M.A degrees in Classics and Comparative Literature as well. Rumor has it that he is an atheist, but I haven’t been able to confirm that on his site. He put up a website called Contradictions in the Bible. It seems inactive now (or he has lost interest or moved onto other things: who knows?), but the themes are things I really enjoy discussing and debating, and his articles are still online for all to see; thus fair game for critique — and stimulating food for thought, too. There is almost nothing I like to discuss and think about more than the interpretation of the Bible. Steven wrote in a post dated 5-7-16:

One of my reasons in choosing the word “defend” to describe my aims as a biblical scholar and author was in part to attract Christian apologists to my work and hopefully to get them to read these ancient texts on their terms and from within their own cultural contexts and to create a conversation around the biblical texts, their authors, and their competing beliefs, messages, worldviews, theologies, etc. As you can imagine this has proven quite difficult, nay impossible. Many Christian apologists and fundamentalists just cannot read, or simply identify, the text on its own terms separate from the beliefs and assumptions about the text handed-down through this collection of ancient literature’s title, “the Holy Book.”

Here  I am: an apologist quite willing to engage in conversation. It takes two. So we’ll see if Steven is willing to follow through on his stated desire. I have had my own long history (in almost 40 years of apologetics) of “difficult, nay impossible” attempts to discuss matters with many people who tend to be of a few particular belief-systems, though I have no problem talking with anyone who is civil and can stick to a topic. I don’t just say this, I have a demonstrable record of doing it, which is evident on my blog, with its 1000+ dialogues. But as I said, dialogue takes two, and I would add that it also requires a degree of at least minimal mutual respect. Steven’s words will be in blue.

*****

I am critiquing two related articles of his, on alleged “biblical contradictions”:

#159. The Golden Calf OR the Golden Cherubs? (Ex 32:4 vs Ex 25:18-20, 37:7-9)

#157. Is the festival associated with the Golden Calf a festival to Yahweh OR to other gods? (Ex 32:5 vs Ex 32:1, 32:4, 32:8)

I shall deal with #159 first, because its errors are more basic, groundless, and indefensible.

What is the difference between these golden cherubs and the golden calf? Why is it permitted to fabricate golden cherubs and not the golden calf? 

Short answer: because one was intended to be gross idolatry (the calf) and the other was a permitted non-idolatrous religious image, sanctioned by God. I have written about the details of the outrageous and blasphemous idolatry of the golden calf and the nature of idolatry as the Bible defines it:

Is the Mass Equivalent to OT Golden Calf Worship? [1996]

Biblical Idolatry: Authentic & Counterfeit Conceptions [2015]

On the other hand, there are many examples of permitted images in Old Testament worship, including the temple and ark of the covenant (in other words, not all images were forbidden “graven images” or idolatrous):

Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry (An Exposition) [11-15-02]

Bible on Holy Places & Things [1-8-08]

Bible on Physical Objects as Aids in Worship [4-7-09]

Biblical Evidence for Worship of God Via an Image [6-24-11]

The Bronze Serpent: Example of Proper Use of Images [Feb. 2012]

“Graven Images”: Unbiblical Iconoclasm (vs. John Calvin) [Oct. 2012]

Worshiping God Through Images is Entirely Biblical [National Catholic Register, 12-23-16]

Statues in Relation to Bowing, Prayer, & Worship in Scripture [12-26-17]

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [National Catholic Register, 10-23-18]

Crucifixes & Worship Images: “New” (?) Biblical Arguments [1-18-20]

Is Worship of God Through an Image Biblical? (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-10-20]

The ark of the covenant, which included the two golden cherubim on top, was never intended to be a representation of God. One can search the Bible in vain and never find the slightest hint of any such thing. God gave elaborate instructions for the construction of the ark and its use. I recently engaged an anti-Catholic Protestant who correctly noted that these two cherubim were not to be worshiped, but that God appeared in the space between the two of them (as the Bible states several times). But there was a permitted image involved (a cloud), as I detailed:

Luke makes a clever and interesting argument that the space between the mercy seat on top of the ark of the covenant, where God says He is present and to be worshiped (despite being surrounded by carved cherubim [angels]) is “empty space” and “imageless space” and “with no image.” But this is untrue, as the Bible informs us:

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

This cloud was visible, just as in other passages above, like Exodus 13:21; 19:18; 24:16; 33:10 (“the people saw the pillar of cloud”), and others like Numbers 16:42 (“the cloud covered it, and the glory of the LORD appeared“) and Deuteronomy 31:15 (“And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud“). The very word “appear” in Leviticus 16:2  and the last two passages also proves it. God doesn’t just say that He will be “present”, but that He will “appear” in this cloud.

The Bible draws a big distinction between a permitted, non-idolatrous image and idolatrous images deliberately intended to be idols.

Aren’t they both idols? Furthermore, why would Yahweh’s most Holy of Holies contain two golden cherubs? Were these representations of the god? Was the golden calf a representation of the god?

These are remarkable questions: asked by one who is highly educated in Bible study. It’s amazing to have to answer such questions at all. But here I go. I dealt with the golden calf in depth 24 years ago. Here are some highlights:

*****

In Exodus 32:1, the NRSV reads, “Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us……” (cf. 32:23)

Exodus 32:4-5 informs us:

    He took the gold from them, formed it in a mold, and cast an image of a calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, “tomorrow shall be a festival to the LORD.”

It is, therefore, clear that this is idolatry and otherwise sinful, on many counts:

1) It represents not even the one God, but “gods,” so that it falls under the absolute prohibition of polytheism which was known to any observant Hebrew (see, e.g., Ps 106:19-23; cf. Hab 2:18).

2) Nowhere are the Jews permitted to build a calf as an “image” of God. This was an outright violation of the injunctions against “molten images” (Ex 34:17; Lev 19:4; Num 33:52; Dt 27:15: all condemn such idols, using the same Hebrew word which appears in Ex 32:4, 8, 17: massekah).

3) Aaron built an altar before what the people regarded as “gods,” thus blaspheming the true God.

4) Lies were told and believed about “gods,” not God, liberating the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery.

6) NASB and NKJV read “god” at Ex 32:4 (not even capitalized), so that is clearly not intended as a reference to the one true God, YHWH, according to the accepted practice of all Bible translations. NRSV, KJV, RSV, NIV, NEB, & REB have “gods.” In either case, the view is not monotheistic, nor is it at all analogous to the belief and practice of those Christians who accept the Real Presence.

[as to even the early portions of the Bible (and all portions) being monotheistic, see:

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? [9-18-18]

Loftus Atheist Error #8: Ancient Jews, “Body” of God, & Polytheism [9-10-19]

Do the OT & NT Teach Polytheism or Henotheism? [7-1-20]

The Bible Teaches That Other “Gods” are Imaginary [National Catholic Register, 7-10-20] ]

Exodus 32:1 (cf. 32:23),. . . is revealing as to the state of mind of these idolaters. They ask Aaron to “make” them “gods.” Obviously, they could not have YHVH in mind at that point, since I imagine they at least knew that He is not “made by hands” and is eternal. Then they say these gods “shall go before us.” In my opinion, , the most straightforward interpretation of that is the golden calf being carried before them. How could they think (even in their debased state of mind) that YHVH Himself could be compelled to “go before them?” Therefore, they must have regarded the calf as a pure idol of their own making, not as a mere representation of the true God, because these contextual verses make clear that they didn’t have YHVH in mind.

If the above data isn’t sufficient, surely Psalm 106:19-21 nails down my case (NRSV):

    They made a calf at Horeb and worshiped a cast image. They exchanged the glory of God for the image of an ox that eats grass. They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt.

*****

If the biblical writers regarded the golden calf as an idol and condemned propitiating it or any image, then why is not the same upheld for these golden cherubs?

See the above. Short answer: the cherubim were never conceived as representative of God (or even “gods”), let alone worshiped as such. God said that He appeared between their wings, in a cloud. The golden calf, on the other hand, clearly was conceived as, and worshiped as an idol, in place of the true God.

Steven attempts to argue that Jeroboam’s similar idolatry could be seen as some kind of permissible worship by ancient Hebraic standards (partly derived from practices of surrounding or prior cultures):

It is quite possible that the calf altars that Jeroboam constructed, of which the golden calf story is a parody (#157), were throne seats as well. There is ample evidence from the ancient Near East of deities seated upon bulls. Scholars have certainly started to envision Jeroboam’s calf altars as just that—not representations of Yahweh, but his thrones. In this case, the calf-altar cult of the north rivaled the southern temple in Jerusalem. The depiction of the golden calf as an idol, or as gods, was part and parcel to the propaganda and polemic of the pro-Jerusalemite scribes who wrote it. In the end, however, these cultic symbols were no different than the cherubim that stood in the Holy of Holies and also served to represent the deities presence.

This is all arbitrary speculation, of course (as is much of documentary theory, which has long since been discredited). The actual biblical texts show quite otherwise. Ahijah spoke the word of the Lord concerning Jeroboam’s sin:

1 Kings 14:9 (RSV) . . . you have done evil above all that were before you and have gone and made for yourself other gods, and molten images, provoking me to anger, and have cast me behind your back.

Also:

1 Kings 12:28, 32 So the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, “You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” . . .

. . . and he offered sacrifices upon the altar; so he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made.

Note: this is not intending “Yahweh to be worshiped through” the graven images, as you claim, but rather (according to God Himself, Who knows all things) “other gods.” Jeroboam himself refers to “gods”: a rank polytheism and idolatry indeed. We know that he sacrificed to these stupid molten images. It couldn’t be more clear than it is.

The New Bible Dictionary (edited by J. D. Douglas, 1962), in its article on Jeroboam, noted:

They threatened true religion by encouraging a syncretism of Yahweh worship with the fertility cult of Baal and thus drew a prophetic rebuke. (p. 614)

Likewise, in its article on “Idolatry”:

[I]t is a most significant thing that when Israel turned to idolatry it was always necessary to borrow the outward trappings from the pagan environment . . . The golden calves made by Jeroboam (1 Ki 12:28) were well-known Canaanite symbols, and in the same way, whenever the kings of Israel and Judah lapsed into idolatry, it was by means of borrowing and syncretism. (p. 552)

Albright, in his discussion of the bulls of Jeroboam, noted:

So Jeroboam may well have been harking back to early Israelite traditional practice when he made the “golden calves.” It is hardly necessary to point out that it was a dangerous revival, since the taurine associations of Baal, lord of heaven, were too closely bound up with the fertility cult in its more insidious aspects to be safe. The cherubim, being mythical animals, served to enhance the majesty of Yahweh, “who rides on a cherub” (II Sam. 22:11) or “who thrones on the cherubim” (II Kings 19:15, etc.), but the young bulls of Bethel and Dan could only debase His cult. (From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd edition, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1957, 301)

The brilliant biblical scholar F. F. Bruce draws a similar comparison and contrast:

It may be asked whether there was any difference in principle between the use of bull-calf images to support Yahweh’s invisible presence and the use of cherubs for the same purpose in the holy of holies at Jerusalem. The answer probably is that the cherubs were symbolical beings (representing originally the storm-winds) and their images were therefore not “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” [note: Ex. 20:4; Deut. 5:8], whereas the bull-calf images were all too closely associated with Canaanite fertility ritual. It appears from the ritual texts of Ugarit that El, the supreme God of the Canaanite pantheon, was on occasion actually hypostatized as a bull (shor), and known as Shor-El.  (Israel and the Nations, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1963; reprinted 1981, 40-41)

I move on now to Steven’s paper alleging a “biblical contradiction” #157:

[T]he people clamor for gods who “will go in front of us” since Moses has apparently disappeared. Aaron abides by their wishes, and melting the peoples’ gold jewelry down he “fashioned it with a stylus and made a molten calf,” and then proclaimed: “these are your gods Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” As our first textual anomaly, we notice that one calf is made, yet the text proclaims “gods” in the plural. Why?

Now Steven is making the orthodox Christian argument for us. Thanks!

Second, and largely illogical in the larger narrative context, merely days after the Horeb revelation, the giving and acceptance of the laws by the people, one of which stipulated no images, and apparently only a short time after witnessing Yahweh’s “signs and wonders” in his destruction of Egypt, their land, livestock, plants, and all firstborns, and the parting of the sea of Reeds, it is these new gods who are proclaimed as the gods “who brought you out of Egypt.” There is much that initially does not make any sense here.

Idolatry and rebellion against God never does: yet it is the constant, continual pattern of the Old Testament.

Lastly, Aaron builds an altar before the molten image and proclaims “a festival to Yahweh tomorrow!” And then we’re told that “they got up early the next day and made burnt offerings and brought over peace offerings”—that is, common sacrificial offerings to Yahweh. So, what or who exactly is being celebrated: Yahweh, the golden calf, or the “gods” who apparently brought Israel out of Egypt? Additionally, what is the relationship, that the text firmly implies, between Yahweh, the Golden Calf, and the “gods” of which it speaks?

It was an heretical mixture of orthodox and heterodox elements (as heretical departures invariably are). Aaron refers to “gods” as supposedly the ones who liberated the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery, builds an altar to the calf who represents them, then speaks of a “festival to the LORD” (Yahweh): Exodus 32:4-5. It’s classic heterodox syncretism: that Judaism and Christianity have been “blessed” with since time immemorial.

Even more puzzling, this all occurs right on the heels of the Exodus, the miraculous crossing of the Red sea, the witnessing of Yahweh’s ten terrifying signs and wonders by which means he destroyed Egypt and redeemed the children of Israel. The story of the Golden Calf makes no sense within this literary context. Even granting the people’s inclination, if you like, toward disobedience, it still makes no sense following the array of Yahweh’s awesome signs, wonders, miracles, and theophany, as well as their own verbally expressed consent to be Yahweh’s people and uphold his covenant. Like so many of the murmuring stories in Exodus and Numbers, the stories have little historical semblance and make no sense in their literary contexts . . . 

Again, rebellion and heterodoxy never do make any sense; and they don’t because they aren’t rational to begin with, and originate in grace-deprived hearts filled with disbelief, lack of faith in and gratefulness to God, and rebellion. Steven doesn’t get it because he himself suffers from the acceptance of scores of false presuppositions and false conclusions drawn from same.

