Defense of Immortal, Conscious Souls (vs. Lucas Banzoli): #13

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 4:25 pm By Dave Armstrong

13. Dead Biblical Heroes Return to Earth!: Samuel & Saul / Moses & Elijah at Jesus’ Transfiguration

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 49th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 5-25-22 until 11-12-22 (almost half a year) he didn’t write even one single word in reply. Since then he has counter-responded three times. Why so few and so late? Well, he says it’s because my articles are “without exception poor, superficial and weak . . . only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” He didn’t “waste time reading” 37 of my first 40 replies (three articles being 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.” But he concluded that replying to me is so “entertaining” that he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” my articles “one by one.” I disposed of his relentlessly false personal insults in Facebook posts dated 11-13-22 and 11-15-22 and 11-23-22.

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:

#1 Preliminaries [11-1-22]

#2 Genesis 2:7 and the Hebrew / Biblical Idiom of Synecdoche [11-4-22]

#3 Hebrew, Nephesh [So ul]: Massive Figurative Biblical Use [11-7-22]

#4 Revelation 6:9: “Souls” in Heaven / 16 Biblical Proofs for Conscious Souls After Death [11-9-22]

#5 Revelation 6:9: “Souls” in Heaven Redux [11-11-22]

#6 Conspiracy Theories About Bibles and the Many Meanings of “Soul” in Holy Scripture [11-12-22]

#7 Banzoli Decides — At Last! — to Reply to My Second Post [#5] About Souls Under the Altar in Heaven [11-14-22]

#8 Banzoli’s Soul Sleep Leads Him to Believe That the Soul of Jesus Christ “Died” — Didn’t Exist — Between His Death and Resurrection, and That He was Unconscious in His Human Nature During That Time [11-14-22]

#9 Matthew 10:28: Did Jesus Teach That a Soul Could be Annihilated? [11-18-22]

#10 The Story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Lk 16:19-31) in Relation to the Doctrine of Immortal Souls [11-22-22]

#11 “Second Death” = “Lake of Fire” = Eternal Torment in Hell. Jesus & Luke Believed in Both Hades and Hell [11-25-22]

#12 Paul Affirms Three Times That Souls Continue Outside of the Body / Banzoli Claims That Angels Are Material Beings [11-29-22]

#13 Dead Biblical Heroes Return to Earth!: Samuel & Saul / Moses & Elijah at Jesus’ Transfiguration [12-1-22]

#14 Jesus’ Visit (After He Died) to Hades, Preaching to the “Spirits in Prison” and Setting “Captives” Free [12-2-22]

#15 Hebrews 12:23: “the spirits of just men made perfect” [12-3-22]

#16 Sheol (Hades): Merely the “Grave” or “Underground” or the Conscious Abode of Dead Souls? [12-5-22]

#17 Ecclesiastes 9:5: “The Dead Know Nothing” / Psalm 146:4: “His Thoughts Perish,” Etc. [12-6-22]

Defense of Immortal, Conscious Souls (vs. Lucas Banzoli): #10

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 4:22 pm By Dave Armstrong

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

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.”

*****

See the other installments:

#1 Preliminaries [11-1-22]

#2 Genesis 2:7 and the Hebrew / Biblical Idiom of Synecdoche [11-4-22]

#3 Hebrew, Nephesh [So ul]: Massive Figurative Biblical Use [11-7-22]

#4 Revelation 6:9: “Souls” in Heaven / 16 Biblical Proofs for Conscious Souls After Death [11-9-22]

#5 Revelation 6:9: “Souls” in Heaven Redux [11-11-22]

#6 Conspiracy Theories About Bibles and the Many Meanings of “Soul” in Holy Scripture [11-12-22]

#7 Banzoli Decides — At Last! — to Reply to My Second Post [#5] About Souls Under the Altar in Heaven [11-14-22]

#9 Matthew 10:28: Did Jesus Teach That a Soul Could be Annihilated? [11-18-22]

#10 The Story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Lk 16:19-31) in Relation to the Doctrine of Immortal Souls [11-22-22]

#11 “Second Death” = “Lake of Fire” = Eternal Torment in Hell. Jesus & Luke Believed in Both Hades and Hell [11-25-22]

#12 Paul Affirms Three Times That Souls Continue Outside of the Body / Banzoli Claims That Angels Are Material Beings [11-29-22]

#13 Dead Biblical Heroes Return to Earth!: Samuel & Saul / Moses & Elijah at Jesus’ Transfiguration [12-1-22]

#14 Jesus’ Visit (After He Died) to Hades, Preaching to the “Spirits in Prison” and Setting “Captives” Free [12-2-22]

#15 Hebrews 12:23: “the spirits of just men made perfect” [12-3-22]

#16 Sheol (Hades): Merely the “Grave” or “Underground” or the Conscious Abode of Dead Souls? [12-5-22]

#17 Ecclesiastes 9:5: “The Dead Know Nothing” / Psalm 146:4: “His Thoughts Perish,” Etc. [12-6-22]

Lucas Banzoli Wars Against Mariological Straw Men

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:55 pm By Dave Armstrong

Was Mary Full of Grace and Therefore Sinless? And If So, Was This Necessary or Only “Fitting”?

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 21st refutation of articles written by Lucas Banzoli. As of yet, I haven’t received a single word in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli has replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn’t informed me of it). Readers may decide for themselves why that is the case. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for the Bible passages unless otherwise indicated.

*****

I’m replying to Lucas’ article, “Maria pecou?” [Did Mary sin? ] (2-5-15).

Yes, [Mary] sinned. If all have sinned (Rom.3:23; 5:12), Mary has sinned. Case closed.

It’s not case closed at all. I dealt with this in my article, “All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17]. I addressed the issue that “all” in Scripture often does not mean “absolutely every, without exception.” Mary’s sinlessness is not a logical impossibility, or absolutely ruled out based on the meaning of pas [“all”] alone.

To give three quick examples of what I am talking about: Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved,” (Rom 11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in Romans 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as “filled with all knowledge”, which clearly cannot be taken literally. 1 Corinthians 15:22 states: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not “all” people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5; Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, “all” will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.

But I think an even more effective explanation is the following:

Mary was included in the “all” in the sense that she certainly would have been subject to original sin [and almost certainly would have actually sinned] like all the rest of us but for God’s special preventive act of grace – a “preemptive strike,” so to speak. This is why she can rightly say that God was her Savior too (Lk 1:47). . . .

[This] allows one to take “all” here in its most straightforward, common sense meaning, but with the proviso that Mary was spared from inevitable sin by means of a direct, extraordinary intervention of God, . . .

1. Mary never sinned, because her womb gave birth to an immaculate person.

And? If Mary is immaculate, then Mary’s mother’s womb also produced an immaculate person, but Catholic apologists do not claim that Mary’s mother is immaculate either. If this “logic” were minimally followed, it would lead us to Eve:

• Every immaculate being can only be generated by another immaculate being.

• Mary is immaculate for generating a sinless being.

• Mary, as a sinless being, could only then be generated by another sinless being.

• Mary’s mother, therefore, was also immaculate.

• But if Mary’s mother was immaculate and only sinless people can beget immaculate beings, then Mary’s mother’s mother was immaculate too.

• But if Mary’s mother’s mother was immaculate, then…

We already know what this will lead to, in papist “logic.” Do not try to reason with papists too much; otherwise the heads of these “apologists” will explode. This is the sort of reasoning we see from someone who lets the pope reason for them.

This is ludicrous: as is Lucas’ entire article; clueless, out to sea. And it is all these things because this is not how the Catholic Church understands or defends the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the first place. Hence my title. It’s a straw man. Lucas can go out and find Catholic apologists (real and credentialed or so-called / self-proclaimed) who make arguments like this, but so what? What does that prove? It only establishes that:

1) these particular people don’t know what they are talking about,

and

2) they aren’t familiar with how the Church explains this doctrine.

In other words, they’re as ignorant as Lucas is about Catholic Mariology. Consequently, all Lucas “proves” by silly pseudo-“arguments” like this is that there are misinformed or downright ignorant Catholics out there who unwillingly misrepresent Holy Mother Church and Catholic Mariology alike. One can always find such people in any religious group. And this is why one must always document from official ecclesiastical sources.

It’s easy enough to do so. Catholicism teaches that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was not necessary in order for her to bear the incarnate God in the virgin birth. She wasn’t required to be without sin in order to be Jesus’ mother. Rather, the Church teaches that it was appropriate or “fitting” for this to be the case. Mary herself became immaculate, not because of her mother or any other ancestor, but because God chose to perform a special miracle of grace in her case, at the moment of her conception.

It had nothing to do — strictly speaking — with anyone else. Mary herself couldn’t even participate in it since it was at the instant of her conception. Here are actual official, relevant Catholic documents concerning this, rather than “apologetic old wives’ tales”:

Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his 1854 declaration on the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus) wrote:

For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

The Catechism teaches the same:

#722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. . . .”

This thinking goes back at least as far as St. Anselm (1034-1109). In his treatise On the Virginal Conception, he expounded the principle on which the doctrine rests in the following words: “It was fitting that the conception of that man (Christ) should be accomplished from a most pure mother. For it was fitting that that Virgin should be resplendent with such a purity, . . .”

2. Mary never sinned, because blessed was the fruit of her womb.

[. . .]

• The law of Deuteronomy 28 says of those who fulfill it that blessed would be the fruit of her womb.

• Mary was told that “blessed is the fruit of her womb”.

• Therefore, Mary never sinned.

This is as silly and insubstantial as Lucas’ first “argument.” Being “blessed” has no intrinsic relationship with a supposed or possible sinlessness. So it’s simply one huge non sequitur (utterly irrelevant consideration), and as such, deserves no further attention. As his source for this ridiculous argument, Lucas cites a comedian (!). This is supposed to be impressive or compelling? I guess that’s highly “fitting”: since his entire article is a joke and a farce.

3. Mary never sinned because she is the perfect tabernacle.

Believe it or not, there are Catholics going around propagating the idea that Mary is the perfect tabernacle of Hebrews 9:11, which says: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)” (RSV)

This is yet another variant of #1 and #2. I’ve never heard of this wacko argument in 32 years of [real] Catholic apologetics. What informed Catholics argue is that Mary is the “ark of the new covenant”: based on several fascinating scriptural analogies. But even so, it would not be stated that this requires her to be immaculate; only that it was “fitting” for her to be.

4. Mary never sinned, because she is the ark of the covenant.

huh? What? repeat? Is Maria the ark? Really? Really?

I shouldn’t even waste time on this one, which is the most fun of all. Basically, the argument is that the ark of the covenant was a foreshadowing of Mary, because the ark was a symbol of God’s presence, and Mary was the one who begot Jesus.

I agree that he shouldn’t waste time battling straw men. He makes a fool and an ass of himself. But since he has now brought up at least an actual historic Catholic apologetic argument (congratulations!), why don’t we briefly take a look at the real analogical argument, as opposed to Lucas’ caricature of it, along with the obligatory mocking of the straw man. Here are the actual biblical passages where this notion was drawn from:

Luke 1:35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

The Greek word for overshadow is episkiasei, which describes a bright, glorious cloud. It is used with reference to the cloud of transfiguration of Jesus (Mt 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:34) and also has a connection to the shekinah glory of God in the Old Testament (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-38; 1 Ki 8:10). Mary is, therefore, in effect, the new temple and holy of holies, where God was present in a special fashion. In fact, Scripture draws many parallels between Mary, the “ark of the new covenant” and the ark of the (old) covenant:

Exodus 40:34-35 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. (cf. 1 Ki 8:6-11)

The Greek Septuagint translation uses the same word, episkiasei, in this passage. There are at least four more direct parallels as well:

2 Samuel 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?”

Luke 1:43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

* * *

2 Samuel 6:15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn.

Luke 1:42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”

* * *

2 Samuel 6:14, 16 And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. . . . King David leaping and dancing before the LORD . . .

1 Chronicles 15:29 And as the ark of the covenant of the LORD came to the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David dancing and making merry . . .

Luke 1:44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.

* * *

2 Samuel 6:10-11 So David was not willing to take the ark of the LORD into the city of David; but David took it aside to the house of O’bed-e’dom the Gittite. And the ark of the LORD remained in the house of O’bed-e’dom the Gittite three months . . .

Luke 1:39, 56 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, . . . And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home.

Further reflection on “holy places” and “holy items” brings out the meaning of the striking parallel symbolism. The Temple and Tabernacle were holy, and this was especially the case with the holy of holies, where the ark was kept. God was said to dwell above the ark, between the two cherubim (Ex 25:22). The presence of God always imparted holiness (Duet 7:6; 26:19; Jer 2:3). The furnishings of the Tabernacle could not be touched by anyone, save a few priests, on pain of death (Num 1:51-53; 2:17; 4:15).

This was true of the holiest things, associated with God and worship of God. The high priest only entered the holy of holies once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Num 29:8). The Jews would tie a rope to his leg in case he perished from improper behavior (Lev 16:2, 13), so they could pull him out. This was true of the ark itself. Uzziah merely reached out to steady it when it was toppling over, and was struck dead (2 Samuel 6:2-7). Others died when they simply looked inside of it (1 Sam 6:19; cf. Ex 33:20).

This is how God regards people and even inanimate objects that are in close proximity to Him. Thus, it was altogether fitting that Mary, as the ark of the new covenant, Theotokos (“bearer of God”): the one who had the sublime honor of carrying God incarnate in her womb, would be exceptionally holy.

. . . it should be noted that nothing in the Bible indicates that the ark typifies anything or anyone . . . with Elijah-John there is still a biblical confirmation of the typology, while with the “ark-Mary” there is absolutely nothing.

Right. I provided four striking analogies above, that puts the lie to this claim.

And even if the ark did typify Mary because the ark carried the presence of God and Mary begat Jesus, we could do the exact same thing and spiritualize the biblical texts to the point where we are all “arks”, because Paul told us that, spiritually, Christ is formed within all Christians, not just in Mary: “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!” (Galatians 4:19)

Indeed, God says that we are “God’s temple” because the Holy Spirit, and the Father and the Son as well, live within us. Lucas finally stumbles upon some truth, but (sorry!) it only helps the Catholic Mariological case:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? [17] If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are.

1 Corinthians 6:17-20 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. [18] Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. [19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; [20] you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

2 Corinthians 6:15-17 What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? [16] What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean;
then I will welcome you,

See how holiness and proximity to God go hand-in-hand? This is precisely the Catholic point about Mary bearing God the Son; the incarnate God. Perfect holiness is plainly highly appropriate; though not absolutely necessary, as explained. St. Paul nails down that point in his analyses of the indwelling Holy Spirit in all Christian believers, in noting that this should cause us to “shun immorality” and “glorify God in your body” and be “one spirit with him” and “come out from them, and be separate from them”: all because we are temples of the Holy Spirit.

And how is this at all inconsistent with — let alone a disproof of — the notion that it was fitting for Mary to be without sin because she bore God the Son in her body for nine months? It was because God knew that Mary would almost certainly fall into sin like all of us, but for His special act of grace at her conception, that He did that, so that she would be a perfectly holy vessel for the incarnate God: as is utterly appropriate and fitting. It’s absolutely pure “monergistic” grace. Mary knew and did absolutely nothing to receive it, because it was simultaneous with the supernatural creation of her soul and the natural, biological beginning of existence of her body. It was all God, and all grace.

Nor is it at all implausible, “unbiblical” or inconceivable. After all, it merely made Mary like Eve: without sin, and before having committed original sin. This is why the fathers and Catholics call Mary the “new Eve” or “second Eve.” The first one said “no” to God. Mary said “yes.” A sinless person or creature is not impossible. They exist on the earth today, as I write. Adam and Eve were, the unfallen angels have always been sinless, children under the age of reason (in a sense) are, as well as some who are severely mentally disabled, and indeed all of us who are granted final salvation and eternal life will be sinless in heaven.

This is the problem with interpreting the Bible in overly typological terms: we can put anything in it. Even the insanity that Mary was an ark, or that we all are.

It’s not “insanity” at all. It’s an explicit biblical analogy, expressed in several ways. Lucas thinks that is insane. Catholics take all of the Bible very seriously, rather than picking and choosing only what we personally prefer, based on an existing predisposition even before we get to Holy Scripture. And we are all “arks” in an even greater sense: being temples of God the Holy Spirit and all three Persons of the Trinity (many other passages indicate). This is all based on abundant scriptural proof.

5- Mary never sinned, because the Bible does not say that Mary sinned

Wow! What a fantastic argument! So let’s see how many people have never sinned either: [he names twenty]

It’s true that the Bible never shows Mary sinning (though various failed arguments to that end have been attempted; I have a whole section about that on my Blessed Virgin Mary web page). Absence of positive evidence would be the notoriously weak “argument from silence” (I agree). But belief in Mary’s sinlessness is based on much more than we have for these other twenty people. I have made several “Bible-Only” arguments for the sinlessness of Mary. The key is her being “full of grace” (Luke 1:28). Rightly understood, that is a positive proof that she was without sin:

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) & Immaculate Conception [2004]

The Bible: Mary Was Without Sin [4-1-09]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception: A Biblical Argument [2010]

Annunciation: Was Mary Already Sublimely Graced? [10-8-11]

Biblical Support for Mary’s Immaculate Conception [National Catholic Register, 10-29-18]

A “Biblical” Immaculate Conception? (vs. James White) [8-27-21]

As we see, Lucas gets to one of the actual Catholic arguments (Luke 1:28) next (congratulations again, for actually avoiding irrelevant and absurd straw man battles!):

6-Mary never sinned, because she was full of grace.

So Stephen also never sinned: “And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” (Acts 6:8)

In that verse, the phrase is plērēs charitos [πλήρης χάριτος], not kecharitōmenē [κεχαριτωμένη], as in Luke 1:28. If the Greek terminology is different, then the argument loses most or all of its relevance and force. The perfect stem of a Greek verb [as with kecharitōmenē], denotes, according to Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, “continuance of a completed action” (Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 66). Mary, therefore, continues afterward to be full of the grace she possessed at the time of the Annunciation.

Nor the Corinthians: “And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.” (2 Corinthians 9:8)

This gets back to the generalized and non-literal meaning of “all”: as discussed above. Lucas’ translation, rendered into English, is: “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that, always having all sufficiency in all things, you may abound to every good work”. But here the phrase is pasan charin [πᾶσαν χάριν], so it’s not the same as Luke 1:28, which is unique.

Nor the Ephesians: “to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” (Eph.1:6)

Lucas’ translation (transferred to English) reads in part: “he has filled us with grace”. In looking at about 35 English translations of Ephesians 1:6, I never see the word “filled” in any of them. In any event, it’s again a different Greek construction. According to Marvin Vincent, a well-known Protestant linguist and expert on biblical Greek, the meaning is:

. . . not “endued us with grace,” nor “made us worthy of love,” but, as “grace – which he freely bestowed.” (Word Studies in the New Testament, III, 365)

Vincent indicates different meanings for the word grace in Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. A.T. Robertson also defines the word in the same fashion, as “he freely bestowed” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, IV, 518). Here the phrase is charitos autou hēs echaritōsen [χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν].

As for the grace bestowed here on all believers being parallel to the fullness of grace bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, this simply cannot logically be the case, once proper exegesis is undertaken. Apart from the different meanings of the specific word used, as shown, grace is possessed in different measure by different believers, as seen elsewhere in Scripture:

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Ephesians 4:7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. (cf. Acts 4:33, Rom 5:20, 6:1, James 4:6, 1 Pet 5:5, 2 Peter 1:2)

The “freely bestowed” grace of Ephesians 1:6, then, cannot possibly be considered the equivalent of that “fullness of grace” applied to Mary in Luke 1:28 because it refers to a huge group of people, with different gifts and various levels of grace bestowed, as the verses just cited show. Grace is given in different measure to believers. The mass of Christian believers as a whole possess neither the same degree of grace nor of sanctity, and everyone knows this, from experience and revelation alike.

Nor the apostles: “And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.” (Acts 4:33)

“Great” or “abundant” grace is obviously not the same as “full of grace.” Accordingly, different Greek words are again used, as in all these supposed “disproofs” of the Catholic argument from Luke 1:28: charis te megalē [χάρις τε μεγάλη]. So why does Lucas even bring this up? It’s dumb: as if he wants to maintain that a “glass that is three-quarters full” is the same as a glass that is absolutely full: to the brim.” It just doesn’t fly.

Neither do the readers of the gospel of John: “And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace.” (John 1:16)

Nice try but no cigar again. The Greek phrase is plērōmatos . . . charin [πληρώματος . . . χάριν]. If the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the revelation of the Bible, intended for all these passages to have the same exact meaning as Luke 1:28, then the same or equivalent words would have been used. But the fact remains that none of these other “parallels” read the same or mean the same as Luke 1:28. I’m happy to have this opportunity to clarify that and refute the failed analogies once and for all.

If Mary fulfilled all the law, Jesus would not be necessary

It is precisely because no one was able to fulfill all the law that God had to send His only begotten Son “that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn.3:16). If Mary, or any human being in the world, had managed to live without committing any sin, fully fulfilling all the law, and had been born without the stain of original sin, then Jesus would be unnecessary . . .

We totally agree. Mary would have been subject to original sin like all of the rest of us, and would very likely have committed actual sin, if God had not performed a special miracle of freeing her from original sin at conception. So He saved her as much as He saved the rest of us. One can save a person from a pit in two ways: by pulling him or her out of it, or by preventing him or her from ever falling into it in the first place. The “pit” here is a metaphor for sin. The Immaculate Conception is “salvation by prevention.”

For the rest of us who are to be saved, it comes by pulling us out of — redeeming or rescuing us from — the pit of sin that we were already in. That’s why Mary calls God her Savior, too: because His grace saved her just like it saved anyone else who attains salvation and makes it to heaven.

The rest of this section from Lucas is irrelevant, since he fails to understand this fundamental premise that has been discussed in theology for about a thousand years: the notion of “pre-redemption.” Catholics believe Mary was saved only by God’s grace, too: just in a different fashion. She is not “out of the pool” of those saved by Grace Alone. She was a human being like all the rest of us: whom God decreed and chose to make exceptionally holy because she was the Mother of God the Son; the “God-bearer” (Theotokos).

Lucas then repeats his “all have sinned” mantra. I already dealt with that. but here’s one specific (old, tired) aspect that I will directly reply to:

Paul said that there was no one who was completely perfect: “as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; [11] no one understands, no one seeks for God. [12] All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.”” (Romans 3:10-12)

Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, [Hebrew, tob] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims, “I have trusted in thy steadfast love” (13:5), which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to “He who walk blamelessly, and does what is right” (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that “God is with the generation of the righteous.” So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.

Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.).

With Adam’s death, all men sinned (note: the word anthropos denotes all mankind, obviously not excluding women when saying that “all men have sinned”): “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Romans 5:12)

That’s referring to original sin, which is precisely what God removed from Mary at conception. That is the miracle and essence of the Immaculate Conception.

3. The Bible only makes an exception for Jesus

Another important point is that the only person for whom the Bible makes an exception is the obvious exception: Jesus.

“For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

“Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?” (John 8:46)

Neither of these verses rule out the possibility of a sinless person besides Jesus. They merely assert that He was sinless. Lucas’ description of “only” is misguided. It doesn’t follow from what he presents.

Why, then, did no one make the same exception for Mary, especially considering that it was not at all obvious that she was also an exception to the rule?

One did make an exception for Mary: the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28. He was the one who referred to her in inspired revelation as “full of grace.” And when we analyze in the Bible the notion that grace is the antithesis and overcomer of sin, we conclude that, therefore, being full of grace means being freed from and free of sin. See:

Romans 5:17, 21 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. . . . [21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

2 Corinthians 1:12 . . . holiness and godly sincerity, . . . by the grace of God.

2 Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, . . . in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago,

Lucas has a section called “Mary needed a Savior”; but he exhibits not the slightest inkling of understanding that Catholics fully agree with this (since we, too, revere the Bible as God’s inspired revelation, and read Luke 1:47 just as Protestants do), and how we reason through it. Now (if he reads this) he will understand that, so perhaps he can write a much more serious and worthy analysis next time, instead of forcing me to have to “reinvent the wheel” because he is so profoundly and inexcusably ignorant of historic and Catholic and biblical theology.

In order to be an effective apologist, one must possess this sort of basic knowledge (I’ve been doing Christian apologetics for 41 years, and specifically Catholic apologetics for 32). And until they obtain it, they ought to drop the pretense of being an informed apologist: trying to educate others. Otherwise, it’s the blind leading the blind, similar to the people St. Paul described as those “who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 3:7), or whose “god is the belly” (Phil 3:19: one of my very favorite Bible verses!).

6. Mary could not open the seal, nor look at it

In Revelation, John sees a scroll in the form of a scroll written on both sides and sealed with seven seals. He then says:

“and I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” [3] And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, [4] and I wept much that no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to into into it. [5] Then one of the elders said to me, “Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”‘” (Revelation 5:2-5)

Note that no one except Jesus was worthy to open the book or even look at it! John is quite clear in saying that the reason such people could not even look at the book is because they were not worthy of it.

First of all, this doesn’t necessarily have to do with sinlessness. Being “worthy” to do something can also be related to suitability, ability, appropriateness, etc. The word for “worthy” is axios (Strong’s word #514). It has been translated also as “appropriate” (Acts 26:20: NASB) and “fitting” (1 Cor 16:4; 2 Thess 1:3: NASB).

But beyond that preliminary consideration, Jesus opened the scroll because He was God. Lucas is looking at this passage one-dimensionally. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, 2nd edition, 2010) commented on it:

Christ qualifies as the executor of the Old Covenant (Rev 5:9) with divine authority to administer its blessings and curses. The sealed book refers to Sacred Scripture, for it was opened by no one except Christ, whose death, Resurrection, and Ascension opened access to all the mysteries it contained. (p. 499)

Obviously Mary has none of those divine qualities, and so she (like every other creature) was not “worthy” to open the scroll. She can’t do what only God the Son can do. This contradicts nothing in Catholic Mariology. As the above citation vaguely alludes to, the larger passage literally explains why only Jesus could open the scroll and break the seal. It “authoritatively interprets” the passage under consideration: “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God” (5:9). Isn’t it amazing how much a little biblical context clarifies things? Lucas should try it some time.

The question then becomes: why is Lucas making this issue an anti-Mary polemic, when she clearly has nothing to do with it, since the Bible itself says that Jesus had to do this since only He was “slain” in order for His “blood” to “ransom men for God” (i.e., He alone was the Redeemer and Savior)? Thus all of Lucas’ mocking and tweaking histrionics and melodramatic polemics about Catholic veneration of Mary are utterly and completely irrelevant:

Queen of Heaven, immaculate, totally without any stain of sin throughout her life, the mother of God himself(!) and the wife of the Holy Spirit(!), the helper, the intercessor, the “mother” of all Christians, the perfect “ark”, the mediatrix of graces and even co-redeemer . . . full of grace and a more important person than all the saints and all the angels put together . . .

Yes she is all that, and (duh!) none of it makes her God (not within a trillion miles), Whom alone could open this seal, per Revelation 5:9. Why does “mother of God” deserve an exclamation point, as if it is some amazing thing? Mary was Jesus’ mother and He was God. Hence, she was the “mother of God”: literally “God-bearer”: which clearly applies only to Jesus, not the Father (neither the father nor the Holy Spirit had a mother: since they are eternal and immaterial spirits). Why is this controversial? It should be only to someone who denies the Trinity or the incarnation.

“Wife of the Holy Spirit” should ruffle no feathers, either. It’s entirely biblical. Scripture speaks in terms of the bride being the Church, and makes analogies between marriage and Christ and His Church. So why should there be controversy about Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit? That Jesus’ conception was of the Holy Spirit as a sort of “Father” is plain in the Bible:

Matthew 1:18-20 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; [19] and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. [20] But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;” (cf. Lk 1:31, 34-35)

Likewise, “spouse of God” is thought to imply an equality with God, when in fact it’s only a limited analogical description based on Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit in the matter of the conception of Jesus. This description is no more “unbiblical” or non-harmonious with scriptural thought than St. Paul saying “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 2 Cor 6:1), or St. Peter referring to men becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4; cf. 1 Jn 3:2). These are similarly understood as not entailing equality with God. Along these lines, there are many biblical passages about Israel or the Church being the “bride” of God the Father or Jesus Christ, God the Son:

Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; . . .

Isaiah 62:5 . . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Jeremiah 31:32 . . . my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. (cf. 3:20)

Hosea 2:16, 19-20 “And in that day, says the LORD, you will call me, `My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, `My Ba’al.’ . . . [19] And I will betroth you to me for ever; . . . (cf. 4:12; 9:1)

Matthew 9:15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” (cf. Mk 2:19-20; Lk 5:34-35; Mt 25:1-10)

2 Corinthians 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

Ephesians 5:28-29, 32 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, . . . [32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church (cf. Rev 19:7; 21:2; 21:9)

Given all of this biblical data, saying that Mary is the “spouse of God” should not present any difficulty at all to anyone who accepts the Bible as God’s inspired revelation. The only possible objection would come from not understanding what is meant by the phrase in the first place. And as usual, that is Lucas’ problem, and that of the legion of anti-Catholic “Know-Nothings” with whom he hangs around. Willful ignorance and bigotry apparently have a very strong hold on a great number of people. I try my best to educate folks, so they can be freed from this intolerable burden and yoke that people like Lucas perpetuate. Truth is the liberator!

“E for effort” though, and thanks for the chuckles. I needed some comic relief at this point, having endured only by God’s grace the fathomless imbecilities and vapid, fatuous nonsense that relentlessly dominates this wretched effort from Lucas. Some may think I exaggerate. But I think it’s an understatement. Finally — thank heavens –, I reach the final section (thanks for your prayers for my patience!):

7. Mary recognized herself as a sinner

Another New Testament evidence that Mary did not consider herself immaculate, but saw herself as a sinner, just like all other human beings, is in Luke 2:24, which says: “and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.””

By the law the iniquity of the woman who had given birth was atoned for in this way:

“And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, [7] and he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. [8] And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.” (Leviticus 12:6-8). [Lucas mistakenly had “2:6-8”]

If Mary were immaculate, the only sacrifice needed would be that of one pigeon for the holocaust, but never of the other, which was for sins. Mary, once again, shows that she recognized herself as a sinner.

The question involves the relationship of ritual uncleanliness to sin and morality. They are two different things. A Catholic priest who goes by the name of AthanasiusOfAlex explains:

In summary, in Israel, so-called “sin” offerings were offered for transgressions against the ritual law, not so much for offenses against the moral law.

Moreover, just as Jesus submitted himself to the baptism of John, even though he did not need to repent of any sins, Mary wished to fulfill the requirements of the Jewish law out of loving obedience to God.

There is, therefore, no contradiction between Mary’s sinlessness (in the moral sense) and her offering a sacrifice to remove the merely ritual impurity associated with childbirth. . . .

In ancient Israel, women were considered ritually unclean for a few weeks after the birth of her child. (It varied according to the sex of the child; a total of 40 days for a boy, and 80 days for a girl. See vv. 2-6.) That essentially meant that they were unable to partake of the liturgical celebrations until their uncleanliness was over, at which time they were to make a sin offering, or either a lamb or a pair of pigeons or turtledoves (vv. 6-8).

But it is important to note that ritual uncleanliness had nothing to do with moral uncleanliness. Leviticus chapter 4 introduces the concept of sin offerings in this way:

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them, if it is the anointed priest who sins … [and it goes on to spell out what each group should do] (Lev. 4:1-3).

Sin offering could only be offered for unintentional transgressions and, in general for the removal of ritual uncleanliness. There was, in fact, no provision in the Law for the forgiveness of moral offenses—and this lack was one of the constant sufferings of the People of Israel. . . .

It should be observed that the Law did not make any exceptions. The moral character of the woman was never considered; all women had to make the sin offering after childbirth. . . .

Jesus did something similar when he received the baptism of John. Jesus was also sinless and (unlike Mary) incapable of sinning; and yet he received the baptism of repentance, because it was “fitting … to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15). (“How does one reconcile the sinlessness of Mary with her sin offering in Luke 2:24?”, Christianity.StackExchange, answer given on 9-15-15)

With regard to the differentiation of moral and ritual impurities or uncleanliness in the Old Testament, in RSV, the word “unwittingly” is applied 13 times to sins where the person was unaware of having committed them. Peter Turner offered another answer on the same web page, on 5-4-18:

Archbishop Fulton Sheen addresses this in his Life of Christ. He notes that this is akin to the Circumcision of Jesus, he says these are two sides sin, one “the necessity of enduring pain to expiate for it” and the “need for purification”. He says that Jesus didn’t need to be circumcised because He was God and she didn’t need to be purified because she was conceived without sin. But, to show “this Child’s dedication to the Father was absolute, and would lead Him to the Cross” all those events took place.

Pastor Ricky Kurth, in his article, “Did Christ Offer Animal Sacrifices?” (Berean Bible Society) offers further analogies of the sinless Christ also participating in such Mosaic rituals:

[T]he Law required men to keep the seven feasts of Leviticus 23, each of which involved an animal sacrifice, and we know the Lord kept Israel’s feasts (Luke 22:15; John 7:2,10). These sacrifices were offered for the people of Israel as a whole, and He was one of the people, and so in this way He identified with them with animal sacrifices.