Rather, the Golden Calf episode was written as an independent story with a specific message to a specific audience. It was later inserted, rather poorly it must be said, into its current literary context in Exodus.

Faced with this evidence of irrational behavior of the ancient Jews, Steven does what all biblical skeptics do: he starts to construct imaginary interpolations into the text, from different writers in different times. There’s no proof (I dare bring up!) of any such thing. It’s all completely arbitrary speculation.

So what is the purpose and message of the Golden Calf narrative?

Don’t forsake the true God with blasphemous and downright silly and foolish idolatrous beliefs and practices . . .

Here is an example of the ridiculous speculation that adherents of the documentary theory habitually make:

The statement in 1 Kings 12:28 is claimed to have been said by Jeroboam I, the northern kingdom’s first king after its secession from Solomon’s tyranny. It must also be borne in mind that this is what the author, most likely the pro-Solomonic southern Deuteronomist, says Jeroboam says. It’s certainly a discriminating remark, and was used despairingly to depict Jeroboam as an apostate. This was, no doubt, the Deuteronomist’s intention.

Note that (as always), he attempts to provide no actual evidence or proof of these contentions. None is needed in this mindset. Baseless speculation reigns supreme!

Both the Golden Calf incident as well as the Deuteronomist’s account portray Jeroboam and his Aaronide lead cult as apostates. 

Perhaps (I merely suggest) this is because (duh!) they actually were that!

The only question remaining is: why is Aaron depicted as the one leading the Israelites into sin?

Maybe — just maybe — because he actually did?!

This is a perfect example of how ancient scribes wrote archaized stories as polemical attacks on contemporary rivals.

And how does one prove such a thing in biblical particulars? We hardly if ever see such explanations in the skeptical / atheist anti-biblical polemical narrative fictions.

***

Photo credit: BrunoMarquesDesigner (5-15-20) [PixabayPixabay License]

***

 

2020-09-08T12:46:56-04:00

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 also made a general statement on 6-22-17“Christians’ arguments are easy to refute . . . I’ve heard the good stuff, and it’s not very good.” 

He added in the combox“If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” Such confusion would indeed be predictable, seeing that Bob himself admitted (2-13-16): “My study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I’m researching at the moment.”

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 (just prior to his banning me from it), his opinion was as follows: “Dave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn’t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he’s writing about.”

And on 10-25-18, utterly oblivious to the ludicrous irony of his making the statement, Bob wrote in a combox on his blog: “Someone who’s not a little bit driven to investigate cognitive dissonance will just stay a Christian, fat ‘n sassy and ignorant.” Again, Bob mocks some Christian in his combox on 10-27-18“You can’t explain it to us, you can’t defend it, you can’t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It’s clear you have nothing.”

And again on the same day“If you can’t answer the question, man up and say so.” And on 10-26-18“you refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.” And againYou’re the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.”

Bob’s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. Again, 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 — 48 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.

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.

*****

I was browsing Bob’s website, looking for something else of the innumerable items that are ripe for Christian refutation, and I happened to come across a citation where he actually cited me (!!!). This was just before the period where he (very conveniently) dissed me as unworthy of anyone’s further attention. Here it is:

Let’s continue with Christian apologists’ justifications for praise and worship of God . . . 

3. Worship isn’t for God’s benefit but Man’s

We don’t worship God because He needs it (He needs nothing and is entirely self-sufficient), but because we need it. . . . God “needs” no worship whatever because in Christian theology, He needs nothing. He’s completely all-sufficient and self-sufficient. It’s for our sake that we “render unto God’s what is rightfully God’s.” (Source) (God as Donald Trump: Trying to Make Sense of Praise and Worship (part 3) ) (8-27-18)

This is an adequate summary of the Christian position on worship, I think, but as usual, it goes over (or through) Bob’s head, and he doesn’t get it. Just nine days ago I refuted Bob on this very topic (Seidensticker Folly #47: Does God Need Praise? [8-31-20] ). That’s the basic Christian response. Presently, I will highlight a few different aspects of the question.

Don’t tell me that God gets no benefit from human actions.

God gets no benefit from human actions. Sorry!

Burnt offerings are a “pleasing aroma” in the Bible, 

Of course, He says this because the idea is that “proper worship of human beings is good for them, because they ought to praise and worship the God Who created them.” But it’s not literal; rather, it’s an instance of the very common anthropopathism and anthropomorphism in the Bible. This is what Bob has to learn and understand. He obviously is completely unfamiliar with it, so this is what comes from biblical illiteracy and ignorance.

Again, God doesn’t need anything. This is standard theology proper (theology of God) in historic Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike. Moreover, the “pleasing aroma” is necessarily symbolic because God the Father is a non-material spirit and has no nostrils. He’s simply communicating in terms that human beings can understand: condescending to us. The idea is human obedience and doing what is best for us (serving and obeying God, for out own happiness and well-being). This was a poetic, easily comprehensible way to express, “yes, you’re doing well and good.”

But when His people disobeyed Him and became sinful and unrighteous, He expressed the opposite:

Amos 5:11-14, 21-24 (RSV) Therefore because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. [12] For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins — you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. [13] Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time. [14] Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said . . . [21] I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. [22] Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. [23] Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. [24] But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 21:27  The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent. 

Jeremiah 6:19-20 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. [20] To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

Malachi 1:6-14 “A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. You say, `How have we despised thy name?’ [7] By offering polluted food upon my altar. And you say, `How have we polluted it?’ By thinking that the LORD’s table may be despised. [8] When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil? Present that to your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. [9] And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts. [10] Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. [11] For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. [12] But you profane it when you say that the LORD’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised. [13] `What a weariness this is,’ you say, and you sniff at me, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. [14] Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations. 

It’s all anthropopathism (i.e., non-literal expression). What is true in this is that God’s will is for man to obey Him: precisely because that is how man will be happy and fulfilled and joyful; not because God needs anything at all. If Bob had the slightest understanding of the very complex, multi-faceted Hebrew literary / poetic idiom, he would grasp this.

but this wasn’t like incense, where God could take it or leave it.

As I just demonstrated, it was exactly like incense. If it was done correctly (whether incense or burnt offerings) by people who were seeking righteousness, God was said to be “pleased” with it (e.g., as regards incense: Lev 16:12-13). But if it was done by sinning hypocrites, He is said to not be pleased (e.g., Lev 26:30).

This is explicitly labeled a food offering 27 times in the Old Testament. 

Yes; so what? There was a right way and a wrong way to do it, depending on the righteousness of the offerer.

And in the Garden of Eden story, God created Adam to be the gardener (Genesis 2:15).

Sure; how is that relevant to the topic at hand?

Getting onto more cerebral or emotional needs, God refers to “everyone . . . whom I created for my glory” (Isaiah 43:7). No, God isn’t “entirely self-sufficient” when humans support his Maslow’s pyramid, providing food and labor at the bottom and glory and esteem at the top.

Nice try. This gets into the silly atheist argument that God is supposedly a “cosmic narcissist” or “egomaniac” and so forth: that I dealt with in my previous paper. Any “glory” given or attributed to God is for our sake, not His: just as if a child honors or praises or obeys his or her parents, it is for his or her own good. In fact, God does share His glory and gives human beings glory, as Scripture informs us. Now why in the world would He do that, if indeed He were indeed such a crazed, insecure egomaniac?:

Psalm 8:5 Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.
*
Psalm 149:4-5, 9 For the LORD takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with victory. [5] Let the faithful exult in glory; let them sing for joy on their couches. . . . [9] . . . This is glory for all his faithful ones. Praise the LORD! 

Proverbs 16:31 A hoary head is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life.

Proverbs 28:12 When the righteous triumph, there is great glory; . . .

Isaiah 60:1-2 Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. [2] For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you.

Isaiah 60:4 . . . the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.

Daniel 5:18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnez’zar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty;

John 5:44 How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

John 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me [Jesus] I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

Romans 2:9-10 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Romans 5:2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

Romans 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:19  and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:12 to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 6:4 . . . partakers of the Holy Spirit,

1 Peter 4:14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. (cf. 5:4)

2 Peter 1:3-4 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

See also:

“In Him” An Expression of the Oneness of Theosis? [3-13-14]

Theosis / Deification / Divinization in Western Spirituality [2015]

Christianity confuses itself because God evolved dramatically through the Bible. . . . early in his development, God needed humans, and that included their worship.

Sheer nonsense, as I have shown many times:

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? [9-18-18]

Madison vs. Jesus #6: Narcissistic, Love-Starved God? [8-6-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #8: Ancient Jews, “Body” of God, & Polytheism [9-10-19]

Do the OT & NT Teach Polytheism or Henotheism? [7-1-20]

The Bible Teaches That Other “Gods” are Imaginary [National Catholic Register, 7-10-20]

Perhaps an apologist could cherry pick Bible verses later in the Bible to show that God is aloof from human actions. Maybe this god sings along with Simon and Garfunkel, “I am a rock / I am an island.”

I suggest that Bob pick up a good book on the Christian theology of God and get up to speed, so he doesn’t embarrass himself any further (if indeed that is even possible).

***

Photo credit: geralt (4-20-18) [Pixabay / Pixabay license]

***

2020-03-16T11:14:09-04:00

[extracted from Vs. Atheist David Madison #37: Bible, Science, & Germs]

*****

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 GalileoTycho Brahe, and Kepler firmly believed in it.

I could go on and on, but just a few examples suffice . . .

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 to charges of alleged ignorance of God and the Bible regarding germs and their devastating effects:

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, . . . 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. 11:1-4715:1-33; 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. 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).

Also, 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.

***

Related Reading

Is It Always God’s Will to Heal?: Biblical Refutation of “Hyperfaith” / “Name-It-Claim-It” Teaching [1982; slightly rev. 7-5-02]

Dialogue w Atheist on Christianity & the Scientific Method [7-19-01]

Dialogue on “Natural Evil” (Diseases, Hurricanes, Drought, etc.) [2-15-04]

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; many defunct links removed and new ones added: 5-10-17]

Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]

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

Thoughts on Divine Healing [8-3-12]

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

Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease? [10-30-17]

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

Seidensticker Folly #8: Physics Has Disproven Souls? [8-16-18]

Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

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

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

Miracles, Materialism, & Premises: Dialogue w Atheist [2-20-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #10: Universal Answered Prayer & Healing? [8-7-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #7: Christian Influence on Science [9-9-19]

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

Seidensticker Folly #36: Disease, Jesus, Paul, Miracles, & Demons [1-13-20]

***

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 two 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 2700 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: [email protected]). 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: Pool of Bethesda – model in the Israel Museum; taken by deror avi (8-18-06) [Wikimedia Commons / The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted]
*
***
2020-02-14T12:51:16-04:00

 

***

Here’s something a bit different from my usual writing. It came about on the Coming Home Network forum [I was moderator there from 2007-2010]. One woman was expressing her fears about “measuring up” as a Catholic and of being lukewarm and not fully surrendering to God; not being “perfect,” etc. I had a few thoughts on that:

* * * * *

It’s all about God’s mercy and love. We are all part of the fall, and we struggle with concupiscence, temptation, and various manifest shortcomings in our lives every day. But God loves us now: not some ideal of what we will be one day by His grace. Therefore, it is foolish for us to have higher standards for ourselves, in order to love and accept ourselves (faults and sins notwithstanding), than God Himself does.
*

It is the case with most of us that our heads can understand these things, but not our heart. All we can do is truly fall on our faces and rely on God’s mercy. If we keep doing that, as a deliberate act of the will, eventually it does indeed filter down to our hearts, and we begin to feel it, too.

Human beings are that way. Many times in life we have to decide to do something because it is right (or true). And so we make an act of the will. If we keep doing that, it becomes a habit. If we keep up the habit it becomes a virtue, and eventually it becomes part of us and is as natural as breathing.

I think that is the case here. We have to keep “conditioning” ourselves that God loves us as we are. We have to get out of the mold or rut we have gotten into, and start looking at things from God’s perspective.

You (and anyone else) can do this! And you can because if you know it is right you can decide to start thinking in a different way so it becomes part of your heart in due course. And you can do all this primarily because God gives you the grace and strength to do anything He wants you to do.

Even on a human level we can observe such a dynamic. My wife, for example, had some problems in terms of self-image and what she had often been told in her life before I met her. I rejected these. I told her that they were not true: that she was not what folks thought, in certain aspects. Well, lo and behold, after some years of having her husband positively reinforce her, now she no longer believes those things. It was a matter of reinforcement and thinking about something in a different way.

I see the same thing in my children. Sometimes they don’t feel loved (due to discipline) or feel that one is being favored or whatever (typical sibling, children stuff). But we just keep telling them how much we love and admire them for who they are, and eventually it sinks in and they feel better about themselves.

One of my sons in particular had some self-image issues because he was strong-willed and hence, was disciplined a bit more than the others. But he has come out fine. Yesterday, in fact, he just got an award for outstanding service of young people in their churches. Out of 12 parishes, only six young people were given this award (and just one other young man), and there was my son (16 yo): one of them. I was so proud I think I busted three buttons on my shirt. And of course my wife felt just as I did. It was wonderful.

That’s like God, “rooting” for us and loving us unconditionally. All we have to do is learn to trust in His mercy and love. If we keep doing that, our own opinions will change, too.

***

Related Reading

Man’s Grace-Enabled Cooperation w God (1 Cor 3:9) [5-8-02]

Good News: Evangelical & Catholic Gospel Presented [June 1982; rev. 7-17-02]

Merit and Cooperating with God for Salvation [7-8-07]

“Knowing Jesus as we Ought to”: A Catholic Perspective [7-10-09]

Merit & Human Cooperation with God (vs. Calvin #35) [10-19-09]

Bible: God Shares Glory with His Creatures [1-3-10]

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

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

“Personal Relationship with Jesus”: Good Catholic Phrase? and Practice? [8-15-15]

Thankfulness as Our Model in Holy Scripture [11-23-17]

Christianity, Depression, Peace, Comfort, Hope, & Joy [6-9-18]

Loftus Atheist Error #6: Is God “Love” or a “Moral Monster”? [9-9-19]

***

(originally posted on 4-26-10)

Photo credit: image by “Clandestino” [public domain / Pixabay]

***

2025-06-20T11:15:04-04:00

Cover (555 x 833, 253K)

Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage(Nov. 2014, 165 pages)

[click on the book title for book and purchase info.]

[cover photograph taken by Margie Prox Sindelar in Caesarea Philippi (Mt 16), on 23 October 2014]

*****
TABLE OF CONTENTS
***
I. DIALOGUES WITH JEWISH APOLOGIST MICHAEL J. ALTER  ON JESUS’ RESURRECTION AND ALLEGED NEW TESTAMENT “CONTRADICTIONS”
II. THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
III. RELATIONSHIP OF OLD AND NEW COVENANTS / JEWS AND CHRISTIANS / DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE: JUDAISM TO CHRISTIANITY
IV. MY PILGRIMAGE TO ISRAEL (2014)
V. GENESIS
VI. ADAM AND EVE AND CAIN / GARDEN OF EDEN
VII. NOAH AND THE FLOOD
VIII. ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH (PATRIARCHS) / HEBREW BONDAGE IN EGYPT
IX. MOSES AND THE EXODUS
X. JOSHUA AND THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN / SAMSON / ERA OF THE JUDGES
XI. SAUL, DAVID, AND SOLOMON / KINGDOMS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL
XII. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND JOB
XIII. ANCIENT ISRAEL’S ENEMIES
XIV. THE PROPHETS
XV. OLD TESTAMENT: DOCTRINE OF GOD / YHWH
XVI. OLD TESTAMENT: GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS
XVII. ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS 
***
***
I. DIALOGUES WITH JEWISH APOLOGIST MICHAEL J. ALTER  ON JESUS’ RESURRECTION AND ALLEGED NEW TESTAMENT “CONTRADICTIONS”
*
*
*
*
*
*

II. THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Messiah: Jewish / Old Testament Conceptions [1982; revised somewhat on 2-19-00]
*
III. RELATIONSHIP OF OLD AND NEW COVENANTS / JEWS AND CHRISTIANS / DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE: JUDAISM TO CHRISTIANITY
*
*
*
*
*
Apostles and Synagogue and Temple Worship [3-25-07; slight editing and minor additions on 8-8-16]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Jewish 1st Century Belief in Purgatory (Paul Hoffer) [9-20-11]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Why is Melchizedek So Important? [National Catholic Register, 1-15-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Did Jesus Heal and Preach to Only Jews? No! [National Catholic Register, 7-19-20]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
IV. MY PILGRIMAGE TO ISRAEL (2014)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Signs in Jerusalem: How God Can Speak to You Through ‘Coincidence’ [my visit to the Pool of Siloam, Seton Magazine, 12-17-14]
*
I Was Blessed to Visit Bethlehem in 2014. What Joy! [National Catholic Register, 12-31-17; originally 12-26-14]
*
Visiting Golgotha in Jerusalem is a Sublime Experience [National Catholic Register, 3-21-18]
*
My visit to the Holy Land in 2014 and my book chronicling it, Footsteps That Echo Forever [35-minute interview with John Benko on The 4 Persons Podcast, 20 March 2025]
*
V. GENESIS
*

Biblical Flat Earth (?) Cosmology: Dialogue w Atheist (vs. Matthew Green) [9-11-06]

Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]

*

Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

Orthodox Interpretation of Genesis and the Serpent [National Catholic Register, 11-19-18]

Scripture, Science, Genesis, & Evolutionary Theory: Mini-Dialogue with an Atheist [8-14-18; rev. 2-18-19]

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

*
*
*
*

Seidensticker Folly #73: Philosophy & “Who Created God?” [7-12-21]

Genesis 10 “Table of Nations”: Authentic History [8-25-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #54: Tower of Babel; Who’s the “Idiot”? [11-24-21]

Table of Nations (Gen 10), Interpretation, & History [11-27-21]

*
*
Linguistic Confusion and the Tower of Babel [National Catholic Register, 6-21-22]
*
*

VI. ADAM AND EVE AND CAIN / GARDEN OF EDEN

*
DOCUMENTARY: Science & the Search for the Garden of Eden [see also the written transcript] [Lux Veritatis, 5-10-25]
*

VII. NOAH AND THE FLOOD

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; many defunct links removed and new ones added: 5-10-17]

Adam & Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah: Historical Figures [2-20-08]

Noah’s Flood and Catholicism: Important Basic Facts [8-18-15]

Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity? [9-10-15]

New Testament Evidence for Noah’s Existence [National Catholic Register, 3-11-18]

Seidensticker Folly #49: Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals [9-7-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #36: Noah’s Flood: 40 or 150 Days or Neither? [7-1-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #37: Length of Noah’s Flood Redux [7-2-21]

Local Flood & Atheist Ignorance of Christian Thought [7-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #38: Chiasmus & “Redundancy” in Flood Stories (Also, a Summary Statement on Catholics and the Documentary Hypothesis) [7-4-21]

Local Mesopotamian Flood: An Apologia [7-9-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #47: Mockery of a Local Flood (+ Striking Analogies Between the Biblical Flood and the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927) [9-30-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #48: Flood of Irrationality & Cowardice [10-1-21]

Noah’s Flood: Not Anthropologically Universal + Miscellany [10-5-21]

Debate: Historical Local Flood & Biblical Hyperbole [11-12-21]

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

Noah’s Ark: Josephus, Earlier Historians, & Church Fathers (Early Witnesses of the Ark Resting on Jabel [Mt.] Judi) [3-16-22]

Biblical Size of Noah’s Ark: Literal or Symbolic? [3-16-22]

Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce’s Straw Man Global Flood [8-30-22]

*
VIII. ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH (PATRIARCHS) / HEBREW BONDAGE IN EGYPT
*
*
Why is Melchizedek So Important? [National Catholic Register, 1-15-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Abraham and Ongoing Justification by Faith and Works [National Catholic Register, 9-19-23]
*
*
IX. MOSES AND THE EXODUS
*
*
*

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]

C. S. Lewis Roundly Mocked the Documentary Hypothesis [10-6-19]

Ward’s Whoppers #7-8: “God of Abraham…” / Passover [5-18-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #9-10: Parting the Red Sea / “Foreigners” [5-18-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #11-12: Ten Commandments Issues [5-19-20]

Moses & Aaron & Their Staff(s): Biblical Contradictions? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-21-20]

Golden Calf & Cherubim: Biblical Contradiction? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-23-20]

A Bible Puzzle About the Staff of Moses and Aaron [National Catholic Register, 1-14-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #30: Passover Disproves God’s Omniscience? [5-27-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #33: No Philistines in Moses’ Time? [6-3-21]

Did Moses Exist? No Absolute Proof, But Strong Evidence (Pearce’s Potshots #35, in Which Our Brave Hero Classifies Moses as “a Mythological Figure” and I Reply!) [6-14-21]

Using the Bible to Debunk the Bible Debunkers (Is the Mention of ‘Pitch’ in Exodus an Anachronism?) [National Catholic Register, 6-30-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #38: Chiasmus & “Redundancy” in Flood Stories (Also, a Summary Statement on Catholics and the Documentary Hypothesis) [7-4-21]

Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (+ a Plausible Scenario for Moses Gaining Knowledge of Hittite Legal Treaties in His Egyptian Official Duties) [7-31-21]

In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai (Fascinating Topographical and Biblical Factors Closely Examined) [8-16-21]

Acacia, Ark of the Covenant, & Biblical Accuracy [8-24-21]

The Tabernacle: Egyptian & Near Eastern Precursors (Archaeology Entirely Backs Up the Extraordinary Accuracy of Holy Scripture Yet Again) [9-8-21]

Science, Hebrews and a Bevy of Quail [National Catholic Register, 11-14-21]
*
*
*
*
*
What Archaeology Tells Us About Joshua’s Conquest [National Catholic Register, 7-8-21]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
What Made the Walls of Jericho Fall? [National Catholic Register, 5-20-23]
*
*
XI. SAUL, DAVID, AND SOLOMON / KINGDOMS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Archaeology, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba [National Catholic Register, 6-2-23]
*
Archaeology and King Solomon’s Mines [National Catholic Register, 6-29-23]
*
Was King David Mythical or Historical? [National Catholic Register, 7-24-23]
*
VIDEO: How Tall Was Goliath? The Truth Revealed! [Lux Veritatis, 6-10-25]
*
XII. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND JOB
*
*
*
Archaeology Supports the Book of Nehemiah [National Catholic Register, 11-30-23]
*
XIII. ANCIENT ISRAEL’S ENEMIES
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XIV. THE PROPHETS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Did God Raise Jonah from the Dead? [National Catholic Register, 4-20-23]
*
*
The Prophet Isaiah Explains How God Saves Us [National Catholic Register, 8-30-23]
*
XV. OLD TESTAMENT: DOCTRINE OF GOD / YHWH
*
XVI. OLD TESTAMENT: GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS
*
*
*
*
*

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

Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease? [10-30-17]

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

Seidensticker Folly #12: God Likes Child Sacrifice? Huh?! [8-21-18]

Seidensticker Folly #17: “to the third and fourth generations”? [9-11-18]

Does God Punish to the Fourth Generation? [National Catholic Register, 10-1-18]

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

Old Testament Sacrifices: Killing Animals to be Saved? [8-17-19]

David Madison vs. Paul and Romans #9: Chapter 9 (“Hardening Hearts” and Hebrew “Block Logic”) [8-30-19]

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

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

Salvation and Immortality Are Not Just New Testament Ideas [National Catholic Register, 9-23-19]

The Bible and Mythical Animals[National Catholic Register, 10-9-19]

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

“Why Did God Kill 70,000 Israelites for David’s Sin?” [4-13-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #14: Who Caused Job’s Suffering? [5-20-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #17-21: Proverbs Allow of Exceptions [5-21-20]

Seidensticker Folly #54: “Neighbor” in OT = Jews Only? [9-12-20]

Dialogue: Purgatory & 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 [11-8-20]

God in Heaven & in His Temple: Contradiction? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-23-20]

Jesus the “Nazarene”: Did Matthew Make Up a “Prophecy”? (Reply to Jonathan M. S. Pearce from the Blog, A Tippling Philosopher / Oral Traditions and Possible Lost Old Testament Books Referred to in the Bible) [12-17-20]

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

Pearce’s Potshots #27: Anachronistic “Israelites”? [5-25-21]

Camels Help Bible Readers Get Over the Hump of Bible Skepticism [National Catholic Register, 7-21-21]

Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (+ a Plausible Scenario for Moses Gaining Knowledge of Hittite Legal Treaties in His Egyptian Official Duties) [7-31-21]

Archaeology: Biblical Maximalism vs. Minimalism (+ Dates of the Patriarchs and Other Major Events and People in the Old Testament) [9-9-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #55: “3” in the Bible & Literature [12-1-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #67: Camels Make an Ass of a Man [3-1-22]

Timeline of the Patriarchs: A Summary [Facebook, 9-28-22]

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible [1-24-23]

Introduction for My Book: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible + Near Eastern Archaeological Periods and Timeline of the Patriarchs [1-24-23]

Archaeology & a Proto-Hebrew Language in 1800 BC [1-31-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of Old Testament Accuracy (short summary points from the book, The Word Set in Stone) [National Catholic Register, 3-23-23]

The Word Set in Stone: “Volume Two”: More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible (free book with 100 sections) [5-25-23]

Bp. Barron’s Word on Fire Bible (The Pentateuch) [7-6-23]

Book of Judith: History, Allegory, Or Aspects of Both? [Facebook, 11-10-23]

XVII. ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS 
*

Discussion on Israeli-Gaza Strip Conflict of July 2014 [Facebook, 7-23-14]

Dialogue on Israeli-Palestinian Relations [with Alex Brittain, Facebook, 3-18-15]

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Last updated on 20 June 2025

 

 

2025-06-18T10:22:11-04:00

Maxwell

Engraving of the great Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) by G. J. Stodart from a photograph by Fergus of Greenock. Maxwell was a devout Presbyterian, and formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as manifestations of the same phenomenon. His discoveries helped usher in the era of modern physics, laying the foundation for such fields as special relativity and quantum mechanics. His contributions to the science are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

TABLE OF CONTENTS

***

Philosophy

I. GENERAL / EPISTEMOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

II. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL / SUFFERING

III. THE “PROBLEM OF GOOD”

IV. EDUCATION / HOMESCHOOLING

Theistic Arguments

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

VI. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (DESIGN) 

VII. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
Science
IX. GALILEO
X. EARLY MODERN SCIENCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO RELIGION
XI. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE / SCIENTIFIC METHOD
XII. BIBLE, CHRISTIANITY, AND SCIENCE ISSUES

XIII. NOAH AND THE FLOOD

XIV. CLIMATE CHANGE / GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE
XV. THE KOOKY FUNDAMENTALIST REVIVAL OF GEOCENTRISM
XVI. MIRACLES 
XVII. CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
*** 
***

PHILOSOPHY 

 
I. GENERAL / EPISTEMOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Did Jesus Use “Socratic Method” in His Teaching? [National Catholic Register, 4-29-19]
*
Apologetics = Anti-Faith or Absolute “Certainty”? (Or, “Does Christianity Reduce to Mere Philosophy or Rationalism?”) [7-5-20]
*
*
*
*
*
*
II. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL / SUFFERING
*
*
Problem of Evil: Treatise on the Most Serious Objection (Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?) [2002]
*
*
The Problem of Evil: Dialogue with an Atheist (vs. “drunken tune”) [10-11-06]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
God, the Natural World and Pain [National Catholic Register, 9-19-20]
*
Is God Mostly to Blame for the Holocaust? [National Catholic Register, 5-31-21]
*
*
III. THE “PROBLEM OF GOOD”
*
*
IV. EDUCATION / HOMESCHOOLING
*

Homeschooling: Response to Kevin Johnson’s Criticisms [7-12-05]

On Homeschooling & Dilapidated Public Education [1-3-09]  

*

THEISTIC ARGUMENTS
*
V. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (BIG BANG, ETC.)
*

A Variation of the First Way of Thomas Aquinas (+ Part II / Part III) (Dr. Dennis Bonnette) [1982]

How “Creation” Implies God (Dr. Dennis Bonnette) [1985]

Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” [8-19-15]

Cosmological Argument for God (Resources) [10-23-15]