See also: Protestant Claim: “Mary was a Sinner Because She Offered a Sacrifice” [Kris Smith, Da Pacem Domine, 3-15-20].

I rest my case.

***

Photo credit: Immaculate Conception (1635), by Francisco de Zurbarán (1598-1664) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli foolishly attacks the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary by absurdly battling several imaginary “Mariological straw men.”

Justin Martyr & Sola Scriptura (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:26 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “Justino pregava a Sola Scriptura?” [Did Justin preach Sola Scriptura?] (6-5-13).

People who like to stir up controversy

I like to stir up biblical, theological, and historical truth.

have claimed that Justin of Rome (AD 100-165) never taught Sola Scriptura . . .

True.

Before showing whether or not Justin believed in Sola Scriptura, it is necessary for us to explain to Catholics what Sola Scriptura is, since I tirelessly see misrepresentations of the meaning of the term being put in their mouths.

That is too often true. But of course it’s also true that many Protestants don’t understand the proper definition of it, either. We’ll see if Lucas does. I’m glad that he is taking the time to define the term, since he didn’t in his article about Origen and Tertullian, that I replied to yesterday.

First, let’s get to what Sola Scriptura does not mean: 1st Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything has to be in the Bible.

• It is not in the Bible that Barack Obama would be president of the USA or that São Paulo would be three-time world champion in 2005, and yet I believe that. What has to be in the Bible is not “everything”, as some Catholics erroneously claim, but the doctrines that were taught by the apostles and Jesus Christ. We do not believe that “everything is in the Bible”, but we believe that no biblical writer has “hidden” any important doctrinal truth that was not written by any of them in the 66 books of Holy Scripture.

Good and correct, so far. Catholics agree.

2nd Sola Scriptura does not mean that we should reject all traditions.

• Even Protestant churches have their traditions, with their dress, their hymnals, their liturgies, their customs. Traditions that are rejected by evangelicals are those traditions that invent doctrines that are not found in the Scriptures and cannot be demonstrated from them, as is the case with many Catholic dogmas, which are sustained purely by what is not written.

So he claims. I have shown again and again that sola Scriptura itself is not taught in the Bible. It’s a self-defeating, late-arriving extrabiblical tradition of men. Every Catholic doctrine can be shown to be supported by the Bible in some fashion, and to be in harmony with the Bible. I’ve done this myself in my own work.

Now, let’s show Catholics what Sola Scriptura means:

1st Sola Scriptura means that we have in the Bible everything that is necessary for our salvation.

That’s material sufficiency, and we agree with it.

2nd Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is totally sufficient in matters of faith and practice.

3rd Sola Scriptura means that any doctrinal tradition that has no biblical basis must be rejected.

4th Sola Scriptura means that all moral or doctrinal teaching of the Christian faith must be based on Scripture. Now that we know what Sola Scriptura means and what it doesn’t mean, Catholics can stop arguing in a vacuum, refuting a scarecrow.

The standard definition of sola Scriptura in use among Protestants is that the Bible is the only infallible standard and norm for Christian theology, faith, and practice. Lucas fails to note this, so his definition (while a “fair” one) is inadequate. I went through the definition at length in my paper, Reply to Lucas Banzoli: 2 Tim 3:16 & Sola Scriptura (5-31-22).

It follows that the Church and tradition can never be infallible. Therefore, if Church father asserts one of the latter two scenarios, he does not believe in sola Scriptura. I will demonstrate that this is the case for Justin Martyr.

And if you pay a little more attention to Justin’s own works, you will see that he had exactly the same conception as evangelicals of what we really mean by Sola Scriptura:

Not at all, as I will prove. He asserts material sufficiency of Scripture, which is not the same as sola Scriptura, and he also asserts the infallibility of Church and tradition, which expressly contradicts sola Scriptura and proves that he didn’t believe in it.

1st Justin believed that what was not said by the Scriptures was doubtful and suspect.

That is untrue, as I will document, as we proceed.

2nd Justin tried to prove by the Scriptures everything he presented.

That’s great and true, but is not sola Scriptura. Simply arguing from the Bible doesn’t prove what one’s rule of faith is. And for this proposition about Justin to be true, it would have to be shown that he never appealed to anything but Scripture.

-Text: “If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was without glory, that through His death the rich would suffer death, that by His stripes we must be healed, and that He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of him who was smitten for you, when you will know him whom you have pierced and your tribes will mourn, then consider what I have said to be doubtful and suspect. But it was through the contents of the Scriptures, dear holy and prophetic among you, that I try to prove all that I have presented, in the hope that one of you may be found to be a part of the remnant, which has been left by the grace of the Lord of hosts, unto eternal salvation” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.32)

As we see in the quote above, Justin used to say that if what he said has no Scriptural basis, let it be considered suspect, obscure, doubtful.

That’s not what he was arguing. The point isn’t that everything not in Scripture is “doubtful and suspect” (“dubious and obscure in the English translation from the Schaff set). His point, rather, was that, since Trypho was a Jew, he fully accepted Old Testament revelation as “holy and prophetic”). So Justin is saying, “I’m using your own Scriptures to prove my point. If I didn’t, you wouldn’t believe me.” He’s engaging in good evangelistic method and strategy (utilize what the opponent respects).

Once correctly understood in this way, it’s evident that it has nothing to do with the dispute about sola Scriptura.

But that, on the contrary, it was by the content of the Scriptures that he tried to prove all (and not some part) of what he presented!

Yeah, because the Old Testament was what Jews and Christians heled in common. He’s not even including the New Testament in this particular portion of his argument.

Catholics unfortunately cannot subscribe to Justin’s words, for:

• They believe in doctrines outside the Bible as dogmas of faith, not as “doubtful and suspect.”

• They do not try to prove everything they believe from the Scriptures, as they admit that much of what they believe is not found in the Bible, but in the so-called “oral tradition”.

All Catholic doctrines must be in harmony with the Bible, and that’s what we try to prove: almost always with massive use of Scripture.

So we see Justin contradicting the Catholic pillars of non-biblical oral tradition and reiterating the Christian principles of Sola Scriptura.

Nonsense. This was taken out of context, as shown. Later, I will prove that Justin doesn’t stick to the Bible Alone; hence, he held to a Catholic rule of faith, not a proto-Protestant one.

3rd Justin believed that we cannot fail to constantly refer to the Scriptures.

-Text: “It is a ridiculous thing… that whoever bases his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should abandon them and refrain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, thinking that he himself can provide something better than Scripture” (Dialogue with Trypho) , Chapter 85)

Failure to constantly refer to the Scriptures is the most usual thing for a Catholic who is used to basing his doctrines on tradition, for thinking that “it can provide something better than Scripture”.

Justin was saying that if one claims to be making an argument from the Bible, they can’t forget about the Bible and start arguing in another way (which is self-evidently true). Catholics do not say that tradition or Church doctrines are “better than Scripture.” They say that both can be authoritative and also infallible, under the right conditions. That’s not “better, period”; rather, it is “equally authoritative and sometimes even infallible.”

It’s Lucas who is warring against straw men so far. He first presented one of Justin’s citations out of context, and now he doesn’t correctly understand his meaning and misrepresents the Catholic rule of faith. I assume in charity that he is doing so out of ignorance, not deliberate intent to be inaccurate.

4th Justin demonstrated what he said in the Scriptures.

-Texts: “He said he saw a ladder, and the Scripture declares that God was lifted up on it. But that this was not the Father, we demonstrate by the Scriptures… And that the rock symbolically proclaimed Christ, we also demonstrate by many Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

“Are you familiar with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, nay, not yours, but ours. For us we believe in them, but although you read them, you do not capture the spirit that is in them” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.29)

“For Christ is King and Priest, he is God and Lord, both of angels and of men, he is captain, he is the stone, and was born a son, and for the first time he was subjected to suffering, and then he returned to heaven, and, again, coming with glory, He is announced as having the everlasting kingdom: so I taste of all the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.34)

“Reversing the Scriptures, I must endeavor to convince you that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham and Jacob and Moses, and who is called God, is different from him who made all things numerically” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 56)

“I could have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of these three is God, and is called an Angel” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.56)

“Be assured, then, Trypho, who are established in the knowledge and faith of the Scriptures, of the counterfeits which he who is called the devil wrought among the Greeks” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.69)

“It is for this reason that I am, through fear, very sincere in my desire to converse with men according to the Scriptures, but not with those who have a love of money, or of glory, or of pleasure” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 82)

Of course he did (but not exclusively so). So do we. It’s the hallmark of my entire ministry: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (my blog); A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (my first book). But this is neither here nor there, with regard to proving that he supposedly believed in sola Scriptura. It proves nothing whatsoever about that. What’s interesting, then, is why Lucas and so many Protestants equate citing a lot of Bible in making theological arguments with sola Scriptura. That would make me one of the biggest supporters of sola Scriptura on the planet earth, if so. But in fact, I have written three books expressly against it.

It is noteworthy that Justin always insisted that in all doctrinal terms it was necessary to prove from the Scriptures what he was saying. Note that he never adds to “search in tradition”, but only in the Scriptures (=Sola Scriptura), . . .

“Never say never”! Keep reading . . .

which have always been the pillar and foundation of our faith. If there were hidden doctrines in Holy Scripture, then Justin would not be so insistent that what he himself said must be proved by Scripture. After all, why such a need and obligation to “prove something from the Scriptures” if, as Catholics insist on saying, there are a lot of doctrines that are simply not found in the Bible? In this case, such a need to have to prove all doctrines by “many Scriptures” would be useless, for Catholics themselves do not do that!

All Lucas’ citations from Justin so far are from the Dialogue with Trypho. Of course he cites the Old Testament Scripture because Trypho was Jewish, and this is what he accepts (as Justin said, above). It’s a basic misunderstanding to act as if this use of OT Scripture proves that he believed in sola Scriptura. Why would he cite any Christian tradition to a Jewish person, who couldn’t care less about that? He has to use a source that they both revere, which is the Old Testament.

5th Justin believed that it was necessary to prove doctrines by the Scriptures.

Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it any less false.

-Texts: “But that this was not the Father, we must prove from the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

“And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we must also prove by many Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

Note the term: “we have to prove it”, which refers to a necessity. Why such a need, if Catholics are more than convinced that there is no such need, in view of the supposed “insufficiency” of the Scriptures and that many doctrines are not there? If Catholic thought is right, what is the real purpose in being absolutely necessary to prove from many Scriptures about the doctrinal subject being treated? Why didn’t Justin just do like the Catholics, saying that nothing has to be in the Bible and that there’s no such need for any specific doctrine to be in the Bible? Note that what is being discussed here is not whether or not the matter in question is in the Bible, but why it is necessary to “have to prove” by the Scriptures, if not all doctrines need to be in them. In this case, even if there was a biblical passage about it, Justin could do like the Catholics and simply say that: “And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we will show in the Scriptures, although there would be no need for this, for we also have the oral tradition…” But, on the contrary, he says that he had to prove it by many Scriptures! That is, proving a doctrine by Scripture was absolutely necessary!

Already dealt with. Lucas seems completely oblivious as to the background context of the Dialogue with Trypho. And of course he continues to caricature the Catholic rule of faith.

6th Justin believed in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

-Texts: “Now then, make us the proof that this man whom you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by the Scriptures already quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ should suffer and enter again into glory, and receive the everlasting kingdom of all nations, and that every kingdom be subordinate to Him: now show us that this man is he” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.39)

“But you seem to me not to have heard the Scriptures what I said I had blotted out. For such as have been cited, they are more than sufficient to prove the points in dispute, besides those that are maintained by us, and yet to be presented” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.73)

The Scriptures are more than enough to prove the points in dispute! If that’s not proof of the sufficiency of Scripture—which is a principle of Sola Scriptura—then I don’t know what is!

So do we; so this accomplishes nothing in this debate. Lucas correctly notes that [material] sufficiency is “a principle of Sola Scriptura”: but it is a principle or premise that is held in common with Catholics. So it doesn’t disprove our view to trot it out, when we already agree with that aspect. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen Protestant apologists foolishly repeat this basic category error, times without number. I’d be rich.

7th Justin believed in the inerrancy of Scripture.

-Text: “I am fully convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, and you should endeavor to convince those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, instead of being of the same opinion as I am” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.65)

Interestingly, I’ve seen many Catholics claiming that the Bible is not infallible or inerrant, some even say it’s not the Word of God! Justin, however, was incisive in saying that in the Bible there are no contradictions, just as evangelicals do.

There are many individuals who call themselves Catholics but who do not fully accept the Catholic Church’s teachings (theological liberals or nominal Catholics). That has no bearing on what the Church actually teaches.

8th Justin believed in the free examination of the Bible.

-Text:

“I purpose to quote to you the Scriptures, not because I am anxious to make only an artistic exposition of words, for I have no such faculty, but because I have grace from God bestowed upon me for the understanding of his Scriptures.” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.58)

Note that Justin tells Trypho that he quotes the Scriptures to him because he had the grace of God to understand the Scriptures, even though he was neither the pope nor a Roman bishop. In fact, nothing in Justin’s biography, which can be read here or here, indicates that he ever held any position of ecclesiastical leadership in the Church. He was not pope, he was not a bishop, he was not a cardinal, he was not a presbyter, he was not born in Rome. It was not part of the “Magistery” [magisterium], according to the Catholic conception. And yet he said that God had given him the grace not only to search and quote the Scriptures, but to understand them!

Catholics don’t deny this possibility at all. We simply say that many others interpret the Bible wrongly (note all the heresies in the early centuries, that Lucas is well aware of), and so an authoritative Church is necessary in order to “check” those errors. Once again, this proves nothing as to whether Justin held to the falsehood of sola Scriptura. Lucas is fighting against air, or windmills, like Don Quixote.

9th Justin believed that doctrinal security comes from attachment to the Scriptures.

-Text: “I have commented to the lord, who is very anxious to be secure in all respects once you hold fast to the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.80)

We are not insecure if we have only Scripture to guide us, because holding on to Scripture means being secure in every way. If it is in all respects, then evidently the doctrinal aspect is not excluded from this picture. As we read Justin, we are well aware of the notion that we can be secure in all respects by holding to the Scriptures, and not just in “some” respects, as if the doctrinal aspect were left out and lacked the support of a tradition: extra-biblical oral.

Scripture is great and fantastic. That’s why the Catholic Church authoritatively pronounced its canon and preserved it through all those fifteen centuries before Protestantism existed. Next question?

10th Justin rejects human doctrines and asks to believe only if the Scriptures are frequently quoted.

-Text: “If I undertake to prove this by human doctrines or arguments, you must not agree with me, but if I frequently quote the Scriptures and ask you to understand them” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.68)

It is clear that the acceptance of the doctrine, in Justin’s view, was conditional on its substantiation in the light of Scripture, and not on any other human argument that might be offered.

Yes, because Trypho was a Jew.

In view of all this, we can only conclude that Justin believed as strongly or more strongly in Sola Scriptura as any Reformer of the 16th century.

This hasn’t been proven to the slightest degree. Not one whit of proof . . .

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In view of all this, it is indisputable that Justin believed in Sola Scriptura in the same way that it was proposed by the Reformers and believed by the early Christians. If such statements were in the mouth of a Luther or Calvin, they would be immediately rebuked by a Roman Catholic, but as it came from a second century man, venerated by the Catholic Church itself, the conversation changes, and they try in every way to omit and distort information, resorting to personal attacks, accusations and real mental juggling to deny everything Justino said so clearly and explicitly.

We don’t have to deny anything that Lucas has presented from Justin, because we agree with all of it. All this shows is that Lucas lacks an accurate understanding of 1) precisely what sola Scriptura means, and 2) the Catholic rule of faith.

• But what about the pagan authors that Justin quoted? Does that mean he doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura?

Of course not. In the Bible itself there are many quotes from authors outside the Bible, such as the apocrypha of Enoch which is quoted in Jude 14, the book of the Assumption of Moses which is quoted in Jude 9, the Greek comedy Thais (written by the Greek poet Meander ) which is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33, from the work Cretica, by Epimenides (600 B.C.), which is quoted by Paul in Acts 17:28, from the work Phenomena, written by the Greek poet Aratus (315 – 240 B.C.) , or from Cleantus (331 – 233 B.C.) in his Hymn to Zeus, which has quotations from his works mentioned by the same apostle in Acts 17:28.

Very good. It’s correctly noted that it proves nothing as to the present debate.