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Creation Ex Nihilo is in the Bible [National Catholic Register, 10-1-20]
*
*
*
VI. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (DESIGN) 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Quantum Mechanics and the “Upholding” Power of God [National Catholic Register, 11-24-20]
*
Star of Bethlehem, Astronomy, Wise Men, & Josephus (Amazing Astronomically Verified Data in Relation to the Journey of the Wise Men  & Jesus’ Birth & Infancy) [12-14-20]
*
VII. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
*
*
*
*
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SCIENCE
*
IX. GALILEO
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
X. EARLY MODERN SCIENCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO RELIGION
 
*

Astrology: Philip Melanchthon’s Enthusiastic Espousal [5-21-06]

Did St. Thomas Aquinas Accept Astrology? [5-30-06]

16th-17th Century Astronomers Loved Astrology (+ Part Two) [5-25-06]

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Philip Melanchthon Wax Astronomical and Geocentric, Oppose Copernicus [2-5-09]

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

Scientific & Empiricist Church Fathers: To Augustine (d. 430) [2010]

Christian Influence on Science: Master List of Scores of Bibliographical and Internet Resources (Links) [8-4-10]

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

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

Who Killed Lavoisier: “Father of Chemistry”? [8-13-10]

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

John Calvin Assumes a Non-Spherical Earth & Severely Mocks Plato for Believing that the Earth is a Globe [9-4-12]

St. Augustine: Astrology is Absurd [9-4-15]

Catholics & Science #1: Hermann of Reichenau [10-21-15]

Catholics & Science #2: Adelard of Bath [10-21-15]

Science and Christianity (Copious Resources) [11-3-15]

Dialogue with an Agnostic on Catholicism and Science [9-12-16]

A List of 244 Priest-Scientists [Angelo Stagnaro, National Catholic Register, 11-29-16]

A Short List of [152] Lay Catholic Scientists [Angelo Stagnaro, National Catholic Register, 12-30-16]

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

Seidensticker Folly #44: Historic Christianity & Science [8-29-20]

Exclusive Empirical Epistemology?: Dialogue w Atheist [2-25-19]

Modern Science is Built on a Christian Foundation [National Catholic Register, 5-6-20]

The ‘Enlightenment’ Inquisition Against Great Scientists [National Catholic Register, 5-13-20]

Embarrassing Errors of Historical Science [National Catholic Register, 5-20-20]

Scientism — the Myth of Science as the Sum of Knowledge [National Catholic Register, 5-28-20]

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

Seidensticker Folly #60: Anti-Intellectual Medieval Christians? [11-4-20]

Medieval Christian Medicine Was the Forerunner of Modern Medicine [National Catholic Register, 11-13-20]

*

XI. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE / SCIENTIFIC METHOD

*
*
*
Albert Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”: In His Own Words [originally 2-17-03; expanded greatly on 8-26-10]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]
*
*
Did Darwin Prove Genesis a Fairy Tale? (Dr. Dennis Bonnette) [2007]
*
Must Human Evolution Contradict Genesis?  (Dr. Dennis Bonnette) [2007]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Historicity of Adam and Eve [9-23-11; rev. 1-6-22]
*
Modern Biology and Original Sin (+ Part 2) (Dr. Edward Feser) [9-23-11]
*
*
*
Time to Abandon the Genesis Story? [Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 7-10-14]
*
Origin of the Human Species (3rd edition, 2014, by Dr. Dennis Bonnette)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A List of 244 Priest-Scientists (Angelo Stagnaro, National Catholic Register, 11-29-16)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Reflections on Joshua and “the Sun Stood Still” [National Catholic Register, 10-22-20]
*
*
Quantum Mechanics and the “Upholding” Power of God [National Catholic Register, 11-24-20]
*
*
*
*
Dark Energy, Dark Matter and the Light of the World [National Catholic Register, 2-17-21]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The Theory of Evolution & Catholicism [Ch. 10 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version) ] [11-22-23]
*

XIII. NOAH AND THE FLOOD

*

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; many defunct links removed and new ones added: 5-10-17]

Adam & Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah: Historical Figures [2-20-08]

Noah’s Flood and Catholicism: Important Basic Facts [8-18-15]

Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity? [9-10-15]

New Testament Evidence for Noah’s Existence [National Catholic Register, 3-11-18]

Seidensticker Folly #49: Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals [9-7-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #36: Noah’s Flood: 40 or 150 Days or Neither? [7-1-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #37: Length of Noah’s Flood Redux [7-2-21]

Local Flood & Atheist Ignorance of Christian Thought [7-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #38: Chiasmus & “Redundancy” in Flood Stories (Also, a Summary Statement on Catholics and the Documentary Hypothesis) [7-4-21]

Local Mesopotamian Flood: An Apologia [7-9-21]

Noah’s Flood: Not Anthropologically Universal + Miscellany [10-5-21]

*
XIV. CLIMATE CHANGE / GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XV. THE KOOKY FUNDAMENTALIST REVIVAL OF GEOCENTRISM
*
(comprehensive website run by David Palm)
*
*
Does the Church Support Robert Sungenis’ Novel Theories? (Jonathan Field) (+ Part Two) [11-8-10, at Internet Archive]
*
*
*
Geocentrism: Not at All an Infallible Dogma of the Catholic Church (David Palm and “Jordanes”) [11-20-10, at Internet Archive]
*
*
*
Actress Kate Mulgrew Says she Was Duped Regarding her Narration of the Geocentrist Film, The Principle [Karl Keating article and Facebook discussion and media links, 4-8-14]
*
*
XVI. MIRACLES 
 
*
Biblical and Historical Evidences for Raising the Dead [9-24-07; revised for National Catholic Register, 2-8-19]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
My oldest son Paul was healed of serious back and neck problems [You Tube video testimony linked on Facebook, 8-28-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Reflections on Joshua and “the Sun Stood Still” [National Catholic Register, 10-22-20]
*
*
*
*
Moses, Science, and Water from Rocks [Catholic365, 11-18-23]
*
*
*
XVII. CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC 
*
*
*
*
*
 
[For related reading, see: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism Page]

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Last updated on 18 June 2025
***
2025-05-01T12:47:56-04:00

Stalin2
Portrait of young Joseph Stalin (1878-1953): one of history’s most famous and notorious atheists (I’m not sayin’ all atheists are like him!), from the Stalin Museum in Gori, Georgia. Photo by Adam Jones (6-4-15). He was responsible for some 20 million deaths, according to historian Robert Conquest [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]
***
FEATURED:
*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
***
I. GENERAL
II. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL 
III. THE “PROBLEM OF GOOD”
IV. AARON ADAIR
V. LIBBY ANNE
VI. “ANTHROTHEIST”
VII. “AXELBEINGCIVIL”
VIII. ED BABINSKI
IX. RICHARD CARRIER
X. NEIL CARTER
XI. STEVE CONIFER
XII. VEXEN CRABTREE
XIII. JON CURRY
XIV. “DAGOODS”
XV. RICHARD DAWKINS [THE GOD DELUSION]
XVI. TED DRANGE
XVII. BART EHRMAN
XVIII. “EPRONOVOST”
XIX. “ERIC”
XX. JD EVELAND
XXI. STEWART JAMES FELKER
XXII. “GRIMLOCK”
XXIII. “GUSBOVONA”
XXIV. “HELENINEDINBURGH”
XXV. ADAM LEE
XXVI. LEX LATA
XXVII. JOHN LOFTUS [DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY BLOG]
XXVIII. DR. DAVID MADISON
XXIX. JONATHAN M. S. PEARCE
XXX. “PROF MTH” (MITCH) 
XXXI. WARD RICKER
XXXII. DR. JAN SCHREURS
XXXIII. BOB SEIDENSTICKER [CROSS EXAMINED BLOG]
XXXIV. SUSAN STRANDBERG
XXXV. EXTENSIVE COLLECTIONS OF SCHOLARLY LINKS DEALING WITH THE QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES OF ATHEISTS
XXXVI. CHRISTIANITY, ATHEISM, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY
XXXVII. ANTI-THEISM AND THE SUB-GROUP OF “ANGRY ATHEISTS”
XXXVIII. MIRACLES
XXXIX. COMMON GROUND / CONCILIATORY APPROACHES 
XL. GOD (ATHEIST OBSESSION WITH THE SUPPOSEDLY NONEXISTENT) 
XLI. ABORTION / ANIMAL RIGHTS 
XLII. SEX, MARRIAGE, AND WOMEN
XLIII. SECULARISM AND SOCIETY
XLIV. “THE BUTCHER AND THE HOG”: THE ATHEIST APPROACH TO THE BIBLE
XLV. ATHEIST “DECONVERSIONS”
XLVI. FAMOUS ATHEISTS (REAL AND IMAGINED) 
***
***
I. GENERAL
*
*
The Class Struggle [cartoon tract; art by Dan Grajek, 1985]
*
*
*
Silent Night: A “Progressive” and “Enlightened” Reinterpretation [12-10-04; additionally edited for publication at National Catholic Register: 12-21-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Clarifications Regarding My Atheist Reductio Paper (referring to the immediately preceding, vastly misunderstood satirical piece) [8-20-15]
*
Dialogue with an Atheist on First Premises (vs. Ben McGrew) [9-17-15]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yes, Virginia, Atheists Have a Worldview [National Catholic Register, 3-23-21]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
*
II. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL  
*
Problem of Evil: Treatise on the Most Serious Objection(Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?) [2002]
*
*
*
The Problem of Evil: Dialogue with an Atheist (vs. “drunken tune”) [10-11-06]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
God, the Natural World and Pain [National Catholic Register, 9-19-20]
*
*
[see more in the “Problem of Evil” section of my Philosophy & Science web page]
*
III. THE “PROBLEM OF GOOD”
*
*
*
VI. “ANTHROTHEIST”
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
VII. “AXELBEINGCIVIL”
*
Dialogue w Atheist on the Borders of Science & Theology [1-16-23]
*
VIII. ED BABINSKI
*
XI. STEVE CONIFER
*
*
XII. VEXEN CRABTREE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XIV. “DAGOODS”
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XV. RICHARD DAWKINS [THE GOD DELUSION]
*
*
*
*
*
*
XVI. TED DRANGE
*
*
*
*
XVII. BART EHRMAN
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XVIII. “EPRONOVOST”
*
XX. JD EVELAND
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXIII. “GUSBOVONA”
*
*
*
XXIV. “HELENINEDINBURGH”
*
*
*
XXV. ADAM LEE
*
*
*
*
*
XXVI. LEX LATA
*
*
XXVII. JOHN LOFTUS [DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY BLOG]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXVIII. DR. DAVID MADISON
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXIX. JONATHAN M. S. PEARCE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
How Anti-Theist Atheists “Argue” Online (I.e., Insult) (Examples from Pearce’s Blog) [3-18-21]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXX. “PROF MTH” (MITCH) 
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXXI. WARD RICKER
*
 *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXXII. DR. JAN SCHREURS
*
Dialogue w Agnostic: Relativist vs. Absolute Morality (vs. Dr. Jan Schreurs) [June 1999]
*
Isaac and Abraham’s Agony: Dialogue with Agnostic (vs. Dr. Jan Schreurs) [June 1999]
*
XXXIII. BOB SEIDENSTICKER [CROSS EXAMINED BLOG]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Seidensticker Folly #63: Answer Comfort But Never Armstrong? (ditto for Dr. William Lane Craig) [11-24-20]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXXIV. SUSAN STRANDBERG
*
*
XXXV. EXTENSIVE COLLECTIONS OF SCHOLARLY LINKS DEALING WITH THE QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES OF ATHEISTS 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXXVI. CHRISTIANITY, ATHEISM, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY
*
*
Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; many defunct links removed and new ones added: 5-10-17]
*
*
Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXXVII. ANTI-THEISM AND THE SUB-GROUP OF “ANGRY ATHEISTS”
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXXVIII. MIRACLES
*
The Resurrection: Hoax or History? [cartoon tract; art by Dan Grajek, 1985]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XXXIX. COMMON GROUND / CONCILIATORY APPROACHES 
*

Secular Humanism & Christianity: Seeking Common Ground (with Sue Strandberg) [5-25-01]

Are Atheists “Evil”? Multiple Causes of Atheist Disbelief and the Possibility of Salvation [2-17-03]

God is Merciful to All! (Fake “Church Sign” About the Possibility of Atheist Salvation) [Facebook, 12-4-06]

16 Atheists / Agnostics & Me (At a Meeting) [11-24-10]

Should We Ignore Atheists or Charitably Dialogue? [7-21-10 and 1-7-11]

My Enjoyable Dinner with Six Atheist Friends [6-9-15]

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XL. GOD (ATHEIST OBSESSION WITH THE SUPPOSEDLY NONEXISTENT) 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XLI. ABORTION / ANIMAL RIGHTS 
*
*
*
*
*
*
XLII. SEX, MARRIAGE, AND WOMEN
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XLIII. SECULARISM AND SOCIETY
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XLIV. “THE BUTCHER AND THE HOG”: THE ATHEIST APPROACH TO THE BIBLE
[see also related papers in the “Alleged Biblical Contradictions” section of The Bible, Tradition, Canon, & Sola Scriptura Index Page, and under “Bob Seidensticker” above, and my compilation web page of these sorts of articles: Armstrong’s Refutations of Alleged Biblical “Contradictions”]
*
*
Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; rev. 5-10-17]
*
*
Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]
*
*
*
*
Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked (vs. Dave Van Allen and Dr. Jim Arvo) [9-27-07]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Atheist “Refutes” Sermon on the Mount (Or Does He?) [National Catholic Register, 7-23-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved (free online book) [6-3-23]
*
[see also numerous related posts in the “Dr. David Madison” / “Jonathan MS Pearce” / “PROF MTH” / “John Loftus” / “Ward Ricker” / “Vexen Crabtree” sections above, near the top]
*
XLV. ATHEIST “DECONVERSIONS”
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XLVI. FAMOUS ATHEISTS (REAL AND IMAGINED) 
*
*
*
*
Albert Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”: In His Own Words [originally 2-17-03; expanded greatly on 8-26-10]
*

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Last updated on 6 January 2024
***
2025-05-01T12:29:19-04:00

Trinity2

Basic minimal (equilateral triangular) version of the “Shield of the Trinity” or “Scutum Fidei” diagram of traditional Christian symbolism [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

TABLE OF CONTENTS

***

I. CHRISTOLOGY / DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST

II. EVENTS IN JESUS’ LIFE / JESUS’ TEACHING

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

IV. JESUS AND MARY

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

VI. TRINITARIANISM / THE HOLY TRINITY / THE HOLY SPIRIT

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

VIII. GOD AS JUDGE

IX. THEISTIC ARGUMENTS

***

 

 

***

I. CHRISTOLOGY / DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
50 Biblical Proofs That Jesus is God [National Catholic Register, 2-12-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Can the Prayers of Jesus Go Unanswered? [National Catholic Register, 6-10-19]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The Bible is Clear — Jesus is True God and True Man [National Catholic Register, 9-12-20]
*
*
9 Ways Jesus Tells Us He is God in the Synoptic Gospels [National Catholic Register, 10-28-20]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
II. EVENTS IN JESUS’ LIFE / JESUS’ TEACHING
*
The Resurrection: Hoax or History? [cartoon tract with art by Dan Grajek: 1985]
*
*
The Passion of the Christ: Review and Reflections [2-29-04; abridged and edited on 4-10-17]
*
Silent Night: A “Progressive” and “Enlightened” Reinterpretation [12-10-04; additionally edited for publication at National Catholic Register: 12-21-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Was Christ Actually Born Dec. 25? [National Catholic Register, 12-18-18]
*
The Bethlehem Nativity, Babe Ruth, and History [National Catholic Register, 1-1-19]
*
Are the Two Genealogies of Christ Contradictory? [National Catholic Register, 1-5-19]
*
*
*
What Does “Turn the Other Cheek” Mean? [National Catholic Register, 7-20-19]
*
*
*
*
Did Jesus Teach His Disciples to Hate Their Families? [National Catholic Register, 8-17-19]
*
*
*
*
Why Jesus Opposed the Moneychangers in the Temple [National Catholic Register, 9-26-19]
*
Jesus’ Agony in Gethsemane: Was it “Anxiety”? [National Catholic Register, 10-29-19]
*
*
*
*
*
On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [National Catholic Register, 6-11-20]
*
*
*
*
*
Star of Bethlehem, Astronomy, Wise Men, & Josephus (Amazing Astronomically Verified Data in Relation to the Journey of the Wise Men  & Jesus’ Birth & Infancy) [12-14-20]
*
*
*
*
*
Conjunctions, the Star of Bethlehem and Astronomy [National Catholic Register, 12-21-20]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A Fresh Look at Joseph, Mary and Bethlehem [National Catholic Register, 3-25-22]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
What We Know About Nazareth at the Time of Jesus [National Catholic Register, 11-24-23]
*
*
*
50 OT Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus [initial research from 1982; slightly revised in 1997; revised and reformatted for RSV edition in 2012; separated from the larger article on 11-26-24]
*
*
*
III. DIALOGUES WITH JEWISH APOLOGIST MICHAEL J. ALTER ON JESUS’ RESURRECTION AND ALLEGED NT “CONTRADICTIONS”
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
IV. JESUS AND MARY
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
V. YOUNG MESSIAH FILM (2016) / KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS
*
*
*
*
*
*
VI. TRINITARIANISM / THE HOLY TRINITY / THE HOLY SPIRIT
*
*
*
Filioque: Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue (William Klimon) [July 1997]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
50 Biblical Evidences for the Holy Trinity [National Catholic Register, 11-14-16]
*
*
*
*
VII. THEOLOGY PROPER (THEOLOGY OF GOD) / GOD’S ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE 
*
Dialogue w Mormon Apologist: God & Doctrinal Development (vs. Dr. Barry Bickmore) (+ Part Two) [12-22-01]
*
*
Is God in Time? (vs. John W. Loftus) [11-30-06]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Is God the Author of Evil? (vs. John Calvin) [Oct. 2012]
*
*
*
*
*
Thoughts on the Level of Our “Comprehension” of God (St. John Chrysostom) (dialogue with Deacon Steven D. Greydanus) [Facebook, 9-14-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? (God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, & Omnipresence in Early Bible Books & Ancient Jewish Understanding) [9-18-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Does God Ever Actively Prevent Repentance? [National Catholic Register, 9-1-19]
*
*
*
*
*
*
Who Caused Job to Suffer — God or Satan? [National Catholic Register, 6-28-20]
*
*
The Bible Teaches That Other “Gods” are Imaginary [National Catholic Register, 7-10-20]
*
*
*
Does God Have Any Need of Praise? [National Catholic Register, 9-24-20]
*
God in Heaven & in His Temple: Contradiction? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-23-20]
*
God in Heaven and in His Temple: Biblical Difficulty? [National Catholic Register, 12-10-20]
*
*
Dark Energy, Dark Matter and the Light of the World [National Catholic Register, 2-17-21]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Bible on God’s Revealed Nature & Character (Ch. 6 of the book, Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved: which examines examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims) [12-5-23]
*
VIII. GOD AS JUDGE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Grace, Faith, Works, & Judgment: A Scriptural Exposition [12-16-09; reformulated and abridged on 3-15-17]
*
*
*
*
*
Does God Punish to the Fourth Generation? [National Catholic Register, 10-1-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
IX. THEISTIC ARGUMENTS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

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

Dialogue: Has God Demonstrated His Existence (Romans 1)? [9-1-18]

Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

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

Seidensticker Folly #41: Argument from Design [8-25-20]

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

Creation Ex Nihilo is in the Bible [National Catholic Register, 10-1-20]

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

Quantum Mechanics and the “Upholding” Power of God [National Catholic Register, 11-24-20]

*

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Last updated on 29 March 2025

***

 

2024-09-30T13:33:29-04:00

More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible

This is my  sequel or “Volume 2” to my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023, 271 pages). These articles / would-be chapters  continue the goal laid out in the Introduction of The Word Set in Stone:

I deal with specific objective matters in relation to the text of the Bible that can be addressed by archaeology or other forms of science, starting with premises (for the most part) that Christians and non-Christians accept in common. What I’m doing is “defeating the defeaters” offered up by biblical skeptics, anti-theist atheists (who specialize in and constantly focus on criticizing the Bible, Christians, Christianity), and archaeological minimalists.

If skeptics argue, for example, that a particular city wasn’t in existence when the Bible says it was, then, in response, I seek archaeological data to prove or at least offer strong evidential support for the biblical view. This approach defends the Bible’s accuracy. Skeptical arguments against biblical accuracy are often incorrect and fallacious.

This book deals with objective, historical issues that we can analyze through the means of scientific (mostly archaeological) analysis. It’s what Christians are often asked to do: give solid evidence for what we believe. [slightly modified excerpt]

We have a huge task in defending Holy Scripture in light of a rapidly growing, militant and condescending anti-theist brand of atheism and an aggressive anti-traditional secularism in general. They’re demanding (not always sincerely!) “evidence” and those who would or do believe want to see reason and science harmonized with faith, and I believe apologists can provide both things, and solidly so, in terms of arguments that can withstand scrutiny.

I’ve devoted years of my life and career to providing plausible answers to these sorts of questions. The answers theists and Christians can provide are, I believe (perhaps surprisingly), solid and strong, very exciting, faith- and confidence-building, and informative. I’ve never enjoyed apologetics more than I have in researching, engaging in dialogues, and writing about these issues. And I am learning (tons of things!), too, as I pass on what I have learned to others.

I’m not the “expert” here; I’m simply a lay Christian apologist discovering wonderful things about the Bible, archaeology, and history, and I’m thrilled and privileged to be able to share them with you: 160 sections of immersion in “Bible paradise” for those who love Holy Scripture, as I do, or those (believers or nonbelievers) who read out of curiosity and openness to being persuaded by the scientific and historical evidence presented. Enjoy! And please consider making a donation to my work if you have received benefit, “apologetics aid,” or blessing from this labor of love. “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Creation of the Universe

1) Eternal Universe vs. an Eternal God [4-16-20]

2) Philosophy & “Who Created God?” [7-12-21]

3) “God of the Gaps” [6-24-18]

4) Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

5) Creation “Ex Nihilo” [8-28-20]

6) Why a Universe at All? [11-5-21]

7) God, Empiricism, & Atheist Demands for “Evidence” [10-9-15]

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

9) Empiricism: Only Valid & Objective Knowledge? [7-18-17]

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

11) Cause of the Big Bang: Atheist Geologist Challenged [4-21-17]

12) Argument from Design [8-25-20]

13) God the Designer? [8-27-20]

14) Albert Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”: In His Own Words [2-17-03; greatly expanded on 8-26-10]

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

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

17) Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” [8-19-15]

18) Clarifications of “Atomism” for Offended Atheists [8-20-15]

II. Creation of the Earth, Life, and  Adam & Eve

19) Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time [5-11-17]

20) Genesis 1 vs. 2 (Creation) [5-17-20]

21) Biblical Flat Earth & Cosmology [9-11-06]

22) Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? [9-17-06]

23) Bible Teaches a Flat Earth? [3-31-22]

24) Old Earth, Flood Geology, & Uniformitarianism [5-25-04; rev. 5-10-17]

25) Catholicism and Evolution / Charles Darwin’s Religious Beliefs [8-19-09]

26) Catholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution?

27) Why I Believe in “Non-Miraculous” Intelligent Design

28) “Non-Interventionist” Intelligent Design [6-21-19]

29) The Borders of Science & Theology

30) Mutations & Evolutionary Change [1-16-23]

31) Bible Espouses Mythical Animals? [9-10-19]

32) Dragons in the Bible? [3-4-22]

33) Physics Has Disproven Souls? [8-16-18]

34) Spirit-God “Magic”; 68% Dark Energy Isn’t? [2-2-21]

35) Defending the Literal, Historical Adam of the Genesis Account [9-25-11]

36) Adam & Eve of Genesis: Historical & the Primal Human Pair [11-28-13]

37) Adam & Eve & Original Sin: Disproven by Science? [9-7-15]

38) “Where Did Cain Get His Wife?” [3-7-13]

39) How Cain Found a Wife [6-22-18]

III. Noah’s Flood / Abraham & Other Patriarchs 

40) 969-Year-Old Methuselah (?) & Genesis Numbers [7-12-21]

41) Biblical Size of Noah’s Ark: Literal or Symbolic? [3-16-22]

42) Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals [9-7-20]

43) Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity? [9-10-15]

44) Flood: 25 Criticisms & Non Sequiturs [3-8-22]

45) Straw Man Global Flood [8-30-22]

46) Noah’s Ark: Josephus, Earlier Historians, & Church Fathers (Early Witnesses of the Ark Resting on Jabel [Mt.] Judi) [3-16-22]

47) Genesis 10 “Table of Nations”: Authentic History [8-25-21]

48) Table of Nations, Interpretation, & History [11-27-21]

49) The Tower of Babel, Archaeology, & Linguistics [4-13-23]

50) Sodom & Gomorrah & Archaeology: North of the Dead Sea? [10-9-14]

51) Archaeology & a Proto-Hebrew Language in 1800 BC [1-31-23]

52) Abraham, Warring Kings of Genesis 14, & History [7-31-21]

53) Philistines, Beersheba, Bible Accuracy [3-18-22]

54) Egyptian Proof of Hebrew Slaves During Jacob’s Time [2-17-23]

55) Evidence for Hebrews / Semites in Egypt: 2000-1200 B.C. [5-3-23]

56) Biblical Hebrew Names with an Egyptian Etymology [5-9-23]

57) Pharaoh Didn’t Know Joseph?! [5-26-21]

58) 13th c. BC Canaanite Iron Chariots [7-16-21]

IV. Moses & the Exodus 

59) Did Moses Exist? No Absolute Proof, But Strong Evidence [6-14-21]

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

61) Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (+ a Plausible Scenario for Moses Gaining Knowledge of Hittite Legal Treaties in His Egyptian Official Duties) [7-31-21]

62) Does the Pentateuch Claim to be Inspired Revelation? + Do the Several Third-Person References to Moses in the Pentateuch Prove That He Didn’t Write It? [12-14-22]

63) A Pharaoh’s Death (Ex 2:23) & Exodus Chronology [7-27-22]

64) When Was the Exodus: 15th or 13th Century B.C.? [4-15-23]

65) Did the Hebrews Cross the Red Sea or the “Reed Sea”?: And Which Specific Body of Water Did They Cross, According to the Combined Deductions and Determinations of the Bible and Archaeology? [5-9-23]

66) Manna: Possibly a Natural Phenomenon? [5-5-23]

67) In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai (Fascinating Topographical and Biblical Factors Closely Examined) [8-16-21]

68) Acacia, Ark of the Covenant, & Biblical Accuracy [8-24-21]

69) The Tabernacle: Egyptian & Near Eastern Precursors [9-8-21]

70) No Philistines in Moses’ Time? [6-3-21]

71) Moses, Kadesh, Negev, Bronze Age, & Archaeology [6-10-21]

160) Moses & Water From Rocks: A Closer Look [1-7-24]

V. Joshua’s “Conquest”, Israel’s Enemies, & the Judges

72) Jericho: Did the Walls Collapse Due to Resonance? [5-1-23]

73) Joshua’s Conquest: Rapid, Always Violent, & Total? [5-1-23]

74) Hazor Battles “Contradictions”? (Including Possible Archaeological Evidence for the Battle of Deborah in Judges 4) [3-23-22]

75) “The Sun Stood Still” (Joshua) [4-16-20]

76) Arameans, Amorites, and Archaeological Accuracy [6-8-21]

77) Edomites: Archaeology Confirms the Bible (As Always) [6-10-21]

78) 12th c. BC Moabite & Ammonite Kings [7-19-21]

79) “Higher” Hapless Haranguing of Hypothetical Hittites (19th C.) [10-21-11; abridged 7-7-20]

80) Archaeology & Judges-Era Lead & Tin Trade [1-26-23]

81) Samson’s Death-Scene: Archaeological Confirmation [3-27-23]

82) Anachronistic “Israelites”? [5-25-21]

83) Jericho & Archaeology: Replies To Atheists [12-30-23]

VI. Kings Saul, David, & Solomon & Subsequent Kings of Judah & Israel

84) How Did David Kill Goliath? [5-19-20]

85) Goliath’s Height: Six Feet 9 Inches, 7 Feet 8, or 9 Feet 9? [7-4-21]