This obviously does not mean that Paul, Jude or the other biblical writers believed in the inspiration or doctrinal source of such writings, it just means that the specific quote from which it was taken constitutes truth. I myself, who believe in Sola Scriptura, often cite other authors outside the Bible in support of a particular point of view or interpretation of a biblical text, and this in no way means that I stopped believing in Sola Scriptura because of this. The Reformers themselves, such as Luther and Calvin, quoted other authors, and that did not stop them from believing in Sola Scriptura. Why only with Justin would it have to be different?

It proves nothing: just as Lucas’ entire presentation above proves nothing (except that Justin loved the Bible; so do I and so does the Catholic Church) and is one massive non sequitur. Now I’ll give my complete argument, which is completely relevant to the topic:

The algebraic “x” factor here is how Justin Martyr views Church and Tradition in relationship to Holy Scripture. It doesn’t logically follow that he has no opinion on those things. We can’t know one way or the other what Justin believes about the rule of faith, based on only the above information. If it could be shown that he did not grant the Church and Tradition binding authority, and didn’t include them in the rule of faith, the anti-Catholics might have a valid point.

The data in this instance is fairly scarce, since Justin’s three surviving works are primarily philosophical and apologetic in nature, rather than theological, and the theology that Justin does discuss is only rarely related to ecclesiology or the rule of faith as here discussed. It’s highly unlikely, prima facie, that Justin would differ radically from the other pre-Nicene Church fathers. Justin was a major source for Irenaeus, who speaks of apostolic succession and tradition and Church authority all over the place. Yet despite these difficulties, I believe there is enough information to be had, to reject a sola Scriptura interpretation.

Justin doesn’t always mention only Scripture (as if he thinks it is the only source for truth):

. . . the Scriptures and the facts themselves . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 23)

I bring from the Scriptures and the facts themselves both the proofs and the inculcation of them, . . . But you hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 39)

In Chapter 76 of the Dialogue with Trypho, entitled “From Other Passages the Same Majesty and Government of Christ are Proved,” Justin referred to “an obscure prediction,” and of prophecies “proclaimed in mystery” and “declared obscurely,” and which “could not be understood by any man” until Jesus Himself expounded upon them. So much for “perspicuity” and the entirely self-interpreting nature of Scripture in the main. Catholics readily agree that Scripture often interprets itself. We simply deny that it always does, or that there is no need for authoritative interpretation from outside itself. Here is the above chapter in its entirety:

“For when Daniel speaks of ‘one like unto the Son of man’ who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying ‘like unto the Son of man,’ He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression ‘it was cut out without hands’ signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came [to earth]? For He alone taught openly those mighty counsels which the Father designed both for all those who have been and shall be well-pleasing to Him, and also for those who have rebelled against His will, whether men or angels, when He said: ‘They shall come from the east [and from the west], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.’ And, ‘ Many shall say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten, and drunk, and prophesied, and cast out demons in Thy name? And I will say to them, Depart from Me.’ Again, in other words, by which He shall condemn those who are unworthy of salvation, He said, Depart into outer darkness, which the Father has prepared for Satan and his, angels.’ And again, in other words, He said, ‘I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and on scorpions, and on scolopendras, and on all the might of the enemy.’ And now we, who believe on our Lord Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, when we exorcise all demons and evil spirits, have them subjected to us. For if the prophets declared obscurely that Christ would suffer, and thereafter be Lord of all, yet that [declaration] could not be understood by any man until He Himself persuaded the apostles that such statements were expressly related in the Scriptures. For He exclaimed before His crucifixion: ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’ And David predicted that He would be born from the womb before sun and moon, according to the Father’s will, and made Him known, being Christ, as God strong and to be worshipped.”

If no one could have understood these prophecies until Jesus fulfilled and explained them, of what use is Scripture Alone in that case? It would be of no use whatever, without the Teacher to give the proper sense of the prophecies. Compare Justin’s similar statements:

Up to the time of Jesus Christ, who taught us, and interpreted the prophecies which were not yet understood, . . . (First Apology, Chapter XXXII)

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. (First Apology, Chapter LV)

This brings to mind Jesus’ conversation with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). Scripture states:

Luke 24:27 (RSV) And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The two disciples later marveled at how Jesus “opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32). In other words, those prophecies were not understood until Jesus explained them, and in fact, most of the Jews did not see that they were fulfilled. Thus, Old Testament Scripture was insufficient for these messianic truths to be grasped simply by reading them. One could retort that the Jews were hard-hearted and thus could not understand since they had not the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to illumine their understanding.

But that proves too much because it would also have to apply to these two disciples, and indeed all of the disciples, who did not understand what was happening, even after Jesus repeatedly told them that He was to suffer and to die, and that this was all foretold. They didn’t “get it” till after He was crucified. Justin Martyr noted himself that the disciples had not understood the very Psalms he was expounding:

The rest of the Psalm shows that He knew that His Father would grant all His requests, and would raise Him from the dead. It also shows that He encouraged all who fear God to praise Him, because through the mystery of the Crucified One He had mercy on the faithful of every race; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren, the Apostles (who, after He arose from the dead and convinced them that He had warned them before the Passion that He had to suffer, and that this was foretold by the Prophets, were most sorry that they had abandoned Him at the crucifixion). (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 106)

The Phillips Modern English translation renders Luke 24:32 as, “he made the scriptures plain to us.” The Greek word for “opened” is dianoigo (Strong’s word #1272). According to Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint of 1901 edition, p. 140), it means “to open by dividing or drawing asunder, to open thoroughly (what had been closed).”

This meaning can be seen in other passages where dianoigo appears: Mk 7:34-35, Lk 2:23, 24:31,45, Acts 16:14, 17:3). Obviously, then, Holy Scripture is informing us that some parts of it were “closed” and “not plain” until the “infallible” teaching authority and interpretation of our Lord Jesus opened it up and made it plain.

This runs utterly contrary to the Protestant notion of perspicuity of Scripture and its more or less ubiquitous self-interpreting nature; also to biblical passages such as 1 Peter 1:20: “. . . no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own private interpretation” (cf. Peter’s description of Paul’s letters: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures”: 2 Peter 3:16). The need for an interpreter was also illustrated in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch:

Acts 8:28, 30-31 . . . he was reading the prophet Isaiah . . . So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

It turns out that he was reading Isaiah 53:7-8, as we are informed in Acts 8:32-33. Philip then interprets the passage as referring to Jesus, and preaches the gospel to the eunuch (Acts 8:35). An authoritative interpreter was needed. And no one can say that the eunuch didn’t understand because of “hardness of heart” because subsequent events show that he was willing to accept the truth (as he got baptized in Acts 8:38). He simply didn’t have enough information. He needed the authoritative (“infallible,” if you will) teacher. Old Testament Scripture (which was Justin’s primary Scripture) was not sufficient enough for him to come to the knowledge of the truth.

One might also note that Justin Martyr’s routine casual assumption that his own interpretations of a host of biblical passages are self-evident, clear, etc., is itself highly questionable. Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce commented upon this, in his analysis of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho:

Both appeal to the Old Testament, but they cannot agree on its meaning, because they argue from incompatible principles of interpretation. Quite often, indeed, the modern Christian reader is bound to agree with Trypho’s interpretation against Justin’s. For example, they discuss the incident of the burning bush . . . Trypho says, ‘This is not what we understand from the words quoted: we understand that, while it was an angel that appeared in a flame of fire, it was God who spoke to Moses.’ [Dialogue, 60.1] Here Trypho’s understanding is sounder than Justin’s.

. . . Justin’s Greek text of Psalm 96:10) (LXX 95:10) read ‘the Lord reigned from the tree‘ – to him a clear prediction of the crucifixion. Trypho’s Bible did not contain these additional words (and neither does ours). ‘Whether the rulers of our people’, said Trypho, ‘have erased any portion of the scriptures, as you allege, God knows; but it seems incredible.’ [Dialogue, 73] Again, Trypho was right.

. . . Justin Martyr . . . evidently regards the Septuagint version as the only reliable text of the Old Testament. Where it differs from the Hebrew text, as read and interpreted by the Jews, the Jews (he says) have corrupted the text so as to obscure the scriptures’ plain prophetic testimony to Jesus as the Christ. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 65-66)

As we would expect at that early stage in the development of the canon of Scripture, Justin Martyr did not have a clear understanding of which books belong in the New Testament. F. F. Bruce contends that he “appears to quote” the Gospel of Peter. He elaborates, in a footnote:

In First Apology 36.6, speaking of the passion of Christ, Justin says, ‘And indeed, as the prophet had said, they dragged him and made him sit on the judgment-seat, saying “Judge us”.’ Compare Gospel of Peter 3:6 f. where Jesus enemies ‘made him sit on a judgment-seat, saying “Judge righteously, O king of Israel!”‘ The prophet referred to by Justin is Isaiah (cf Is. 58:2). The idea that Jesus was made to sit on the judgment-seat could have arisen from a mistranslation of John 19:13 (as though it meant not ‘Pilate sat’ but ‘Pilate made him sit’). (Ibid., 200-201)

Here is the passage from Justin:

And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. (First Apology, 35 – Bruce appears to have mistakenly cited chapter 36)

Finally, according to the eminent 19th-century Protestant patristics scholar Brooke Foss Westcott, there is some indication in Justin of acceptance of an apostolic Tradition, including an oral component. After an exhaustive, remarkable 75-page exposition of Justin’s understanding of the canon of the New Testament. Westcott concludes:

There are indeed traces of the recognition of an authoritative Apostolic doctrine in Justin, but it cannot be affirmed from the form of his language that he looked upon this as contained in a written New Testament. ‘We have been commanded,’ he says, ‘by Christ Himself to obey not the teaching of men but those precepts which were proclaimed by the blessed Prophets and taught by Himself.’ [Dialogue 48] But this teaching of Christ was not strictly limited to His own words, as Justin explains in another passage:

As [Abraham] believed on the voice of God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, in the same way we also when we believed the voice of God which was spoken again by the Apostles of Christ, and the voice which was proclaimed to us by the Prophets, even to dying [for our belief], renounced all that is in the world. [Dialogue, 119]

Thus the words of the Apostles were in his view in some sense the words of Christ, and we are therefore justified in interpreting his language generally, so as to accord with the certain judgment of his immediate successors. His writings mark the era of transition from the oral to the written Rule. His recognition of a New Testament was practical and not formal. As yet the circumstances of the Christian Church had not led to the final separation of the Canonical writings of the Apostles from others which claimed more or less directly to be stamped with their authority. (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980, from the 1889 sixth edition, 172-173)

Following are the two passages cited by Westcott, along with similar thoughts in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:

For we have been told by Christ Himself not to follow the teachings of men, but only those which have been announced by the holy Prophets and taught by Himself. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 48)

What greater favor, then, did Christ bestow on Abraham? This: that He likewise called with His voice, and commanded him to leave the land wherein he dwelt. And with that same voice He has also called of us, and we have abandoned our former way of life in which we used to practice evils common to the rest of the world. And we will inherit the Holy Land together with Abraham, receiving our inheritance for all eternity, because by our similar faith we have become children of Abraham. For, just as he believed the voice of God, and was justified thereby, so have we believed the voice of God (which was spoken again to us by the Prophets and the Apostles of Christ), and have renounced even to death all worldly things. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 119)

“The twelve bells which had to be attached to the long robe of the high priest, were representative of the twelve Apostles, who relied upon the power of Christ, the Eternal Priest. Through their voices the whole world is filled with the glory and grace of God and His Christ. David testified to this truth when he said: ‘Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world‘ [Ps 18.5]. [2] And Isaiah speaks as though in the person of the Apostles (when they relate to Christ that the people were convinced, not by their words, but by the power of Him who sent them), and says: ‘Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have preached before Him as a little child, as if a root in a thirsty ground‘ [Isa 53.1-2]. (And the rest of the prophecy as quoted above.) [3] When the passage, spoken in the name of many, states: ‘We have preached before Him,’ and adds, ‘as a little child,’ it proves that sinners will obey Him as servants, and will all become as one child in His sight. An example of this is had in a human body: although it is made up of many members, it is called, and is, one body. So also in the case of the people and the Church: although they are many individuals, they form one body and are called by one common name. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 42)

From Isaiah we know that the Prophets who were sent to carry His messages to man are called angels and apostles of God, for Isaiah uses the expression, ‘Send me’ [Isa 6.8]. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 75)

. . . we Christians, who have gained a knowledge of the true worship of God from the Law and from the word which went forth from Jerusalem by way of the Apostles of Jesus, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 110)

All of this shows the likelihood that Justin Martyr did not hold to sola Scriptura. Nothing seen in Justin is inconsistent with the perennial Catholic understanding of authority. His thought is simply at an early stage of Christian development, as we would fully expect in the 2nd century. Loving Scripture and believing it is materially sufficient is not enough to establish that one believes in sola Scriptura, or else I myself would be an enthusiastic proponent of it, whereas in fact I think it is a dangerous falsehood not found in the New Testament and viciously self-defeating. What Lucas has produced as “proof” in no way, shape, or form, proves what he erroneously thinks it proves.

***

Photo credit: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attempts to show that Justin Martyr held to sola Scriptura, but only proves his belief in the truth of material sufficiency.

Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian are Sola Scripturists

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:25 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to his article,“Tertuliano e Orígenes em defesa da Sola Scriptura” [Tertullian and Origen in defense of Sola Scriptura] (4-17-16).

• Tertullian (160 – 220)

Tertullian also took pains to show the unique authority of the Bible:

“For even the apostle, in his declaration – which he does not do without feeling the weight of it – that ‘Christ died,’ immediately adds, ‘according to the Scriptures,’ that he might lighten the harshness of the declaration by the authority of Scripture, and thus remove the offense from the reader” [Contra Práxeas, 29]

He notes that Paul argued from the Scriptures. So what? Of course he did. So do all the fathers, all Catholic apologists, theologians, bishops and popes, priests in their homilies, and I myself constantly in my work. This doesn’t prove sola Scriptura. It proves use of Scripture as an inspired authority.

For him, the only reason that could lead them to believe a doctrine is if it were given to them in Scripture:

“Surely one could not believe even these things even of the Son of God, unless they were given to us in the Scriptures.” [Contra Práxeas, 16]

This is an interesting one and carries some force, I grant [link]. It can’t be immediately dismissed like so many Protestant patristic arguments. But I think it could probably be interpreted in terms of material sufficiency. My own take on what he says here is that he is commenting on all these amazing events recounted in the Bible, that are so much so that it would be difficult for people to believe in them, but for the fact that they are included in the inspired revelation of the Bible. We know that elsewhere (as I will show below) Tertullian stated that extrabiblical doctrines (harmonious with the Bible) could and should be believed, so he is not absolutely against that.

Remember, Catholics fully agree that the Bible is unique. We simply assert that there are other infallible — not inspired — authorities, too (Church and tradition).

He does not say, “unless it is given to us in Scripture or tradition,” but only in Scripture. It is the only authority that can lead a Christian to believe any doctrine.

He says those things elsewhere (which Lucas will have to grapple with). But it could be partly an exaggerated or rhetorical argument as well, because immediately after this cited portion, he says: “possibly also they could not have been believed of the Father, even if they had been given in the Scriptures, since these men bring Him down into Mary’s womb, and set Him before Pilate’s judgment-seat, and bury Him in the sepulchre of Joseph.” He isn’t going to argue that these things shouldn’t be believed, despite being in the Bible. So it seems to me at least this second statement must be rhetorical and non-literal, with a particular meaning. If it is (which seems clear), then it is likely that the preceding statement may be, too.

She is also enough, as he said:

“Make us happy to say that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let that be enough, because the Scriptures have told us so.” [Contra Práxeas, 29]

Material sufficiency . . .

For him, the “voice of the Holy Spirit” present in Scripture is enough and no other deliberation is necessary beyond that:

“And why should I, a man of limited memory, suggest anything more? Why remember anything else in Scripture? As if the voice of the Holy Spirit wasn’t enough; or else any other deliberation were necessary, if the Lord cursed and condemned by priority the artisans of these things, of whom He curses and condemns the worshippers!” [On Idolatry, 4]

Well, yes, inspired Scripture is enough to settle problems. But this is not also a logically necessary denial that nothing else could also do so.

Against the school of Hermogenes, he declares one of the most emphatic statements of Sola Scriptura, saying:

“Let the school of Hermogenes show us that what it teaches is written: if it is not written, tremble at the anathema fulminated against those who add to Scripture, or take away from it.” [Contra Hermógenes, 22]

There were, therefore, two options: either the doctrine was written (in Scripture) and valid; or, if it was not written, it represented an addition to the Scriptures, and would be the object of God’s anathema withering. From this statement we see how seriously the early Church Fathers took the concept of Sola Scriptura, where only doctrines that were written in the Bible were accepted and where anything more or less than that was anathema.

The topic at hand here [link] was whether creation was made out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), or from “underlying matter.” The sentence immediately before Lucas’ citation reads: “But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find.” So Tertullian asks his opponent to produce such a passage (I have produced the contrary) and then notes that no one should add or take away from Scripture because the book of Revelation (22:18-19) tells us not to do so. No one disagrees with that. I don’t see how this is any sort of proof of sola Scriptura.

This represents the entirety of Lucas’ arguments with regard to Tertullian and the rule of faith (one semi-convincing proof that’s not compelling). I can produce far more than this, because I don’t ignore the many relevant passages in Tertullian, like Lucas does:

The material below is from Philip Schaff’s 38-volume collection of the Church fathers. Anglican Church historian J. N. D. Kelly summarizes Tertullian’s view on the rule of faith:

[F]or Tertullian what was believed and preached in the churches was absolutely authoritative . . . on occasion [he] described this original message as tradition, using the word to denote the teaching delivered by the apostles, without any implied contrast between tradition and Scripture . . . Tertullian can refer [de praescr. 21; c. Marc. I, 21;4 5] to the whole body of apostolic doctrine, whether delivered orally or in epistles, as apostolorum traditio or apostolica traditio . . .

Tertullian’s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus’s in any important respect . . . In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition [C. Marc. 4, 5; 5, 19; de monog. 2] stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture . . .

But Tertullian did not confine the apostolic tradition to the New Testament; even if Scripture were to be set on one side, it would still be found in the doctrine publicly proclaimed by the churches. Like Irenaeus, he found [E.g., de praescr. 21; 32; c. Marc. 4, 5] the surest test of the authenticity of this doctrine in the fact that the churches had been founded by, and were continuously linked with, the apostles; and as a further guarantee he added [De praescr. 28] their otherwise inexplicable unanimity . . .

This unwritten tradition he considered to be virtually identical with the ‘rule of faith’ (regula fidei), which he preferred to Scripture as a standard when disputing with Gnostics . . . where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e., in the Church [De praescr. 19] . . .

He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the regula had preserved the apostles’ testimony in its original shape. . . . the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 36, 39-41)

The Church

[T]he churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church . . . (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 20)

[I]t is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches, — as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words): Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this comes of evil; [Matthew 5:37] so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 26)

Sacred Tradition

It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 21)

When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 28)

Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on. (Against Marcion, Book IV, ch. 5)

We have it on the true tradition of the Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. (Against Marcion, Book V, ch. 17)

For if, even at that time, the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how much more now! Now, if it is our gospel which has spread everywhere, rather than any heretical gospel, much less Marcion’s, which only dates from the reign of Antoninus, then ours will be the gospel of the apostles. (Against Marcion, Book V, ch. 19)

Apostolic Succession

[E]ven if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians? For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 19)

They [the Apostles] then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. . . . Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality — privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 20)

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him. Matthew 11:27 Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach — that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached — in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them — can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches— those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 21)

[N]or can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 22)

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 32)

Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, as many as walk according to the rule, which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. . . . But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles? (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 37)

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin but such as reposes its Christian faith in the Creator. But if the churches shall prove to have been corrupt from the beginning, where shall the pure ones be found? Will it be among the adversaries of the Creator? Show us, then, one of your churches, tracing its descent from an apostle, and you will have gained the day. (Against Marcion, Book I, ch. 21)

Petrine Primacy / Papacy

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 22)

Afterwards, as he himself [St. Paul] narrates, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter, [Galatians 1:18] because of his office, no doubt, . . . (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 23)

[T]hey at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, . . . (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 30)

*****

Lucas then moves onto Origen, where he commits the same misguided error again and again:

Like the others, Origen reinforced the fact of the sufficiency of Scripture. He declared that “what we have taken from the authority of Scripture must be sufficient to refute the arguments of heretics” [De Principiis, Livro II, 5:3]. When he entered into theological debates, he made a point of saying that the discussion at hand should be resolved on the basis of the Bible.

This is pure material sufficiency. Most Catholics agree, so it is a non-issue.

He said:

“Thirdly, the apostles manifested to us the Holy Spirit, associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. In this, however, it is no longer clearly distinguished whether the Holy Spirit is begotten or unbegotten, or whether he must also be considered the Son of God or not. It is these things that must be investigated to the best of our ability through a careful search from the Holy Scriptures.” [De Principiis, Cap.4]

“It is important, therefore, that he use these things as elements and foundations, according to the commandment that says: ‘Illuminate yourselves by the light of science’, anyone who wishes to construct a series and a body of reasons for all these things, to investigate by means of manifest and necessary affirmations what there is of truth in each of them, and to build up a body of examples and affirmations from what I have found in the Holy Scriptures” [De Principiis, Cap.10]

“Now all this, as we have underlined, was done by the Holy Spirit that, seeing that those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be guided to the investigation of that truth which is most deeply hidden, and to the affirmation of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to have been inspired by Him.” [De Principii, 4:15]

Yeah, we should check all doctrines by Scripture. I did that today, in my previous reply to Lucas, showing that sola Scriptura can’t be found in Holy Scripture. Nothing proving sola Scriptura here . . .

He also made a point of analyzing in the Bible the veracity of each doctrine or theory elaborated. When something was not confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture, he rejected it, to make way for what was biblical:

“I do not observe that this is greatly confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture; whereas, in relation to the other two, a considerable number of passages are found in the Holy Scriptures which seem capable of being applied to them” [De Principii, 4]

The proof of the doctrines which he asserted he took not from tradition, but from Scripture: “To deal with so many and such things, it is not enough to entrust the sum of this subject to human senses and common intelligence, speaking, so to speak, visibly about invisible things. We must also take, for the demonstration of the things of which we speak, the testimonies of the Divine Scriptures” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.1]

“Exhorted thus briefly by the very logic and coherence of the subject, though we have extended ourselves a little, what we have said is sufficient to show that there are some things whose significance cannot be explained by any discourse of human language, but which are declared by an intelligence, simpler than the properties of any words. The understanding of the divine letters must also adhere to this rule, and what is said must be considered not for the baseness of the word, but for the divinity of the Holy Spirit who inspired the one who wrote them.” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.27]

Exactly right. Catholics totally agree! Go to the Bible to back up all of your doctrines. If we agree with this, then obviously it’s not an argument against us. It’s not even on-topic.

The reverse was also true. If the reason a doctrine was accepted was because of its conformity to Holy Scripture – not tradition – the reason why some erred was not because they ignored tradition, but because they ignored the Scriptures or did not read them correctly:

“Having made this brief comment on the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, it now seems necessary to explain why some, ignoring the way by which the understanding of the divine letters is reached, not reading them correctly, have fallen into so many errors” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.8]

Scripture as the basis of all doctrines becomes even clearer when we see Origen saying that both the simplest and the most advanced would have to be built up by Scripture, not to mention tradition either for one or the other:

“He must do this, first, that the simplest may be edified by the very body of Scripture, as it were. This is what we call common and historical understanding. If, however, they already begin to advance a little, so that they can understand something more deeply, let them also be edified by the very soul of the Scriptures” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.11]

His entire search for true doctrine was grounded in Scripture:

“All this, as we have said, the Holy Spirit sought so that, insofar as what is on the surface could not be true or useful, we would speedily be called to seek a higher truth, and search the Scriptures, which we believe to be inspired by God, a sense worthy of God” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.15]

If one doesn’t study and understand the Bible, they leave themselves open to serious errors. The Catholic says “amen!” This all has to do with material sufficiency.

The same Scripture, which the Papists hold to be insufficient for salvation,

But we don’t do that . . .

Origen said was given just for our salvation!

“Just as man is said to be made up of body, soul and spirit, so is Holy Scripture, which by divine liberality was given for the salvation of men.” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.11]

Of course it was. DUH!

He also advocated free examination. Instead of saying that the meaning of the passages could only be examined and discovered by the Roman magisterium, he asserted that any intelligent person who studied the Scriptures could discover the meaning for himself:

“People of intelligence who wish to study Scripture can also discover its meaning for themselves.” [Contra Celso, Livro VII, 11]

The Catholic Church (Council of Trent) required one interpretation only for all of seven verses in the Bible. That’s it! The rest can be interpreted as one wishes. Nor was it true historically that the Catholic Church tried to suppress the Bible, as the common myth would have it:

Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther? (Luther’s Dubious Claims About the Supposed Utter Obscurity of the Bible Before His Translation) [6-15-11]

Dialogue: “Obscure” Bible Before Luther’s Translation? [7-24-14]

Catholic Church: Historic “Enemy” of the Bible? [9-11-15]

Did Pope Innocent III Forbid the Bible in 1199? (+ Does the Bible Itself Teach That it Should be Read Without Need of Any Authoritative Interpretation?) [5-11-21]

Did Medieval Catholicism Forbid All Vernacular Bibles? [5-11-21]

Council of Trent: Anti-Bible or Anti-Bad Bible Translations? [5-12-21]

“Unigenitus” (1713) vs. Personal Bible Study? (+ Other Supposed “Anti-Bible” Catholic Proclamations & Analogies to Calvinist “Dogmatism” at the Synod of Dort) [5-14-21]

Sometimes it wished to suppress unauthorized or bad translations; but of course Protestants have always done that, too, so it’s not an issue.

Even the “deeper truths” could be discovered by one who investigated the meaning of Scripture on his own, citing three biblical texts in his defense:

“The deepest truths are discovered by those who know how to ascend from simple faith and investigate the underlying meaning of the divine Scriptures, according to the admonitions of Jesus, who said, ‘Search the Scriptures,’ and the desire of Paul, who taught that ‘we must know how to respond to every man’, yes, and also of those who said ‘always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the faith that is in you’” [Contra Celso III, 33]

Material sufficiency again . . .

Interestingly, Origen never told Celsus that if he wanted to discover the deeper meanings of biblical texts he would have to turn to an infallible magisterium in Rome, or consult a pope who would interpret Scripture infallibly. Rather, what he reaffirms is that anyone can study the Bible and discover for himself the meaning of the passages. It was exactly the same principle restored by the Reformers, being explicitly preached at that time.

If only one aspect of his teaching is presented, one would get such an impression. But I believe that all the relevant material one can find about a specific Church father should be set forth, so that we get the whole truth, not half-truths and carefully selected portions meant to convey an impression in one direction only. And so I now present Origen’s writings that are actually relevant to this debate and on-topic:

And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles. (On First Principles, Book IV, Section 9; English translation based on extant Greek of Origen)

As in all such cases, one must also determine what the writer believes about the Church and Christian tradition, because the rule of faith has to do with the relationship of those two entities with Scripture. We already see that Origen, in the second excerpt above, incorporates the Church and apostolic succession into the mix (“who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles”), so that he is expressing the Catholic “three-legged stool” view.

The word “standard” is particularly noteworthy and revealing. Church and tradition/ apostolic succession are involved in the rule of faith alongside Holy Scripture. All we need do now is supplement the above with other related utterances from Origen, and reputable Protestant scholarly opinion. Origen also wrote the following:

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points. For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. (De Principiis, preface, complete section 2; ANF, Vol. IV)

Origen, in this Preface, reiterates over and over the same non-scriptural elements of the rule of faith: “the teaching of the apostles” (4), “most clearly taught throughout the Churches” (4), “the apostolic teaching” (5), “This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church” (5), “the teaching of the Church” (again in 5, and in 6, 7, 10), “the Church’s teaching” (7), “Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the whole Church” (8). He continues on in the same manner throughout this work:

“he may judge these to be heretical and opposed to the faith of the Church” (Bk. I, ch. 7, part 1); “We have now to ascertain what those matters are which it is proper to treat in the following pages according to our dogmatic belief, i.e., in agreement with the creed of the Church” (Bk. I, ch. 7, part 1). “the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church’s teaching”; “some take offense at the creed of the Church” (Bk. II, ch. 10, part 1), “Those, however, who receive the representations of Scripture according to the understanding of the apostles, . . . (Bk. II, ch. 11, part 3).

Therefore, it is apparent that Origen held to the Catholic rule of faith and apostolic succession, and that he denied sola Scriptura.

Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly describes Origen’s view of the relationship of the Bible and tradition:

Early third-century writers, like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, continued to use language about it [tradition, in context] closely akin to that of Irenaeus and Tertullian, and spoke of ‘the ecclesiastical canon’ or ‘the canon of faith’ . . . in addition to the Church’s public tradition, they believed they had access to a secret tradition of doctrine . . . for Origen it seems to have consisted of an esoteric theology based on the Bible . . . According to Origen, the rule of faith, or canon, was the body of beliefs currently accepted by ordinary Christians; or again it could stand for the whole content of the faith. In his usage it was equivalent to what he called ‘the ecclesiastical preaching’ . . . and he meant by it the Christian faith as taught in the Church of his day and handed down from the apostles. Though its contents coincided with those of the Bible, it was formally independent of the Bible, and also included the principles of Biblical interpretation. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 43)

Kelly’s last sentence describes almost exactly the Catholic distinction between material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. We agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient as a rule of faith, independently of Church and Tradition.

***

Related Reading

For much more on sola Scriptura: see my Bible, Tradition, Canon, & “Sola Scriptura” web page.

For documentation of many more Church fathers who rejected sola Scriptura, see the “Bible” section of my Fathers of the Church web page.

***

Photo credit: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attempts to show that Origen & Tertullian were sola Scripturists. They were not, as I abundantly prove with citations.

Pearce Pablum #70: Nativity Book Errors

Last updated on: March 7, 2022 at 5:16 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist anti-theist and “philosopher” Jonathan M. S. Pearce runs the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques, and wrote under a post dated 12-14-21: “I even need to thank the naysayers. Some of them have put up with a lot of robust pushback and still they come. Bravery or stupidity – it’s a fine line. But they are committed, and there is something to be said for taking that commitment into the lion’s den. Dave, you are welcome at my new place. Come challenge me. . . . thanks for your critiques of my pieces. Sorry I couldn’t get to more of them.” This echoes his words about me in a post dated 7-20-17, where he said, “well done . . . for coming here and suffering the slings and arrows of atheists’ wrath. . . . I commend him for getting involved and defending himself. Goodonya, mate.”

Under a post dated 1-27-22, he stated: “I do welcome disagreements because I don’t want [my blog] to [be] just an echo chamber. . . . [S]omeone like Armstrong does give me ammunition for some of my pieces!” Likewise, on 3-18-14 he proclaimed: “Dissenting views are utterly vital to being sure that you are warranted in your own beliefs and views.” And on 7-20-17: “I put my ideas and theories about the world out there for people to criticise. . . . I want to make damned sure that they are warranted. I can’t stand the idea that I could . . . believe something that is properly unwarranted. . . . What’s the point in self-delusion? . . . I put something out there, people attack it, and if it still stands, it’s pretty robust and I am happy to hold it. If not, I adapt and change my views accordingly.”

I’m delighted to oblige his wish to receive critiques and dissenting views! The rarity of his counter-replies, however, is an oddity and curiosity in light of this desire. He wrote, for example, on 11-22-19: “[I can’t be] someone who genuinely is not interested in finding out the truth about philosophy, God and everything. If I come up against any point that is even remotely problematic to my worldview, I feel the absolute necessity to bottom it out. I need to reconcile at least something; I have work to do. I cannot simply leave it as it is. . . . I would simply have to counter the arguments, or change my position.” Whatever; this hasn’t been my experience with him; only in short and infrequent spurts. I continue to offer them in any event, because they aren’t just for his sake.

Here’s what he thinks (by the way) of Jesus: “The Jesus as reported in the Gospels is so far removed from the real and historical figure of Jesus, overlaid with myth, story-telling, propaganda and evangelist agenda, that the end result is synonymous with myth. . . . I’d take mythicism over Christianity any day. And they call mythicists fringe as if the position is absurd? Now that’s crazy.” (8-2-14)

Jonathan’s words will be in blue.

*****

This is part of a series of replies to Jonathan’s book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination (Onus Books, 2012). I am utilizing a text from Barnes & Noble (Nook Book) which has no page numbers, so I can only cite chapter names.

I. Fact or Fiction?

[T]he infancy narratives are (at least mainly) fictional. (Introduction)

This is just to let my readers know what Jonathan thinks of these biblical texts. As we start to closely examine the rationale and arguments he makes, that form his “cumulative case” that he thinks is “water-tight”, we’ll see how flimsy and pitiful it really is. I’ve already strongly critiqued his related arguments several times and never found any significant difficulty in doing so. One can have fifty weak strands of rope or weak links that won’t become any stronger, just because they are collected together.

II. Incidents That Couldn’t Possibly Have Been Recorded?

Pearce marvels at incidents recorded in the Bible “to which there were probably no witnesses (Jesus talking to Herod) available to the Gospel writers. All these speeches seem to have been remarkably well-preserved . . .” (Introduction to the texts)

What an odd choice of example, since “chief priests and the scribes stood by” (Lk 23:10) as did Herod’s “soldiers” (Lk 23:11). All it would take was one or two of these to report about this encounter, which entered into either oral tradition or directly into one of the Gospels. But as it is, Luke records not a single word that Herod said; it only notes that “he questioned him at some length” (Lk 23:9).

Since only Luke reports this incident, there was no secret or “miraculous” knowledge involved. All that is reported is that Herod questioned Jesus. We’re supposed to believe that no follower of Jesus could have possibly known that that happened? It’s ridiculous. It took only one follower to follow the irate persecuting crowds with Jesus from a distance and see them enter into Herod’s palace.

III. “No” Extra-Biblical Corroboration of the Gospels?

[T]he Gospels . . . are not attested by extra-biblical sources. This means that no other source outside of the Bible, and contemporary with the events or with the Gospel accounts, reports and corroborates the events claimed within the Gospels. (Introduction to the texts)

Nonsense! Jonathan also claimed that Christians can produce a few extra-biblical historians, who only proved that Christians “existed.” What?! I recently completed articles in which I demonstrated that there were fifty such corroborations for Luke’s accuracy in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, and another 17 for the Gospel of John. That’s 67 more than none.

Jonathan gets in trouble here with his mindless “universal negatives”: as so often. I appreciate enthusiasm for a cause (even a well-intentioned bad one), but when it leads to utter misrepresentation and lies because one’s extreme bias is so out of control, it’s no longer worth very much.

IV. Jonathan Unable to Distinguish Between a Newborn and a Toddler

We have [in Matthew] . . . Herod massacring children in the search for this newborn ‘usurper’: (The Gospel of Matthew)

The huge error here is that Jesus wasn’t a newborn when the wise men visited Him. He was most likely between 1-2 years old, but definitely not a newborn. I explained this at some length in my article, Bethlehem Joseph / Census Issues (2-28-22).

So we have the deliciously humorous and ironic circumstance of Jonathan — in the midst of carping on and on about supposedly profound Gospel inaccuracy — not even knowing that this passage is not about the newborn Jesus. It’s quite unimpressive to observe him ignorantly distorting the biblical text wholesale in order to mock and “reject” it (i.e., a straw man of the real thing).

V. Ruth Was a Harlot or Adulterer? And Maybe the Virgin Mary, Too, According to Matthew and Jonathan?

Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba . . . were all known adulterers and harlots. With Mary included as a female in this list [a genealogy], perhaps Matthew is hinting something covertly. (The Virgin Birth)

Tamar (Gen 38:13-24) and Rahab (Josh 2:1) were indeed harlots, and Bathsheba an adulterer (famously with King David). Jonathan got some biblical facts right! Stop the presses! But Ruth? One looks in vain throughout the book bearing her name for any hint of harlotry. She was widowed and got married again. That‘s harlotry (or adultery), according to Jonathan?

Having insulted her with one of the worst accusations that can possibly be hurled at a woman, he then makes the blasphemous charge that the Blessed Virgin Mary herself might be in one of these categories [blasphemy is a category that includes much more than just God], and that Matthew was “perhaps . . . hinting” such an unthinkable thing. This is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. Lying blasphemy is never far from skepticism. This is a prime example of that.

VI. Was “Virgin” Mistranslated from Isaiah 7:14?

Jonathan devotes an entire chapter to this question, claiming that “Matthew misappropriated the passage from Isaiah for his own theological ends.” I already refuted his contentions over three years ago: Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Mistranslation” of “Virgin”? (Isaiah 7:14) (with Glenn Miller) [7-26-17].

He also claimed in this chapter (“The mistranslation of virgin”) that “dual prophecies have no precedent — there are simply no other examples of such a thing.” Nonsense (and more of his clueless universal negative claims). I refuted that idea, too, over a year ago: Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy & the Virgin Birth (vs. JMS Pearce) [12-18-20].

VII. Do Matthew and Luke’s Genealogies Contradict Each Other?

Next up is Jonathan’s chapter, “The contradictory genealogies“. I dealt with this topic already as well: Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Contradictory” Genealogies of Christ? [7-27-17].

VIII. Micah 5:2, Bethlehem, and Nazareth

Matthew and Luke . . . mistranslate the prophecy [of Micah 5:2] . . . (To Bethlehem or not to Bethlehem)

Once again I have offered a thorough refutation already: Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth “Contradictions” (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2) [7-28-17].

[I]t seems that Jesus was born in Nazareth . . . The Gospel of Mark seems to indicate that Jesus was from Nazareth. . . . Mark 1:9 declares: “Jesus came from Nazareth . . .” (To Bethlehem or not to Bethlehem)

His “argument” is that Mark calls Him “Jesus of Nazareth” and calls Nazareth His “hometown.” So what?! It was His hometown from the age of 1 or 2. It doesn’t follow that He was born there or that Mark’s simply not dealing with His birth means that He denied that Bethlehem was where He was born. This is the well-known “argument from silence” fallacy, and it’s always a flimsy, nonexistent pseudo-“argument” whenever it’s desperately trotted out. I dealt with this nonsense in the above paper:

In all appearances of “Nazareth” in conjunction with Jesus, never once does it say that He was born there. The Bible says that He “dwelt” there (Mt 2:23), that He was “from” there (Mt 21:11; Mk 1:9), that He was “of” Nazareth (Mt 26:71; Mk 1:24; 10:47; 16:6; Lk 4:34, 18:37; 24:19; Jn 1:45; 18:5, 7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 10:38; 22:8; 26:9), “out of” Nazareth (Jn 1:46), “brought up” there (Lk 4:16), that Jesus called Nazareth “his own country” (Lk 4:23-24), . . . Not one word about being born in Nazareth occurs in any of those 28 references. . . .

Take, for example (by analogy), the singer Bob Dylan. He was born in Duluth, Minnesota, but lived in Hibbing, Minnesota from the age of six (I happened to visit this house on our vacation this year: being a big fan). That‘s where everyone who knows anything about him says and understands that he was raised and where he spent his childhood. Consequently, no one ever says that he is “from” Duluth or “of” Duluth or was “brought up” there. Even many avid Dylan fans don’t even know that he wasn’t born in Hibbing.

All of those things are said about Hibbing: precisely as the Bible habitually refers to Nazareth in relation to Jesus. It’s talking about His hometown, where He was always known to live, prior to His three-year itinerant ministry. In the Bible, people were generally named after the places where they were from. Yet Jonathan seems to expect that the Bible should say that Jesus was “of” or “from” Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth, because He was born there. It doesn’t. It says that He was “of” or “from” Nazareth because that was His hometown. And it says that He was born in Bethlehem; never that He was born in Nazareth. All the biblical data is on my side of this contention. All Jonathan has is silence and empty speculation.

IX. Returning to an “Ancestral” or a Present Tribal Town for a Census?

Luke 2:3-4 (RSV) And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. [4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

Luke does provide a reason for Joseph to go — because Bethlehem is his ancestral town. [typo corrected; he had Luke instead of Joseph] (Why return to an ancestral town for a census?)

What Luke actually writes is that Bethlehem is Joseph’s “own city”; i.e., he lived there (or at least his family did). The last clause above need not be interpreted as “everyone had to go to their ancestral city.” It could simply mean that Joseph went to Bethlehem and lived there because he was descended from David, who also lived there. But “house and lineage of David” could also refer to one’s tribe.

It doesn’t have to be some convoluted calculation going back 41 generations (as Jonathan has fun with: only making himself look ridiculous). First century Jews knew what tribe they were part of. David and Joseph his descendant were of the tribe of Judah, and Bethlehem was in the northern part of that.

Biblical linguist Marvin Vincent, in his Word Studies in the New Testament, concurs: “According to the Jewish mode of registration the people would be enrolled by tribes, families or clans, and households. Compare Joshua 7:16-18.” Even Roman citizens — as Jonathan notes in his next chapter — “were registered by tribe and class.” So Joseph was going to where his tribe (and he himself) lived.

Joseph was taking his betrothed to a home in Bethlehem, where they lived for 1-2 years after Jesus was born (as we know from the visit of the magi). He happened to live in Bethlehem which just happened to be where his illustrious ancestor David was known from Scripture to have been from. This ain’t rocket science.

X. Pearce Embarrassingly Botches the Meaning of the Immaculate Conception

. . . Mary becoming pregnant via the Holy Spirit . . . she had immaculately conceived . . . (Heavily pregnant? On your donkey!)

As any minimally educated Catholic knows, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception and grace received from God, causing her to be free from both actual and original sin. It does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus. Yet a man this ignorant deigns to sanctimoniously lecture Christians about the supposedly hopelessly contradictory Gospels (that they are almost totally myths). It’s embarrassing. He can’t even get right what they teach in the first place.

XI. “Heavily Pregnant” Donkey Ride?

Jonathan (in the same chapter and its title) describes Mary as “heavily pregnant” on the journey. How does he know that, pray tell? All the text says is that she was “with child” (Lk 2:5). So he makes it up (one of his many fairy tales), to make it look really really bad and callous and cruel on Joseph’s part. At least he restrained his hyper-polemics to some small degree. By the time of his article, Summing up the Nativity as Concisely as Possible (12-2-16), his amazing powers of seeing in Scripture things that aren’t there became exaggerated to describing Mary on this journey as a “9 month pregnant partner.”

XII. Jonathan Still Can’t Figure Out the Difference Between a Newborn and a Toddler

In his chapter, “No work for you, Joseph!” Jonathan finally seems to figure out that the magi visited a 1-2 year old Jesus; not the newborn Jesus. He writes: “These two events . . . appear not to happen concurrently . . . (and many claim that Jesus was a toddler by this time).” He actually got something in the Bible right: just as an unplugged clock gives the correct time twice a day. But alas, as soon as he stumbled into the truth, he went back to the falsehood in his next chapter (“The magi are copied from Daniel and are clearly a theological mechanism“):

They were sent to Bethlehem to praise the newborn king . . .

Then he cites the ubiquitous Richard Carrier spewing the same error: “Matthew alone depicts Magi visiting Christ at birth . . .”

In his chapter 20 (“The magi and shepherds as evangelists are strangely silent“), he reiterates the error: “The magi . . . had undergone a huge effort just to drop some presents off and praise a baby . . .”

XIII. Mary Doubted That Jesus is the Messiah?

[W]hat could have possessed Mary . . . to doubt the messianic qualities of her son? (Any other business)

There simply is no evidence that this was the case, as I have written about several times (perhaps that’s why Jonathan doesn’t even try to document it):

Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers”? (Jason also claims that “Mary believed in Jesus,” but wavered, and had a “sort of inconsistent faith”) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-27-20]

Did the Blessed Virgin Mary Think Jesus Was Nuts? [7-2-20]

Seidensticker Folly #50: Mary Thought Jesus Was Crazy? (And Does the Gospel of Mark Radically Differ from the Other Gospels in the “Family vs. Following Jesus” Aspect?) [9-8-20]

XIV. Nazareth Maybe Didn’t Exist in Jesus’ Time Because a Supposed Catholic Pawn (Actually Jewish) Archaeologist Said it Did?!

Jonathan starts sowing the seeds of doubt and then mentions an archaeological dig in 2009 and concedes (?), stating: “we can see that the Myth of Nazareth theory . . . falls apart.” (Any other business). Having arrived at this ray of truth he immediately qualifies it in the next sentence: “However, things aren’t so simple. . . . Firstly, the dig was being carried out by the Catholic Church . . . We have no evidence, just the word of an archaeologist employed by the Catholic Church.”

I recently tackled this subject: Pearce’s Potshots #64: Archaeology & 1st Century Nazareth (2-25-22). Jonathan is outdoing himself in his fanatical cluelessness this time: more dumbfoundedness and “polemical desperation” than he usually exhibits (and that’s really saying something). The archaeologist in question, that he mentions by name, is Yardenna Alexandre, a British-Israeli Jew, and she was digging for the Israel Antiquities Authority (hardly a Catholic pawn), according to a report in The Times of Israel (7-22-20). Jonathan lays out bullet points as to why he thinks these findings are “suspect”:

Alexandre has not published any of the findings or verified any of the claims.

In volume 98 of ‘Atiqot (2020): the publication of the Israel Antiquities Authority, her 68-page article, “The Settlement History of Nazareth in the Iron Age and Early Roman Period” is found (fully accessible as a PDF file at the preceding journal link).

The Israel Antiquities Authority published a short statement, only to take it off the web soon after.

I see. Sounds like some kind of conspiracy, doesn’t it?! Be that as it may, since its own publication now hosts a 68-page description of the findings (complete with copious photographs and diagrams), it’s a rather moot point, ain’t it?

The Church remains the only port of call for verifying the claims.

That would come as big news to the Israel Antiquities Authority, who sponsored the dig.

The Church (rather conveniently) proceeded to build over the remains meaning it can never be verified.

Really? Oooh: more nefarious conspiracies by those wicked, devious, science-hating Catholics!

No materials exist in any scholarly record.

Well, if they didn’t in 2012 (since the excavation had only finished up the year before, and these things take time: as anyone familiar with the rigorous method of archaeology knows), they certainly do now, and there is additional evidence noted in my article above.

[I]t clearly shows the levels to which the Catholic Church (or any religious organisation) are willing to go to support their worldview. These points make the entire house claim thoroughly dubious. . . . The evidence has since been destroyed, it seems, without any independent and professional corroboration. . . . I remain agnostic as to whether Nazareth existed or was inhabited at the time of Jesus.

Some folks are slow and reluctant to follow the scientifically ascertained facts. Some might say that Jonathan wrote his book in 2012, and that he might change his mind by now, in early 2022. Not so! I pointed out that I had verified the archaeological excavations of early 1st-century Nazareth on his blog, and (rather than thanking me for the update) he became angry at me and stated that I had misrepresented his view and should read his book to see what that was. Now I have done so. At the time (just a week ago as I write), I was going by his own statement on his blog, from 10-29-12:

In my book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination, I think I give ample evidence that allows one to conclude that the historicity of the nativity accounts is sorely and surely challenged. All of the aspects and claims, that is. There are problems, for sure, if one accepts that some claims are false but others are true. But the simple fact of the matter is that all of the claims are highly questionable.

Here are the hoops that a Christian must jump through. They are flaming hoops, and the Christian can do nothing to avoid being burnt, it seems. From my book:

In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must: . . .

• Believe that, despite archaeological evidence, Nazareth existed as a proper settlement at the time of Jesus’ birth.

As he said, the last two paragraphs there were from his book. And I see them now, on the very next two pages in the Nook Book version. I did nothing wrong in interpreting his words as I did. It was just “the Christian always has to be wrong in a dispute with an atheist, no matter what!” canard.

As it is, Jonathan wants to play the game of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He pokes fun of the Christian belief in the existence of first-century Nazareth (based on both the historically reliable Bible and archaeology), but falls short of asserting that it definitely didn’t, and remains “agnostic” on the question. How intellectually brave and courageous! He covers his rear end, to please whoever he happens to be with at any given moment.

He plays the same game regarding Jesus mythicism, as we see in his words cited near the top of this article. He’s not a mythicist himself, but he mocks and derides anyone who thinks it is a fringe position in academia (as it certainly is: believed by no more than 1% of historians: if even that many). He has to “kiss up” like this because of the ever-growing ranks of mythicists among the atheist crowd these days. It’s an utterly pathetic and a disgraceful performance, from someone who refers to himself as a “philosopher.”

XV. Postscript: Jonathan’s Increasing Mockery and/or Silence in the Face of Legitimate and Substantive Critique

Jonathan doesn’t exhibit much of a desire to interact with substantive critiques anymore: such as the many I have lately been offering and posting on his blog. Here is how he responded to me there, on 3-1-22:

STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT. Please stop this. All you are doing is spouting the absolutely debunked drivel apologetics that my book takes to task. . . . I welcome your comments, but these are totally off-topic and you show absolutely no desire to interact with my own material . . . [capitalized “yelling” is his own]

And a day earlier, he waxed: “Oh very dear. This is rather embarrassing for you.”

As anyone can see, my replies are almost solely devoted to direct interaction with his material. He mostly insults me now, all the while falsely claiming — almost in a semi-paranoid fashion — that my critiques are merely personal attacks on him; and he refuses to offer any intelligent counter-reply.

In other words, he’s melting down, after previously inviting me to come to his blog and offer critiques: see his words at the top of this article. If you persistently refute an atheist’s attacks on Christianity and the Bible (this is my 70th critique of Jonathan), this is what you eventually get. My friend, Paul Hoffer summed up the incongruity of his manifest attitude very well:

If Pearce were a real skeptic, he would thank you for your critical analysis, reexamine his own premises and conclusions and then either defend them if he still thinks he is in the right or adjust his thinking to fit the evidence. Instead, he comes across like a mutton-chopped millennial yelling at the barista at Starbucks who got his latte wrong.

He’s become progressively more hostile and rude. Despite all that sad display, however, I do think he’s basically a nice guy who is a much better person than his putrid, flatulent ideology. I think we’d have a great time in a pub over beer. He simply can’t handle being refuted. He’s like lots and lots of people of all stripes in that respect. And it’s the bane of my existence (as an apologist and lover of socratic dialogue), to see so few people willing to enter into the pleasure of true dialogue.

This is the fruit of the widely held atheist notion that all Christians are idiots, simply by virtue of the fact that they are Christians. They can’t possibly be honest, either: so tens of thousands of atheists think and express. So the more I replied to him, the more hostile he became, because this just ain’t supposed to happen, you see: that a lowly, imbecilic Christian can actually prevail in a debate (and many debates) over a smarter-than-thou atheist.

His blog is supposed to be a place for civil, ethical discussion between atheists and Christians. The new venue where it is hosted (OnlySky) — to its credit — has made a huge and sincere, commendable effort to foster civil discussion. Yet massive insults sent my way are freely allowed on Jonathan’s site, and even the guy who co-runs the blog with Jonathan (Bert Bigelow) made the following comment, congratulating a fellow mocker: “Huzzah! For the best, most articulate, and most detailed put-down of Dave A that I have seen. Thanks for taking the time to do it.” (3-3-22).

See how it works? An atheist blog is a place where the “moderators” [choke] literally encourage the commenters to engage in extended “put-down[s]” of Christians who dare to object to the cynical, lying misrepresentations of Christianity and the Bible. Yet Jonathan and his buddies, almost to a person, are scared to death of coming to my blog and commenting, even though they are treated courteously, and I would disallow personal insults from anyone sent their way.

They keep lying over there and claiming that I ban everyone as soon as they disagree with me, which is laughably ludicrous and manifestly, patently false. My interactions with Jonathan alone (who is most welcome on my blog, but rarely appears there) disprove the tired slander.

Proverbs 9:8 (RSV) Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

Proverbs 14:6 . . . a fool throws off restraint and is careless.

Proverbs 29:9, 11 If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. . . . [11] A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man quietly holds it back.

The only person who engaged in a perfectly normal, courteous, serious, substantive, enjoyable, charitable, sustained dialogue with me at Jonathan’s blog (i.e., after Jonathan stopped doing so) was “Lex Lata” (see our two-part dialogue [one / two] on the demoniacs and the pigs, Gerasenes and Gadarenes, etc.). People like Lex give me faith in the continuity of dialogue. I know it’s possible, and I’ve engaged in great dialogues with atheists many times (my very favorite of all of my 1000 + dialogues — way back in 2001 –, was, in fact, with an atheist).

But it’s rarer than a needle in a haystack, and the patience required to wait until one finds such an ultra-rare golden opportunity (and the willingness to be a “pin cushion” and a “dart board” for months on end) is scarcely humanly possible. But for the grace of God . . .

I will continue to critique Jonathan’s articles if I find something I haven’t dealt with yet: as opportunity arises. He’ll come to regret his contemptuous attitude, sent in my direction, in full view of all his back-slapping cronies and sycophants, because it only makes me more determined to spend time refuting his (and other atheists’) endless, relentless calumnies and slanders against the faith and the Bible and Christians.

But to end on a positive note: I do sincerely thank Jonathan for the relatively few times that he did actually offer a substantive counter-response to my critiques of his work (see a listing of those, under my name, in a search on his blog). That’s much more than I can say about his fellow well-known online anti-theist atheist polemicists Bob Seidensticker, Dr. David Madison, and John Loftus, who have never done it even once, after literally 80, 46, and 24 critiques (respectively) sent their way: adding up to 150 unanswered critiques.

***

Photo credit: Cover of Pearce’s book on the GoodReads site.

***

Summary: I take on anti-theist atheist Jonathan MS Pearce’s Nativity book errors. As always (sorely lacking grace), he demonstrates that he is relentlessly clueless & out to sea.

Pearce’s Potshots #66: Bethlehem Joseph / Census Issues

Last updated on: March 10, 2022 at 11:47 am By Dave Armstrong

Jonathan’s words will be in blue.

*****

In Jonathan’s article, “The hoops the Christian has to jump through to believe the Nativity” (10-29-12), he wrote:

Here are the hoops that a Christian must jump through. They are flaming hoops, and the Christian can do nothing to avoid being burnt, it seems. From my book:

In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must: . . .

• Find it plausible that people would return, and find precedent for other occurrences of people returning, to their ancestral homes for a census (at an arbitrary number of generations before: 41).

• Give a probable explanation as to how a Galilean man was needed at a census in another judicial area.

• Give a plausible reason as to why Mary was required at the census (by the censors or by Joseph).

• Give a plausible explanation as to why Mary would make that 80 mile journey on donkey or on foot whilst heavily pregnant, and why Joseph would be happy to let her do that.

Jonathan makes even more extreme and pointed claims and charges (including his famous / notorious “universal negative” statements) in his related article, “The Nativity Census Challenge: Update” (12-31-17):

Here is my challenge in the form of statements that he has to address:

A client kingdom has never been taxed directly or had such censuses in the history of the Roman Empire.
When Herod was alive it was a client kingdom.
When he died, his son took over for 10 years, made a mess, and Romans took back direct control.
When they did, they held a census for tax reasons due to having a newly added directly ruled region.
There is no example in the history of censuses in the entire world of people returning to their ancestral home.
There is no need for anyone to return to their ancestral home for reasons of tax since this defeat the entire reason for having a census for tax purposes. People would necessarily move out of tax regions to other areas and so you would have no idea of the taxable value of a given region.
One Egyptian census required ITINERANT/MIGRANT workers to return to their ACTUAL homes for reasons of tax pragmatism. This is in no way analogous to the Lukan census. Going back to my actual home is different to going back to where an ancestor lived 41 generations past, no matter where it was.
The Lukan census required Joseph to return to his ancestral home of 41 generations past, no more, no less.
This would have been impossible and utterly arbitrary for everyone to know their 41 generations past ancestors (I don’t know 3 past).
This would also mean the whole of Judea could connect themselves to David.
Not one single human being in the world of apologetics, or the world, has provided a reason, let alone a good one, why people should return to their ancestral homes for a tax census (let alone at 41 generations past).
There would be a month where virtually no one would be able to work. Who would be looking after households as the whole country moved around to their ancestral homes? This would be economic suicide thus negating the whole point of a tax census, losing Romans valuable taxable money.
Women were not required at censuses.
Bethlehem is a different tax area to Nazareth. . . .

Just answer each of them so that the Lukan account of the census is the most probable theory of claim of reality.

In his article dated 6-17-14, entitled, “Why Return to an Ancestral Town for a Census?”, Jonathan cites his 2012 book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination:

[O]ne cannot help wondering what advantage there could be for the Roman state in this return, for a single day, of so many scattered individuals, not to the places of their birth, but to the original homes of their ancestors. . . . The suspicion, or rather, the conviction, is borne in upon us at first sight that the editor of Luke has simply been looking for some means of bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to have Jesus born there. A hagiographer of his type never bothers much about common sense in inventing the circumstances he requires.

He goes on in his attacks on the text of Luke:

If the first option is the case (that the law or due procedure required that one returned to their ancestral home 41 generations past or similar), then we are still within the territory of patently ridiculous. Why would a man have to return to the town of an ancestor particularly 41 generations past? . . .

This is countered extremely often by apologists (so often that there is no need to reference it other than Marchant below) by appealing to a census which took place in Egypt. I have to admit extreme annoyance with this tactic, and it is employed by many revered apologists. The census in question took place in 104 CE. . . .

The problem is that this is not a permissible option and should not be used as a precedent (even if it did happen after the 6 CE census) since this required itinerant workers to return to their homes. Not, may I add, their ancestral homes either. This requirement was for workers who happened to be working away from their own house to return to where they lived for purposes of accuracy in taxation and so on. This has nothing at all to do with picking an arbitrary ancestor in your lineage and deciding to return to their home town. Simply put, this papyrus from the 104 CE Egyptian census should never be used to justify the Lucan narrative. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny but this does not stop Christians rolling it out in virtually every discussion about the census. In logical terms it is a false analogy and therefore fallacious.

Okay! Now I shall offer some explanations and scenarios that do indeed (at least in my humble opinion) answer these charges and provide plausible alternatives. First of all, let’s examine this “ancestral town” business. What does Luke’s text actually assert?:

Luke 2:1-4 (RSV) In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. [2] This was the first enrollment, when Quirin’i-us was governor of Syria. [3] And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. [4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

Sometimes, things are so obvious that they can be easily (or curiously) overlooked. This text doesn’t assert that one must go to his “ancestral city” but rather, simply “to his own city.” Thus, it plainly means that Bethlehem was Joseph’s “own city”; his hometown. Verse 4 is not necessarily referring to the return to an ancestral town for enrollment, but was merely noting that Joseph was of the lineage of King David (who came from Bethlehem) which explains why Joseph lived there.

Throughout the history of the world (especially before travel became fairly easy), people have tended to live in the general area or specific town or city where their ancestors lived. We mustn’t read into the text what is not plausibly in the text (what is called eisegesis, rather than the proper exegesis). Unfortunately, even reputable commentators have done so with regard to this passage, because of several common misperceptions and partial “myths and legends” built up around it. It’s easy to assume that certain elements are in a biblical text, when in fact, upon closer examination, they are actually absent.

At this point, people may wonder, “doesn’t the Bible say that Joseph came from Nazareth?” Actually, it never does. It only asserts that Mary indeed came from there (Lk 1:26-27, 56), as did Jesus, which is why He was known as “Jesus of Nazareth” (see sixteen instances of this in RSV; cf. statements about His hometown: Mt 2:23; 4:13; 21:11; Mk 1:9; 14:67; Lk 4:16; Jn 1:46; Acts 3:6; 4:10).

We also have the evidence that Joseph and Mary resided in Bethlehem up to a year or possibly two after Jesus’ birth, at the time of the visit of the wise men (see my article, “Who First Visited Baby Jesus?” for more on why this is believed to be the case, based on solid exegesis). This fits in with the scenario of Joseph returning with (betrothed) Mary to “his own city” for the enrollment and then staying there in a house after they were married.

Thirdly, Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt when they learned of Herod’s intent to kill Jesus the Messiah (Mt 2:13-15), and remained there until Herod the Great died (2:15). When they learned of that fact, they attempted to return to their home in Bethlehem (in Judea), until they discovered that Herod’s successor might also seek to kill Jesus:

Matthew 2:21-23 And he rose and took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. [22] But when he heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. [23] And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, . . .

That is the time (1-2 years after Jesus’ birth, plus however long they were in Egypt) where the Gospels first say that Joseph “dwelt” in Nazareth, with Mary and Jesus. But he did not at the time of the enrollment, which is the whole point. He may have had temporary residence in Mary’s house, but likely was not registered as residing in Nazareth (knowing that they would move to Bethlehem after they married: see the next section below). As far as the Roman records were aware, he lived in Bethlehem with his larger family.

Perhaps he had property that he sold, after he met Mary and lived for a time in Nazareth, or he simply moved out of his parent’s house. Many scenarios are possible. In any event, his parents and kin would have been known to be residents in Bethlehem, in which case he would be required to register there: it being his last known “official” residence, as far as Rome was concerned.

Fourthly, we have the data regarding when and where Mary was betrothed and when she was married:

Joseph went up to Bethlehem ‘with Mary, his betrothed’ (2.5, σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ). According to Luke, Mary was still betrothed on the way to Bethlehem, but by the time she gave birth to Jesus in v. 7, she was cohabitating with Joseph. According to Jewish practices in antiquity, marriages were initiated by a betrothal (אירוסין) and finalized by a ‘home-taking’ (נישואין) in which the bride is taken to her husband’s house. [Footnote 52] Both events were celebrated by a public feast, the former at the bride’s house and the latter at the groom’s house. Accordingly, in the logic of the narrative, the point that Mary was still betrothed upon her arrival in Bethlehem (v. 5) but later cohabited with him there (v. 7) means that Bethlehem was the site of their wedding, when Joseph concluded the betrothal period by taking her into his home.

Footnote 52: There is also much literature on ancient Jewish marriage customs. Some of the most useful modern treatments include: Michael L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University, 2001); Tal Ilan, ‘Premarital Cohabitation in Ancient Judea: The Evidence of the Babatha Archive and the Mishna (Ketubbot 1.4)’, HTR 86 (1993) 247-64; and Léonie J. Archer, Her Price is Beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine (JSOTSS 60; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990). (Stephen C. Carlson, “The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7”, New Testament Studies, 56, pp. 326-342. © Cambridge University Press, 2010)

The next question then, raised by Jonathan, is whether such an enrollment (or census?) took place when Luke said it did, and whether Joseph had to travel from Nazareth to his hometown of Bethlehem to register in it.

Jewish / Roman historian Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews — Book XVII [“Containing the interval of 14 Years. From the death of Alexander and Aristobulus [7 BC], to the banishment of Archelaus [6 AD]”] refers to an event where “all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Cæsar, and to the King’s government”. But he notes that some of the “Pharisees: who were in a capacity of greatly opposing Kings . . . did not swear: being above six thousand.” According to Josephus, Herod the Great was still alive when this happened.

There is much dispute about the date of Herod’s death (see my collection: Quirinius & Luke’s Census: Resources on the “Difficulty”). Without digressing into that thorny question (and I deferred to others in that paper), I submit that this swearing or oath had to do with Caesar Augustus being declared by the Roman Senate Pater Patriae (“Father of the Fatherland”) in 2 BC. Roman Christian historian Orosius (c. 375/385-c. 420) referred to this event:

The greatness, novelty, and extraordinary character of the blessings in which that year abounded must, I think, surely be well enough known without my repeating them. One peace reigned over the whole earth as a result of the fact that wars had not merely ceased but had been totally abolished. After the causes of war had been wholly removed rather than merely checked, the gates of twin-faced Janus were closed. The first and greatest census was then made. The great nations of the whole world took an oath in the one name of Caesar and were joined into one fellowship through their participation in the census. (Histories Against the Pagans: Book VII: 2; adapted from the translation by I. W. Raymond [1936]

Orosius stated that “In the seven hundred and fifty-second year of the City, Christ was born.” The “City” is, of course, Rome, which was said to have been founded in 753 BC, so that Christ was born in 1 or 2 BC. 2 BC is also the year of the proclamation of Pater Patriae. Moreover, Orosius wrote that “Toward the close of the forty-second year of his [Caesar Augustus’] imperial rule . . . Christ was born”. Augustus took power in 44 BC, after Julius Caesar was murdered. So, 42 years after that also comes out to 2 BC. I am submitting that this “census” or “swear[ing]” is what Luke 2:1 refers to. It was not necessarily for taxation purposes. Rather, as Luke says, “a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.”

K. B. Vogelman describes this year and its events:

Rome was in the height of its glory commemorating the 750^th anniversary of its founding and was the same year as the Silver Jubilee reign of Caesar Augustus [i.e., of his becoming emperor in 27 BC].

Inspired by the circumstances of 2 BC, the Senate bestowed upon their emperor the honor of Pater Patriae. Augustus considered it to be one the highlights of his reign as listed in The Deeds of Divine Augustus. To underscore this honor, prompted by the Senate, Augustus decreed a “registration” to be taken of the entire Roman Empire claiming allegiance to him as Pater Patriae. . . .

Caesar’s motivation for the “census” was to quantify the entire resources of Rome as part of his breviarium totius imperii eventually to be read at his funeral along with the unveiling of his Res gestae divi Augusti (The Deeds of Divine Augustus). (“An Unusual Roman Census Decree By Caesar Augustus”, The Odds, 8-5-18)

Would this entail Joseph traveling some 90 miles to Bethlehem (its having been established above as his hometown)? Yes. We have two pieces of evidence showing that this was standard procedure with regard to a Roman census or registration. Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Roman prefect of Egypt, which was under Roman jurisdiction from 30 BC to 641 AD. In other words, Egypt was in a similar situation as 1st-century Judea or Israel. Vibius’ decree, dated 104 AD and discovered in 1907, read:

As a house-to-house registration has been authorized, it is necessary to order all persons absent from their homes for any reason whatsoever to return to their homes that they may perform the customary business of registration and may apply themselves to the cultivation of the land, as is their proper duty. [see also an alternate English translation] (from the British Library Papyrus 904)

The second evidence is called Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 255, discovered in 1897 and dated to 48 AD. It reads:

I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor.

This backs up Luke’s contention that “all went to be enrolled, each to his own city” (2:3). Most of Jonathan’s accusatory claims are, therefore, already refuted. This wasn’t technically a Roman census, and so wasn’t directly about taxes. But the general principle would seem to apply: that people had to travel to their hometowns to participate in enrollments, registrations, oaths, etc. It has nothing to do with “ancestral homes”: so that whole line of histrionic rhetoric from Jonathan is one long (albeit rather entertaining) non sequitur.

The next question raised by Jonathan and atheists and skeptics in general, is whether Mary would have been required to go with him. I would say she clearly wasn’t (in a legal sense), since her home was Nazareth, and she could participate there. But, as noted above, she was betrothed to Joseph, so she essentially had no choice but to go to Bethlehem with Joseph, since he was required to, and since that was where their marriage ceremony was to be held. It could also be noted that potentially many in Nazareth who didn’t understand the virgin birth, would have insulted and ostracized Mary, the longer she was pregnant and “showing” more and more: and with no Joseph around to defend and protect her.

But how about an almost-ready-to-deliver Mary making such a trip (some 90 miles on a donkey)? Is that not cruel and heartless, if she wasn’t required to go? This is where we must, again, look at the biblical text more closely:

Luke 2:5-6 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. [6] And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered.

Note that the text never says 1) that she was 8-9 months pregnant on the journey, or 2) that she delivered the baby Jesus as soon as they arrived in Bethlehem (like all the movies assume). All we know from these two verses is that 1) she was pregnant while making the journey, and 2) she delivered the baby Jesus in Bethlehem. We know not a thing about how far along in her pregnancy she was, or how long they were in Bethlehem before she bore baby Jesus. It’s all mere groundless assumptions and speculations. So Jonathan can stop all the crocodile tears over this alleged event.

It still remains, however, to explain how it is that Mary and Joseph couldn’t simply stay with his kinfolk once they arrived in Bethlehem. What is this business of “no place for them in the inn”: as most translations describe it? Well, amazingly enough, maybe they did stay with relatives, and maybe the text doesn’t rule that out. Stephen C. Carlson (cited above) makes the case:

[N]either the Greek term κατάλυμα [kataluma] in Luke 2.7 nor even its Vulgate rendering diversorium necessarily means an ‘inn’ as evident from the use of the same term in Luke 22.11 referring to an upper room. Moreover, there would have been no need for an inn, . . . because Joseph had to return to his own town according to the decree, so he must have had family—if not his own house—in Bethlehem where he could stay. . . . [Nor] would [there] have been a throng of census registrants descending upon Bethlehem because subjects did not need to register on a specific day. . . .

The NT usage of κατάλυμα apart from Luke 2.7 coheres with its having a broad meaning. At both Luke 22.11 and its parallel at Mark 14.14, Jesus instructs his disciples to ask a man carrying a jar in Jerusalem about accommodations for eating the Passover: ποῦ ἐστιν τὸ κατάλυμα. Translations usually render this instance of κατάλυμα rather specifically as ‘guest room’, but the generality of κατάλυμα is evident from the further specification in both Luke and Mark that the place to stay is a ‘large, furnished upper room’ (ἀνάγαιον μέγα ἐστρωμένον). We know that κατάλυμα refers to a ‘guest room’ in this context, not because the sense of the word is so specific, rather because the context makes its reference specific. Moreover, when Luke wanted to be specific about an inn, as in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the author used a precise term, πανδοχεῖον (Luke 10.34). . . .

A translation faithful to the sense of κατάλυμα should be satisfied with merely stating that it was a ‘place to stay’ or ‘accommodations’. . . .

The problem facing Joseph and Mary in the story was not that they were denied a particular or well-known place to stay when they first arrived, but that their place to stay was not such that it could accommodate the birth and neonatal care of the baby Jesus. . . .

[T]he entire clause should be rendered as ‘because they did not have space in their accommodations’ or ‘because they did not have room in their place to stay’. This clause means that Jesus had to be born and laid in a manger because the place where Joseph and Mary were staying did not have space for him. . . .

In accordance with contemporary norms of hospitality, Luke’s audience would have expected Joseph’s relatives in his own town to have provided a place to stay for him and Mary if he had no house of his own. . . .

[M]angers were also found in the main rooms of first-century Judean village houses. Typically, the main room was divided into two sections at different elevations separated by about a meter. The animals were housed in the lower section, the people slept in the upper section, and mangers were located between them. These village houses, moreover, could have a small room, either on the roof or on the side, which accommodated family members and guests. . . .

Accordingly, the element of Luke’s narrative that the place where Joseph and Mary were staying had no room to accommodate a newborn or a manger (v. 7) suggests to the reader that they had been staying in one of these small rooms built on top of, or onto the side of, a village family home, and that delivery itself took place in the larger, main room of the house. (Carlson, ibid.)

With this explanation, which I find entirely plausible and in accord with the biblical text, Jonathan’s collection of insults of the biblical text (and those who believe them) are, I believe, successfully refuted.

I learned so many things during the course of this research. I love that about apologetics: we apologists learn while we are seeking to reply to critics of Christianity, and to give aid to Christians and others who wonder about the same things. We learn and then share. I suggest and highly recommend that Jonathan learn from these arguments, too, and retract what has been shown to be false in his presentation on the Nativity. He only gains by that, as anyone does by following truth and facts wherever they lead. It’s a “win” and not a “loss” for someone to be corrected. I’m certainly very grateful when someone corrects me. The last thing I want to do is convey false information.

***

See also the excellent related article by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin: “The Enrollment of Jesus’ Birth” (Jimmy Akin.com, 3-9-22).

***

Photo credit: St Joseph with the Infant Jesus, by Guido Reni (1575-1642) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce unleashed a host of accusations regarding Bethlehem Joseph / Census Issues. I believe that I have refuted them one-by-one.

Pearce’s Potshots #65: Who First Visited Baby Jesus?

Last updated on: March 7, 2022 at 5:18 pm By Dave Armstrong

Jonathan’s words will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to a portion of Jonathan’s article, “The hoops the Christian has to jump through to believe the Nativity” (10-29-12):

Here are the hoops that a Christian must jump through. They are flaming hoops, and the Christian can do nothing to avoid being burnt, it seems. From my book:

In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must: . . .

• Believe that there is (and provide it) a reasonable explanation as to why each Gospel provides different first witnesses (shepherds and magi) without any mention of the other witnesses.

This is an easy one, and it is remarkable to me that Jonathan has made such a basic error as regards the Gospel accounts. First of all, we find the usual sloppy logical thinking in atheist attacks on the Bible. Neither Matthew nor Luke claim that the shepherds or the wise men (magi) were the “first” to witness the baby Jesus. That’s an invention that Jonathan somehow came up with (who knows how?).

And this is a key factor in determining whether an alleged “contradiction” is present. Let me elaborate a bit if I may. If Matthew had said that the wise men were the “first” to visit baby Jesus and Luke said that the shepherds were the ‘first” to do so, then that would have been a true, clear contradiction. But of course neither account says any such thing.

This is so obvious that Jonathan himself even hosted Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman on his blog, making exactly the same point I just made, and contradicting his own:

Of course some of the differences are simply … differences, not “contradictions.” As an obvious example, the fact that Luke mentions the shepherds but not the magi (wise men) and that Matthew mentions the magi but not the shepherds is not a contradiction. If both groups visited the infant Jesus, then Luke mentioned one group and Matthew the other: no contradiction. (Ehrman on the Nativity, 10-29-13)

Somehow, Ehrman avoided the (what did Jonathan call it?) “flaming hoops” and he — inexplicably — managed to navigate this extraordinarily difficult logical conundrum without being “burnt.”

Right after Luke reports that Mary gave birth to Jesus (Lk 2:7), it’s reported that angels inform the shepherds of the birth of Jesus on that very night (Lk 2:8-14). Then the shepherds determined to go see baby Jesus, and indeed did so (Lk 2:15-16). We know that this was the night of Jesus’ birth, complete with his lying in the famous “manger” (Lk 2:7).

Nothing is said about their being the first visitors. They may have been, but we can’t know for sure from the text. They could have been the first or the fifth, or the only ones on that night. From the text we can’t determine those things. And there is no imaginary obligation for a text to mention any or all other visitors too. All we know for sure is that they visited shortly after He was born.

With the wise men (Mt 2:1-11), what Jonathan appears unaware of is that they didn’t visit on the night of Jesus’ birth. No doubt he would appeal to Matthew 2:1: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, . . . ” (RSV). But this is one of the thousands of cases in the Bible where the intended meaning was not literal. Many Bible translations bring out more clearly the actual intent, that the incidents about to be recorded were some time after Jesus’ birth, not at the time of His birth:

CSB / CEB / EHV / ESV / ESVUK / HCSB / LEB / MEV / Mounce After Jesus was born in Bethlehem . . .

Darby / DNLT Now Jesus having been born in Bethlehem . . .

ERV Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in Judea during the time when Herod was king. After Jesus was born, some wise men from the east came to Jerusalem.

GW Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea when Herod was king. After Jesus’ birth wise men from the east arrived in Jerusalem.

*

GNT Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in Judea, during the time when Herod was king. Soon afterward, some men who studied the stars came from the East to Jerusalem

ICB . . . After Jesus was born, some wise men from the east came to Jerusalem.

*

ISV / NCB After Jesus had been born in Bethlehem . . .

*

Phillips Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in Judea, in the days when Herod was king of the province. Not long after his birth there arrived from the east a party of astrologers

*

MSG / NASB / NET / NIV / NKJV After Jesus was born in Bethlehem . . . [source]

Here’s a few more from my Bible collection:

Weymouth / Goodspeed Now after the birth of Jesus . . .

*

NEB / REB . . . After his birth . . .

*

NRSV . . . after Jesus was born . . .

*

Barclay When Jesus had been born . . .

*

Wuest Now, Jesus having been born . . .

When the magi stopped by, Jesus was a toddler. The word for child in Matthew 2:8-9 is paidion (Strong’s word #3813): defined as “a young child . . . properly, a child under training; the diminutive form of 3816 /país (“child”). . . . implies a younger child (perhaps seven years old or younger). Some scholars apply 3816 (país) to a son or daughter up to 20 years old.”

“Babe” on the other hand (Lk 2:12, 16 in RSV and KJV) is Strong’s word #1025, brephos: which means: “an unborn or a newborn child” and is used of children in the womb in Luke 1:41, 44. In Luke 2, it’s the day of Jesus’ birth (Lk 2:7, 11). So the use of “babe” (2:12, 16) and “child” (2:17) in English (RSV) obviously includes the meaning here of “newborn.” Commentators generally believe He was two years old or younger when the wise men visited, but in any event, not a newborn.

But Jonathan cites one Julian Haydon on his blog, making the same dumb mistake he made, including noting that “it is something I brought up in my last book” [on the Nativity]:

[T]he wise men knew to follow it [Star of Bethlehem] to find the baby Jesus, . . . Why didn’t the “miracle” of the star lead the wise men to baby Jesus in the first place . . .? (Slaughter of the innocents, 11-10-13, my italics)

Two years later, Jonathan was still trotting out this falsehood on his blog:

Herod is not likely to have troubled himself with the newborn . . . On pain of death, those Magi would have led him to the baby. . . . In fact, unless God only magically made the star visible to the Magi, the whole of Jerusalem could have gone to see the newborn Messiah; . . . (Response to Triablogue’s Jason Engwer on Nativity Accounts (Part 1), 12-20-14; my italics)

We know that this error is also present in his 2012 book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination because he cites part of it (p. 146) in a blog post dated 12-14-14:

[W]hy would catching a newborn and murdering this newborn, thereby forcing him to murder many other infants, be something that such an old king would bother to do? (my italics)

The magi visit a “house” (Mt 2:11), not a baby in a “manger” (Lk 2:7, 12, 16), in a place which was, in fact, very much a cave (I’ve been there). There are no angels (Lk 2:9-10, 13-15), shepherds (Lk 2:8, 15-18), or animals are in sight. The star of Bethlehem is a factor in Matthew’s account only. Luke never mentions it. The picture of the star of Bethlehem shining down on baby Jesus (surprisingly enough) is not biblical at all. Scholars believe that Jesus was possibly as old as two years old, based on Matthew 2:16 (RSV):

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.

Herod felt “tricked” because they had departed the country by then (2:12-13). What he “ascertained from the wise men” was that Jesus was up to two years old. See also 2:7: “Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star appeared”. I think they may have said He was a year old, and that Herod then ordered all children under two to be killed, to be sure He killed the Messiah, based on His estimated age given to him by the magi.

Since these are two completely separate events and visitations, Jonathan’s “difficulty” and alleged “contradiction” vanishes.

***

Photo credit: 27707 (1-20-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Atheist JMS Pearce claims that the NT contradictorily teaches that both the shepherds & wise men first visited baby Jesus. In fact, the latter visited 1-2 years later.

Pearce’s Potshots #64: Archaeology & 1st Century Nazareth

Last updated on: March 7, 2022 at 5:18 pm By Dave Armstrong

Jonathan’s words will be in blue.

*****

First, I reply to a portion of Jonathan’s article, “The hoops the Christian has to jump through to believe the Nativity” (10-29-12):

Here are the hoops that a Christian must jump through. They are flaming hoops, and the Christian can do nothing to avoid being burnt, it seems. From my book:

In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must: . . .

• Believe that, despite archaeological evidence, Nazareth existed as a proper settlement at the time of Jesus’ birth.

Nazareth was a very small town when Jesus was born. When my wife and I visited there in 2014, our tour guide told us that it was scarcely as large as the parking lot of the Church of the Annunciation there. But it’s been excavated to the time of Jesus.

Skeptics (like Jonathan) for many years have asserted that Nazareth didn’t exist at all in His time. Their judgments are premature and erroneous, as usual. Amanda Borschel-Dan, reporter for The Times of Israel, wrote an article about this topic and the latest archaeology:

Nazareth. . . as British-Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre notes . . .,the once small village with huge name recognition existed well before and well after [Jesus’] lifetime. . . .

Among her digs, in 2009, Alexandre discovered the first example of a residential building from the time of Jesus. It was found near today’s Church of the Annunciation, . . . In her report, Alexandre describes the structure as “a simple house comprising small rooms and an inner courtyard was inhabited in the late Hellenistic and the Early Roman periods [late 2nd c. BC to early or mid 2nd c. AD].” . . .

Among the artifacts is a coin of Emperor Claudius that was uncovered on the floor of a corridor that led into a three-story pit complex. According to the report, “The coin was minted in ‘Akko-Ptolemais in 50–51 CE. (“What do we know about Nazareth in Jesus’ time? An archaeologist explains”, The Times of Israel, 22 July 2020)

Here is also my reply to the relevant portion of Jonathan’s article, “Jesus the “Nazarene”: More Prophecy Debate” (12-18-20).

I went to Raymond Brown, the famous Catholic exegete whom I highly rate (all quotes from The Birth of the Messiah, 1977, London: Geoffrey Chapman). . . . He also accepts that no mention of Nazareth exists in pre-Christian writings (p. 207) and so it would be odd for a place that seems not to have existed yet to fits coherently into an OT prophecy. This also coheres with Rene Salm’s thesis in The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, according to archaeological analysis, and not until at least 70 CE.

Really? That would come as big news to the folks described in this article: “New archaeological evidence from Nazareth reveals religious and political environment in era of Jesus” (David Keys, Independent, 4-17-20). They actually do science, rather than sit in armchairs and make historically and archaeologically clueless remarks about towns and people like Jesus not existing or never existing:

[T]he archaeological investigation revealed that in Nazareth itself, in the middle of the first century AD, anti-Roman rebels created a sizeable network of underground hiding places and tunnels underneath the town – big enough to shelter at least 100 people. . . .

The new archaeological investigation – the largest ever carried out into Roman period Nazareth – has revealed that Jesus’s hometown is likely to have been considerably bigger than previously thought. It probably had a population of up to 1,000 (rather than just being a small-to-medium sized village of 100-500, as previously thought).

“Our new investigation has transformed archaeological knowledge of Roman Nazareth,” said Dr Dark, who has just published the results of his research in a new book Roman-Period and Byzantine Nazareth and its Hinterland. . . .

The newly emerging picture of Roman-period Nazareth as a place of substantial religiosity does, however, resonate not only with the emergence of its most famous son, Jesus, but also with the fact that, in the mid-first or second century, it was chosen as the official residence of one of the high priests of the by-then-destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, when all 24 of those Jewish religious leaders were driven into exile in Galilee.

See also: “Did First-Century Nazareth