86) Ziklag (David’s Refuge from Saul) & Archaeology [3-29-23]

87) King Solomon’s “Mines” & Archaeological Evidence [3-24-23]

88) Archaeology & Solomon’s Temple-Period Ivory [1-28-23]

89) Solomon’s “Impossible” (?) Wealth & Archaeology [4-25-23]

90) Solomon’s Temple and its Archaeological Analogies (Also, Parallels to Solomon’s Palace) [4-25-23]

91) The Queen of Sheba, Solomon, & Archaeology [4-27-23]

92) Archaeology & King Rehoboam’s Wall in Lachish [1-31-23]

93) King Ahab, Queen Jezebel, & Archaeology [4-7-23]

94) King Hezekiah: Exciting New Archaeological Findings [12-13-22]

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

96) Archaeology & First-Temple Period Bethlehem [4-6-23]

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

98) Assyrian King Sennacherib, the Bible, & Archaeology [4-17-23]

161) Solomon’s Rebuilding Of Gezer & Archaeology [4-24-24]

162) Hazael’s Sack of Gath (2 Kgs 12:17) & Archaeology (+ Scientific Corroboration of the Biblical Data Regarding Kiln-Baked Bricks) [4-24-24]

VII. The Prophets, Job, the Fall of Jerusalem (586 BC), and the Return to Israel

99) Prophet Elijah and Archaeology [4-13-22]

100) Prophet Elisha and Archaeology [4-4-22]

101) Was Jonah in the Belly of a Whale? Yes, But . . . [3-27-23]

102) Book of Job, Archaeology, History, & Geography [4-1-23]

103) Fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), Archaeology, & Biblical Accuracy [4-10-23]

104) Ezra: Archaeological & Historical Corroboration [3-31-23]

105) Nehemiah: Archaeological & Historical Corroboration [3-31-23]

106) Nebuchadnezzar As A Cow: Curable Or Not? [12-31-23]

VIII. Old Testament Messianic Prophecies

107) Psalm 110: Examples of Jewish Commentators Who Regard it as Messianic / Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s Charges of Christian “Tampering” with the Text [9-14-01]

108) “Fabricated” OT Messianic Prophecies? [7-1-10]

109) Isaiah 53 & “Dishonest”(?) Christians [7-2-10]

110) Isaiah 53: Ancient & Medieval Jewish Messianic Interpretation [1982; revised 9-14-01]

111) Isaiah 53: Is the “Servant” the Messiah (Jesus) or Collective Israel? [9-14-01, with incorporation of much research from 1982]

112) Discussion of Micah 5:2 (The Prophecy of Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem) [12-19-22]

113) Messianic Prophecies (Zech 13:6, Ps 22) [7-3-10]

IX. Jesus’ Birth & Childhood 

114) Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” [7-25-17]

115) Jesus Never Existed, Huh? [8-14-18]

116) December 25th Birth of Jesus?: Interesting Considerations [12-11-17]

117) Christmas & Dec. 25th: Not Derived from Saturnalia (Nor from Sol Invictus . . .) [12-8-21]

118) 28 Defenses of Jesus’ Nativity (Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great) [1-9-21]

119) Straw-Man, Mythical “Nativity” [3-2-22]

120) Jesus’ December Birth & Grazing Sheep in Bethlehem (Is a December 25th Birthdate of Jesus Impossible or Unlikely Because Sheep Can’t Take the Cold?) [12-26-20]

121) Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents: Myth & Fiction? [2-10-21]

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

123) Bethlehem Joseph / Census Issues [2-28-22]

124) Archaeology & 1st Century Nazareth [2-25-22]

125) Jesus the “Nazarene” [12-19-20]

X. Jesus’ Life & Ministry 

126) “’Bethany Beyond the Jordan’: History, Archaeology and the Location of Jesus’ Baptism on the East Side of the Jordan” [8-11-14]

127) Cana: Archaeological Comparison of “Rival” Sites [3-29-23]

128) Archaeology & St. Peter’s House in Capernaum [9-23-14]

129) Jesus’ Alleged Mustard Seed Error [10-8-18]

130) Discipleship & Jewish Burial Customs [8-8-19]

131) Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Swine, & Atheist Skeptics  [7-25-17]

132) Demons, Gadara, & Biblical Numbers [12-18-20]

133) Gadarenes & Gerasenes #3 [2-17-22]

134) NT Texts & the Next Town Over [2-18-22]

163) “Upper Room” (Last Supper & Pentecost) & Archaeology [9-30-24]

XI. Jesus’ Passion, Death, & Resurrection

135) Judas’ “Thirty Coins of Silver”: Archaeology & History [6-18-23]

136) No “Leafy Branches” on Palm Sunday? [4-19-21]

137) Archaeology: Jesus’ Crucifixion, Tomb, & the Via Dolorosa [9-18-14]

138) Date of Jesus’ Death . . . Including the Analogy of Historical Skepticism Against Many Renowned Persons from the Hebrew Bible [4-17-21]

139) Homer & the Gospels (Is the Story of Priam in the Iliad the Model for a Fictional Joseph of Arimathea?) [10-15-21]

140) Obsession w NT Imitation (?) of Homer [10-18-21]

141) Crucifixion Eclipse? [3-30-22]

142) “Blood & Water” & Medical Science [4-25-21]

143) Jesus’ Burial Spices Contradiction? [4-20-19]

144) No Tomb for Jesus? (Skeptical Fairy Tales and Fables vs. the Physical Corroborating Evidence of Archaeology in Jerusalem) [11-10-21]

145) Who Buried Jesus? [4-26-21]

146) Guards at the Tomb & Historiography [4-27-21]

147) Matthew & the Tomb Guards (Including the Analogy of Xenophon and Plato as Biographers of Socrates) [1-28-22]

XII. General Biblical Considerations

148) Why We Should Fully Expect Many “Bible Difficulties” [7-17-17]

149) “Difficulty” in Understanding the Bible: Hebrew Cultural Factors [2-5-21]

150) Atheist “Bible Science” Absurdities [9-25-18]

151) Atheist “Bible Science” Inanities, Pt. 2 [10-2-18]

152) Bible & Disease & Medicine (3-31-22)

153) Demonic Possession or Epilepsy? (Bible & Science) [2015]

154) Disease, Jesus, Paul, Miracles, & Demons [1-13-20]

155) Are the Gospels & Acts “Propaganda”? (Unpacking a Statement from Historian A. N. Sherwin-White) [2-16-22]

156) NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? [5-4-21]

157) Manuscript Evidence: New Testament vs. Plato, Etc. [10-10-15]

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

159) Atheist Double Standards Regarding the Miraculous in Historical Accounts [Facebook, 1-1-24]

Additional Sections Added Later

#160: in section IV

#161-162: in section VI

#163: in section X

***

Other Free “Books” by Dave Armstrong + Bookstore (55 Titles)

My Five-Volume Free “Book”: Catholicism Explained [more than 333 1000-word articles (“chapters”) written for the National Catholic Register (starting in 29 September 2016 and ongoing): enough material for five 233-page volumes: 1166 pages plus! This is a complete catechetical and apologetical explanation of the Catholic faith]

Dave Armstrong’s Catholic Apologetics Bookstore: 55 Books

*

Summary: A sequel for my book, The Word Set in Stone is not in the cards, but (good news!), folks can read for free the material that would have made up the second volume.

Latest Update: 30 September 2024

2023-02-21T16:22:28-04:00

10. The Story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Lk 16:19-31) in Relation to the Doctrine of Immortal Souls

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

This is my 45th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. Since 5-25-22 he hadn’t written one  word in reply, until he responded on 11-12-22 (see my reply) and on 11-15-22 (see my response). Why so few and so late? He says it’s because my articles are “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and my “objective” was “not to refute anything, but to exhaust [my] opponent.” Indeed, my writings are so bad that “only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” He didn’t “waste time reading” 37 of my 40 replies (three articles are his proof of the worthlessness of all of my 4,000+ articles and 51 books). He also denied that I had a “job” and claimed that I didn’t “work.” I disposed of these and other slanderous insults on my Facebook page on 11-13-22. But Banzoli thought that replying to me was so “entertaining” that he’ll “make a point of rebutting” my articles “one by one.” 

My current effort is a major multi-part response to Banzoli’s 1900-page self-published book, The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul [A Lenda da Imortalidade da Alma], published on 1 August 2022.  He claims to have “cover[ed] in depth all the immortalist arguments” and to have “present[ed] all the biblical proofs of the death of the soul . . .” and he confidently asserted: “the immortality of the soul is at the root of almost all destructive deception and false religion.” He himself admits on page 18 of his Introduction that what he is opposing is held by “nearly all the Christians in the world.” A sincere unbiblical error (and I assume his sincerity) is no less dangerous than a deliberate lie, and we apologists will be “judged with greater strictness” for any false teachings that we spread (Jas 3:1).

I use RSV for the Bible passages (including ones that Banzoli cites) unless otherwise indicated. Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue.

*****

See the other installments:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

See also the related articles:

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

Answer to Banzoli’s “Challenge” Re Intercession of Saints [9-20-22]

Bible on Praying Straight to God (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-21-22]

Reply to Banzoli’s “Analyzing the ‘evidence’ of saints’ intercession” [9-22-22]

*****

This is a reply to Banzoli’s article, “A parábola do rico e Lázaro prova a imortalidade da alma?” [Does the parable of the rich man and Lazarus prove the immortality of the soul?] (11-19-22). It in turn was drawn from his book, The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul.

He starts out by recounting a story that an Adventist preacher told, concerning St. Peter as the gatekeeper of heaven. It turns out that the preacher was using the story as an illustration preceding his sermon about Lazarus and the rich man. Then Banzoli delivers the kicker:

• The audience knows this is not a true story.
 
• They know the popular belief that those who die go to heaven, and at the entrance they meet Saint Peter.
 
•  They don’t believe in this creed as a doctrine. They know this is not true (the pastor already knows the audience and knows that they believe as he does, about man’s destiny after death).

None of this, of course, is relevant to Jesus and His telling of the story. Jesus was God. His recorded words are in the inspired, infallible, inerrant revelation of the New Testament. He could not possibly teach falsehood, whether this was a parable or not. I shall argue that it was not; but that even if it was, the same point stands: it could not contain theological error or heresy.

And it could not because this is the Bible: central to the rule of faith for all Christians. What it teaches is always true: whether it comes in the form of a parable or other non-literal idiom, or  a “straight” story of actual history. This is all the more the case, seeing that God the Son Himself is speaking and teaching. But then again, Banzoli is a Christological heretic, who thinks (as far as I can determine) that Jesus stopped existing after His death on the cross and then was put together again by His Father at His resurrection.

Jesus was not an Adventist preacher, whose belief included the heretical doctrine of soul sleep. His teachings were developments of Jewish doctrine, which had always held to conscious souls in the afterlife (as I have abundantly shown in past installments). The sort of folk religion / cultural religion that produced the notion of Peter as the gatekeeper goes beyond Scripture, but is actually loosely based on his being given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19). From that people got the idea that he would be standing there with the key to get into heaven for each person, after they die, and that he would tell them why they could enter or not (which in the Bible is a task reserved for God).

Jesus never taught anything that His hearers knew was “not true.” The very notion is nonsensical and blasphemous. It would make Jesus a misleading liar. Banzoli thinks this story is one such case, but he can’t prove that from Scripture itself. He is only thinking like this in this instance because he knows that the story demolishes his belief in soul sleep.

But if this story is considered to contain gross falsehoods and untruths about the afterlife and the nature of souls, then how many other stories, doctrinal teachings, or parables also contain falsehoods, that readers supposedly “know” are false? Perhaps he can inform us of those, and, moreover,  tell us how it is that he determined their less-than-true nature? The dangers are obvious: pretty soon Holy Scripture would become a “slippery slope” and used and abused to supposedly teach any false doctrine imaginable.

After arguing that a parable need not contain truths, Banzoli inexplicably defines a parable as an Allegorical narrative that transmits moral or religious precepts, common in the Holy Scriptures.” Exactly! They are teaching some sort of precepts, to be believed; not falsehood. So he again contradicts himself (a not uncommon occurrence in his writings). He states that parables were “never intended to be a true story or necessarily express real things.” The first clause is true; the second is not.

Parables teach true “moral or religious precepts”: as Banzoli truly stated (a “religious precept” being a “real thing”). The author of Mark wrote that “he taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them” (Mk 4:2). “Teaching” in the gospels refers to the sharing of truths (with regard to Jesus’ “teaching”, see Mt 4:23; 7:28; 9:35; 21:23;  22:33; 26:55; 28:20; Mk 1:22; 6:6; 9:31; 11:18; 12:38; 14:49; Lk 4:31-32; 5:17; 10:39; 13:10, 22; 19:47; 20:1; 21:37; 23:5; Jn 7:16-17; 18:19). Paul also uses the word “teaching” many times, with the meaning of “truth” or “true tradition”.

Jehoash’s purpose [see 2 Kgs 14:8-10] obviously was not to teach that thorn bushes literally converse with the cedars of Lebanon, just as Jesus’ purpose in telling the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was obviously not to say that Sheol/Hades was a place of souls burning or talking. In both cases, the conversation of the trees or the dead serves only as a “resource of analogy or comparison”, which is precisely what a parable consists of.

In other words, although the elements themselves (thorn bushes, cedars or dead trees) are fictitious, they convey a deeper moral lesson, which is in fact the author’s objective in using the parable as a didactic resource.

Alright; Banzoli needs to tell us, then, what Jesus’ purpose was, in misrepresenting what it is like in the afterlife, by means of false symbolic illustrations — in Luke 16 — of what doesn’t actually occur (which amounts to little better than a lie). So what did He mean, then, and why would He use these illustrations? We’re all ears.

It’s beyond strange that if Jesus wanted to teach us that souls were “asleep” or not even in existence in the afterlife (as Banzoli and Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses erroneously believe), until God creates them anew in the general resurrection, that He does so by having the rich man talking to Abraham, asking petitionary requests of him (i.e., praying to him) and Abraham answering: all in the effort to show that none of those very things are possible, and that, in fact, there is no such thing as Sheol / Hades in the sense of a place of conscious souls.

Is it not obvious that the very last way to convey such a meaning would be by use of this story? This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. It’s absurd and ludicrous to think that it does. Heresy always leads to absurdity and self-contradiction.

Add to this the important addendum that, contrary to what most people think, Jesus did not tell parables to clarify spiritual truths, but to hide them.

That’s not strictly true. The parables are true; they convey truths. Whether hearers can hear them is another question. Jesus told them to people He knew would not be able to receive them:

Matthew 13:12-13 For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Jesus’ disciples, who had not yet received the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, often didn’t understand Jesus, just as the Pharisees and Sadducees (due to their outright rebelliousness and hostility) did not. Hence, Jesus said to His disciples:

Matthew 15:15-16 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” [16] And he said, “Are you also still without understanding?”

Mark 4:13 . . . “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?”

Mark 7:17-18 . . . his disciples asked him about the parable. [18] And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? . . .”

Mark 8:15-18, 21 And he cautioned them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” [16] And they discussed it with one another, saying, “We have no bread.” [17] And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? [18] Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? . . . [21] And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

As strange as this may seem, Jesus did not tell parables so that the crowd would better understand his teaching, but just the opposite: so that they would not understand!

The hardened who could not “hear” wouldn’t understand; that’s quite true. But as I just proved, neither did the disciples understand, on many occasions. It doesn’t make the parables not true in what they expressed. Jesus expresses the thought that the disciples should have understood them, if they had opened up their hearts. Otherwise, if it was inevitable that no one could understand a parable, it would be meaningless for Jesus to ask the disciples: “Are you also still without understanding?” (Mt 15:16) The question assumes that it was falling short on their part, or a fault, for them to not understand the parable.

This is why Jesus spoke to the disciples clearly, but to the crowd he spoke only in parables: . . . it was a selfish crowd with a hardened heart. This explains why people were always misunderstanding what Jesus was saying, as they do all the time in the Gospels.

He clarified more so to the disciples, compared to the crowds, but He didn’t always speak “clearly” from their perspective, because they repeatedly misunderstood or didn’t grasp His parables (see the four passages above), or His predictions about His coming death. According to Jesus, His disciples could have hardened hearts at times, too, which is why He asked rhetorically (as an intended rebuke): “Are your hearts hardened?” (Mk 8:17). Mark 6:52 states flat-out about the disciples: “for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.”

To be fair, Banzoli does acknowledge that the disciples sometimes misunderstood Jesus, too:

Even the disciples had difficulty understanding when Jesus was speaking literally and when not, which is why they argued about not having bread when Jesus asked them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:6-7).

Good!

This indicates that Jesus did not tell the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to teach anything about the afterlife.

Of course He taught there about the afterlife; otherwise, why did He provide the details that He gave? It makes no sense, as I contended above. In any event, it doesn’t follow that Jesus therefore purposely taught untruths and in effect misled people or lied to them in parables or in (as I believe) His recounting of an actual historical event in Luke 16.

Even if there were anyone so foolish as to think that Jesus meant to teach the afterlife by telling the parable (which is not surprising, since they confused everything Jesus said in an allegorical way), the true purpose of the parable it was not in its lines, but between the lines, hidden from the gaze of the crowd.

There was no interpretation needed in the story of Lazarus and the rich man because it wasn’t a parable. It was a true story, and it stood on its own.

overwhelming evidence, both inside and outside Luke 16:19-31, which demonstrates that Jesus was really telling a parable, not an actual story.

To begin with, the pericope in question is right in the middle of Luke’s well-known parables. Both the preceding and following chapters, including chapter 16 itself, are filled with parables of the most varied types, as if Luke had reserved that part of the book almost exclusively for the parables of Jesus. . . . 

If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus were inserted in the midst of real stories, such prior notice would be expected, but not when the entire context is notoriously marked by fictional stories.

This portion is not all parables. Luke 15 is all parables but Luke 16 is not. Jesus continues telling them through 16:13, but then 16:14-18 records a dispute between Him and the Pharisees, about the law, the gospel, and adultery. The story of Lazarus and the rich man immediately follows that. And it’s about riches, since the narrator in 16:14 had written: “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him.” Jesus then continues with straight teaching, not parables, in John 17:1-5, about temptation and forgiveness. Therefore, both immediately before and after our story, there are non-parabolic teachings.

This suggests (if we are to make such a contextual argument) that 16:19-31 is, or could be, an actual story as well. Jesus did tell those, and He recalled true events. So, for example, He mentioned, “Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar” (Mt 23:35). These were actual historical figures, just as Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man were. That story just happened to be about the afterlife, which Jesus knew about, since He knows all things. He spoke of true messianic prophecies about Himself: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:46). He referred to events concerning King David: “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, . . .?” (Mt 12:3).

[the parable of] of the dishonest manager (Luke 16:1-8), which immediately precede that of the rich man and Lazarus.

It does not, as already stated. 16:14-18 is a dispute with the Pharisees.

It is obviously unnecessary to emphasize that this is another parable when one has been narrating several parables in a row, which is assumed by anyone with an IQ above zero.

If in fact, it was all parables before and after our story, he might have a point, although this wouldn’t prove that Jesus had to tell a parable in the middle of all of them and couldn’t possibly tell a true story. There is no necessity for that, let alone any statement that says such a thing. So perhaps it is Banzoli‘s IQ that might be lower than he thinks it is, or it may be that he is not nearly as unanswerable as he appears to assume.

neither did the evangelists always make a point of emphasizing when it was a parable, nor did the disciples need Jesus to explicitly state that it was one. They naturally understood that when Jesus told stories he taught in parables.

I agree that Jesus didn’t always say that a parable was a parable. That’s not in dispute.

the parable personifies inanimate characters

There is no indication I am aware of, where the Bible mentions actual historical persons, like Abraham, but only in the sense of personification. Banzoli has his categories mixed up. When Samuel appeared to Saul, it really was him, and he gave a true prophecy of Saul’s impending death and judgment, which demons would not do. Likewise, when Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus at His transfiguration, there is not the slightest suggestion that they aren’t those actual people. Personification involves giving inanimate objects personal features, not giving people personal features, which is a non sequitur or a redundancy. This is desperate special pleading on Banzoli’s part.

characters appear in Hades with a physical body, not as a disembodied soul or disembodied spirit. This becomes clear in verse 24, where the rich man asks Lazarus to “dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue ” . This shows that Lazarus had fingers and the rich man had a tongue, both organs of a physical body, not parts of an immaterial spirit or ghostly soul.

It shows no such thing. These are anthropomorphisms. As an apologist who believes in biblical inspiration and understands biblical literary forms, I have to explain these things to atheists and also to heretics like Banzoli. Neither one gets it because neither properly understands biblical idioms.

God the Father, Who is an immaterial spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18), is also (figuratively) described in the Bible as having hands (1Kgs 8:15; Is 59:1), ears (2 Chr 7:15; Is 59:1), a face (2 Chr 7:14; Is 59:2); arms (Ex 6:6); eyes (2 Chr 7:15), a heart (2 Chr 7:16); breath (Ps 33:6); wings (Ps 36:7); breasts, womb (Dt 32:18; Is 66:7-13); a finger (Ex 31:18; Dt 9:10; Lk 11:20); nostrils (Ex 15:8; Ps 18:15); and a mouth (2 Chr 6:4; 35:22).

Let’s take a step back at this point and consider the reasons why I submit that this story should not be regarded as a parable:

1) People are never named in parables. This story names Abraham (Lk 16:23-24) and Moses (16:29, 31), historical figures mentioned many other times in the Bible. Parables refer generally to people: “a king” (Lk 14:31-42), “master of the house” (Mt 24:42-44), “evil servant” (Mt 24:48-51), “a man taking a far journey” (Mk 13:34-37), “judge” (Lk 18:2), “widow” (Lk 18:3), “a certain man” (Lk 13:6), “a certain rich man” (Lk 12:16), etc. If Banzoli thinks he can find one with names, he is welcome to do so. Best of wishes to him in that endeavor!

2) Parables have earthly settings, never heavenly or spiritual ones. This story mentions Hades (Lk 16:23), and “Abraham’s bosom” (16:22).

3) Angels are not mentioned in parables. The “reapers” in the parable of the wheat and tares, are “angels” in the explanation, and “the enemy” in the parable is explained as “the devil” (Mt 13:39). So if angels only appear in the explanation, but never in the parable itself, then the story of Lazarus and the the rich man cannot be a parable, because angels are also mentioned (Lk 16:22).

4) Parables are stories that presuppose commonplace human experience (#2), then delve into a deeper spiritual meaning. But Luke 16, unlike, for example, the parable of the sower, which had to be (and was) explained by Jesus, can be read by anyone and they’ll grasp the meaning without the necessity of interpretation. Jesus never “explains” it.

A literal interpretation of the parable also leaves room for a number of inconsistencies, which immortalists would hardly want to include in their theology. For example, it would make room for the belief that the saved in heaven will be able to converse calmly with the wicked in hell, just as the rich man converses with Lazarus.

This is neither hell nor heaven, but rather, “Abraham’s bosom” (Lk 16:22) or “Hades” (Lk 16:23): the intermediate state or place where the dead resided before the death of Christ. See my article: Luke 16 Doesn’t Describe Hell or Purgatory, But Hades [1-16-20].

Imagine you not only knowing that your child is burning in hell in endless terrible suffering, but still being able to see him suffering before your eyes and communicate with him without being able to do anything to mitigate his suffering or get him out of there. I bet your experience in heaven wouldn’t be all that satisfying…

Since the story is not attempting to describe either heaven or hell, this comment is a non sequitur.

Although some immortalists claim that after Jesus’ death the saved ones in “Abraham’s Bosom” were magically transferred to a heavenly dimension

Yes, because the Bible describes that:

Ephesians 4:8-10 Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” [9] (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? [10] He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

1 Peter 3:18-20 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; [19] in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, [20] who formerly did not obey,

That’s not “magic”; it’s the power and love of God.

Either the fire in the parable is fake, or hell must not be so painful after all.

It was metaphorical flames, which stand for torment and anguish (such chastening heat and/or fire are common motifs in Scripture), just as the described body parts need not necessarily be literal. Scripture refers to a purging fire (1 Corinthians 3:13, 15 is a graphic example); whatever “shall pass through the fire” will be made “clean” (Num 31:23); “Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you; and on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire” (Dt 4:36); “we went through fire” (Ps 66:12); “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29); “do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you” (1 Pet 4:12); We also see passages about the “baptism of fire” (Mt 3:11; Mk 10:38-39; Lk 3:16; 12:50).

Besides, what good is a drop of water when the whole body is burning with unquenchable fire? Would that drop put out the fire of hell in which the rich man was plunged?

Of course not. But since this story is not describing hell, that’s neither here nor there.

It is also striking that the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to the world of the living, as if Abraham had some power to do so, instead of God. And though Abraham does not grant the request, he does not say that he did not have this power, 

Excellent! I’ve made precisely this argument many times, in using this part of Scripture to defend the invocation and intercession of saints. If Abraham couldn’t grant prayer requests, he would have made that clear, and would have said, “why are you asking me?! Go to God only!” But he didn’t. He simply declined the request. So this would be more false teaching from the lips of Jesus, if the Protestant denial of the communion of saints is the true state of affairs. Since Jesus cannot and would not ever teach falsehood, it follows that one can make petitionary requests of dead people. Abraham was a great prayer warrior on earth; he is in the afterlife also.

No wonder, the traditional conception of hell in systematic theologies completely deviates from that presented in the parable,

Now he’s starting to get it; since the story is about Hades, as it itself plainly states. But Banzoli is so profoundly ignorant and biblically illiterate that he can’t tell — or doesn’t know — the difference between the biblical concepts of heaven and hell and Sheol / Hades / Abraham’s bosom.

it only makes sense to speak of “lies” when dealing with real stories , not from fictional stories , like a parable.

This simply isn’t true. Jesus can’t utter theological lies or falsehoods in His parables. The parable is a teaching tool of Jesus. He can’t present false notions in them (even granting for the moment that this story is actually a parable, as many honest Christian scholars regard it). So, for example, when using “master” as a metaphor for God (as many parables do), Jesus couldn’t say that the servant had five masters rater than one (implying that there were five gods instead of one God). That would convey the false teaching of polytheism. Parables have to be theologically correct or else they would fail as teaching tools. The first requirement of a good teacher is to tell the truth and not inaccuracies, falsehoods, or lies.

If telling a fictional story was “lying”, then all fiction writers would be big liars.

This would only apply to fiction that is attempting to allegorically convey known truths of Christianity. So, for example, in C. S. Lewis’ famous Chronicles of Narnia series, Aslan the lion represents Christ (as all interpreters agree). He has qualities that are reflections of those of Christ. If he were portrayed as a deceiver or one who hates rather than loves, then that would not be a good or accurate allegory of Christianity. Or if these stories had four Aslans, as if there were four Christs instead of one, it would be a “lie” insofar as it is attempting to mirror or reflect Christian doctrine in a way that doesn’t correspond to the latter.

Lewis (my favorite author these past 45 years) denied that the Chronicles were straight allegories. But Aslan as one element within them reflects Christ. Lewis wrote in a December 1959 letter to a young girl named Sophia Storr:

I don’t say. ‘Let us represent Christ as Aslan.’ I say, ‘Supposing there was a world like Narnia, and supposing, like ours, it needed redemption, let us imagine what sort of Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection Christ would have there.’

So that’s not an exact analogy, but close enough to make my point. With Jesus and the parables, however, He is a teacher in Israel, and in fact, the Jewish Messiah and God the Son, and His teaching is recorded in inspired revelation. In His teaching He could not misrepresent the afterlife and the doctrine of souls (and the invocation and intercession of saints). That simply could not and would not happen, within the paradigm of Christianity and inspired Scripture. It would be a lie, and He’s not a liar. He is “the way and the truth and the life” (Jn 14:6).

It makes less than no sense for Him to teach what He did in Luke 16 (whether it’s a parable or a real story) if in fact soul sleep and the absence of the intercession of saints and a place called Hades / Sheol (in a sense other than merely any “grave”) are the actual state of affairs. That would be deception: accessible to many millions who have read the Gospel of Luke for two thousand years.

As we can see, personifying inanimate things is a recurring practice in the Bible, even more so in a parabolic context like this one.

Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham are not inanimate objects, but people. This is not personification. It has nothing to do with Banzoli’s favorite supposed “counter-example”: talking trees.

None of Jesus’ original hearers would be induced to think that the soul survives after death, 

Really? What would they make of Elijah and Moses appearing at His transfiguration, then? That was an actual historical event. I visited the place on top of a mountain where it happened. Also, how could Jesus say “Laz’arus, come out” (Jn 11:43) if the dead Lazarus couldn’t hear Him? Or how could Peter say, “Tabitha, rise” (Acts 9:40) if the dead Tabitha couldn’t hear him? Jesus’ disciples saw Him raise Lazarus.

In this parable, the unfaithful steward dishonestly halves the debts of his creditors in order to gain some personal gain from them (Luke 16:1-9), but no one accuses Jesus of encouraging dishonesty in business.

It is curious to observe that the same immortalists who use the means of the parable of Luke 16:19-31 to validate the immortality of the soul do not do the same thing with the means of the previous parable to validate dishonest administration, despite the parable saying that “the master commended the dishonest manager, because he acted shrewdly” (Luke 16:8).

Jesus was not sanctioning dishonesty, but rather, prudence. Expositor’s Greek Testament explains:

The master . . . may be supposed to be in the dark; it is the speaker of the parable who is in the secret. He praises the steward of iniquity, not for his iniquity (so Schleiermacher), but for his prudence in spite of iniquity. . . . The counsel would be immoral if in the spiritual sphere it were impossible to imitate the steward’s prudence while keeping clear of his iniquity. In other words, it must be possible to make friends against the evil day by unobjectionable actions. The mere fact that the lesson of prudence is drawn from the life of an unprincipled man is no difficulty to any one who understands the nature of parabolic instruction. The comparison between men of the world and the “sons of light” explains and apologises for the procedure. If you want to know what prudent attention to self-interest means it is to men of the world you must look.

Likewise, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

The fraud of this “steward of injustice” is neither excused nor palliated; the lesson is drawn from his worldly prudence in supplying himself with friends for the day of need,—which we are to do by wise and holy use of earthly gifts. . . . The zeal and alacrity of the “devil’s martyrs” may be imitated even by God’s servants.

And Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:

The lord commended – Praised, or expressed admiration at his wisdom. These are not the words of Jesus, as commending him, but a part of the narrative or parable. His “master” commended him – saw that he was wise and considerate, though he was dishonest.

The unjust steward – It is not said that his master commended him because he was “unjust,” but because he was “wise.” This is the only thing in his conduct of which there is any approbation expressed, and this approbation was expressed by “his master.” This passage cannot be brought, therefore, to prove that Jesus meant to commend his dishonesty. It was a commendation of his “shrewdness or forethought;” but the master could no more “approve” of his conduct as a moral act than he could the first act of cheating him.

Banzoli concedes this point later, by asserting (my italics):

the dishonest manager is praised for having acted shrewdly, even though he has robbed his master. . . . In the case of the parable of the dishonest steward, the lesson was that “he who is faithful with a little is also faithful with much, and he who is dishonest with a little is also dishonest with much” (Luke 16:10) – which has nothing to do with stealing from the boss

***

It is inappropriate and unwise to draw theological conclusions upon the means of a parable, which, by definition, is a fictional story, expressed through allegories. What we must extract from them is their moral lesson, which is usually found between the lines.

If we can learn morals through parables, we can also learn theology. The line is very fine. For example, the biblical statement, “God is love” is at the same time a theological and moral observation. Something like “because the Holy Spirit lives within us, we love others as Christ loved us” is the same blend.

Just as no one believes that bad wolves destroy houses with a breath, no one should think that the dead converse in the afterlife

Well, they do when they learn that Scripture repeatedly teaches it, as I have shown in my past entries (that it does do so). We bow to God’s inspired revelation, which is far more momentous than our own pet speculations and predispositions.

Furthermore, unlike Jesus’ other parables, the one about the rich man and Lazarus does not portray “everyday truths”,

Precisely because it isn’t a parable, as mentioned above. I thank Lucas for confirming one of my arguments.

it is of a completely different type from the other parables found in the Gospels.

Yeah, because it isn’t a parable at all . . .

and, as we shall see, the lesson of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was that “if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone raises from the dead” (Luke 16:31) – nothing to to do with the immortality of the soul.

Nonsense. The very person who made this statement (according to Jesus) was Abraham, who was conscious, in Hades, and conversing with another conscious soul in Hades, who had prayed to him (not God). So it has everything to do with the immortality of the soul. Try as hard as he may, Banzoli can’t ignore all these factors and pretend they aren’t there or have no relevance, anymore than a (non-blind) person looking straight up in the sky at noon on a clear summer day can avoid seeing the sun.

The parable’s lesson had nothing to do with God being irritated by our requests, but only that we must pray with perseverance. . . . 

Anyone making a literal application of the parable would be led to think that God is like that hard-hearted man who acts dishonestly, since it is He who distributes the talents.

Both stories make use of anthropopathism. We can only understand God by making Him seem like us in some respects, even though it isn’t actually true.

the simple reason that the means of a parable can never be used to substantiate doctrine.

Nonsense. They sure can. That was part of Jesus’ intention in giving them (along with teaching good morals). What we have to do is properly, correctly understand when figurative language is being used, and what it means when it is being used. This is what Banzoli gets wrong.  Many of the parables have to do with, for example, going to heaven or hell, which in turn, is related to soteriology, which is certainly theology. Therefore, the opposite of what Banzoli claims, is true: parables can and do “substantiate doctrine.”

Banzoli concedes this point in his next paragraph, contradicting himself: “We know that this parable talks about salvation, . . .”

However, few think that God literally forces people to be saved, as if they had no choice but to reject him.

Calvinists do (“irresistible grace” and “unconditional election”), but that’s beside the point. If the parable has to do with salvation, that’s soteriology, a branch of theology. And that’s doctrine.

It’s a kind of convenient deception, which serves the purpose of someone desperate to find biblical support for a doctrine that he knows is so baseless that the way is to resort to a parable.

Once again, Banzoli casts aspersions upon the basic honesty of all those Christians whom he himself described as “nearly all the Christians in the world.” This is outrageous. I do not claim the same about him. I think he is misinformed and grossly ignorant, and pompously condescending, but not dishonest. In other words, I don’t doubt his sincerity.

I doubt his theological understanding and ability to interpret Holy Scripture according to historic orthodoxy (including Protestant orthodoxy) and the laws of logic. But Banzoli is not a Protestant. He’s a Christological heretic: the worst and most dangerous kind. That’s not a mere insult. It’s a statement of fact, based on his beliefs, as stated in this book.

The Pharisees were proud of having Abraham as their father, but they did not act in accordance with what Abraham did. That is why in the parable Jesus places Abraham beside the beggar Lazarus, and leaves him separated from the rich man by a great gulf (v. 26). All of this is very symbolic, representing at the same time how far the Pharisees were from the one they claimed to have as their “father”, and how those who really followed in the footsteps of Abraham were the repentant sinners whom they so despised, who in the parable are placed at the side of Abraham in the figure of Lazarus.

All of that could have been done in a different way, without having the scene be a place which is precisely what “immortalists” understand as Sheol/Hades. Jesus didn’t need to include false doctrine (according to the soul sleep advocates) in His teaching here. There were a million other ways He could have made the same point and the same distinctions. It makes no sense at all that He just happened to tell the story (or parable, for those who believe that) with all this “baggage.” Banzoli simply can’t overcome this difficulty in his position, no matter how much he seeks to ignore it and special plead and rationalize it away and out of his thoroughly confused brain.

the expression “the bosom of the Father” does not refer to a place with this name, but is just a way of saying that Jesus he is beside the Father, seated at the right hand of the Almighty.

That is a place: in heaven next to God the Father. Likewise, “bosom of Abraham” before the death and resurrection of Christ means being in the place where Abraham was: that is, in the good part of Sheol / Hades, which is where those who would eventually go to heaven reside (with the ones bound for hell across the chasm).

Note further that the rich man says he had five brothers (v. 28). Jesus could have just said that he had brothers, but he is very specific in saying that he had five.

Yes, because this was a true story about real people; so in this case, he actually had five brothers, and Jesus can’t change that (being always a truthteller). It’s overanalyzing it to make out that this represents five factions of Judaism. It doesn’t represent anything except the historical fact that this man had five brothers.

Even the names quoted in the parable, which immortalists slyly use as “proof” that it was not a parable,

I reiterate my challenge: find another parable that has proper names. And if there are none, then that is strong evidence that this is not a parable.

It is noteworthy that there is not a single dictionary in the world that imposes as a rule that a parable cannot have proper names. 

That’s not necessary. This is simply an observation about the nature of existing parables in the NT: what they are and what they aren’t, or what they don’t include.

This is a “rule” invented by desperate immortalists, plucked from their own heads.

Nope. It’s a fact about the actual parables in the NT. A fact is not a rule.

What needs to be understood is that the parable’s exaggerations and nonsense are not occasional, but were deliberately included by Jesus to satirize the Greek Hades. By seeing Jesus treat the pagan Hades as a joke, his hearers would in no way be induced to believe the reality of it. Rather, they would know that Jesus did not endorse belief, just as Elijah did not endorse belief in Baal by ridiculing him. It would be like telling the famous story of Snow White but portraying the seven dwarfs as seven muscular giants. That would elicit laughter from the audience, and certainly no one would think I believed the tale.

I see. How, then, are these other verses to be explained? They certainly don’t read as satire and as exhibiting Jesus’ supposed disbelief in Hades, or His thinking it was a “joke”. He’s dead serious:

Matthew 11:23 And you, Caper’na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Luke 10:15 And you, Caper’na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.

This is about judgment of those in these cities who rejected Jesus. That’s funny? That’s a joke or satire? One of these uses is just six chapters before our story. Similarly, Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13-14 are as serious as they can be in referring to Hades. 20:13 states that Hades had “dead in” it. It was the abode of the dead. The wicked dead there are “thrown into the lake of fire” (hell: 20:14), while the righteous there go with Jesus to heaven, after He conquered death (Eph 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:18-20). If these are “joking” and humorous references to Hades, I must say that I don’t see the slightest hint of it. What could be more serious than passages about people going to hell for eternity (or being annihilated, if one follows Banzoli’s heretical view)? If that’s a “joke” I surely don’t know the meaning of the word. Maybe it translates badly from Portugese . . .

this ignorance is deliberate, for no layperson who would take the trouble to research the true purpose of the parable in the face of all the biblical, exegetical, and historical context would go to the ridiculous lengths of concluding that Jesus was endorsing the belief in an immortal soul.

In other words, no one can have a serious, honest, sincere disagreement with Banzoli and his heretical buddies. Any disagreement with them must arise out of deliberate ignorance: that is, consciously, deliberately deceptive lies. This is its own refutation.

Lastly, John Calvin wrote about this topic:

Let us come now to the history of the rich man and Lazarus, the latter of whom, after all the labors and toils of his mortal life are past, is at length carried into Abraham’s bosom, while the former, having had his comforts here, now suffers torments. A great gulf is interposed between the joys of the one and the sufferings of the other. Are these mere dreams – the gates of ivory which the poets fable? To secure a means of escape, they make the history a parable, and say, that all which truth speaks concerning Abraham, the rich man and the poor man, is fiction. Such reverence do they pay to God and his word! Let them produce even one passage from Scripture where any one is called by name in a parable! What is meant by the words – “There was a poor man named Lazarus?” Either the Word of God must lie, or it is a true narrative.

This is observed by the ancient expounders of Scripture. Ambrose says – It is a narrative rather than a parable, inasmuch as the name is added. Gregory takes the same view. Certainly Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian and Jerome, speak of it as a history. Among these, Tertullian thinks that, in the person of the rich man, Herod is designated, and in Lazarus John Baptist. The words of Irenaeus are “The Lord did not tell us a fable in the case of the rich man and Lazarus,” etc, And Cyril, in replying to the Arians, who drew from it an argument against the Divinity of Christ, does not relate it as a parable, but expounds it as a history. (Tertull. lib. adv. Marcion; Iren. lib. 4: contra haeres, cap. 4; Origen, Hom. 5 in Ezech.; Cyprian epist, 3; Hieron. in Jes. c. 49 and 65; Hilar. in Psalm 3.; Cyril in John 1 chapter 22.) They are more absurd when they bring forward the name of Augustine, pretending that he held their view. They affirm this, I presume, because in one place he says – “In the parable, by Lazarus is to be understood Christ, and by the rich man the Pharisees;” when all he means is, that the narrative is converted into a parable if the person of Lazarus is assigned to Christ, and that of the rich man to the Pharisees. (August. de Genes. ad Liter. lib. 8:) This is the usual custom with those who take up a violent prejudice in favor of an opinion. Seeing that they have no ground to stand upon, they lay hold not only of syllables but letters to twist them to their use! To prevent them from insisting here, the writer himself elsewhere declares, that he understands it to be a history. Let them now go and try to put out the light of day by means of their smoke!

They cannot escape without always falling into the same net: for though we should grant it to be a parable, (this they cannot at all prove,) what more can they make of it than just that there is a comparison which must be founded in truth? If these great theologians do not know this, let them learn it from their grammars, there they will find that a parable is a similitude, founded on reality. Thus, when it is said that a certain man had two sons to whom he divided his goods, there must be in the nature of things both a man and sons, inheritance and goods. In short, the invariable rule in parables is, that we first conceive a simple subject and set it forth; then, from that conception, we are guided to the scope of the parable – in other words, to the thing itself to which it is accommodated. Let them imitate Chrysostom, who is their Achilles in this matter. He thought that it was a parable, though he often extracts a reality from it, as when he proves from it that the dead have certain abodes, and shews the dreadful nature of Gehenna, and the destructive effects of luxury. (Chrysos. Hom, 25 in Matthew Hom. 57; in eundem, In Par ad The. Lapsor. Hom. 4 Matthew). (Psychopannychia, 1534)

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: Saint Michael the Archangel and Another Figure Recommending a Soul to the Virgin and Child in Heaven, by Bartolomeo Biscaino (1629-1657) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Part 10 of many responses to Lucas Banzoli’s 1900-page book, The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul: published on 1 August 2022. I defend historic Christianity.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives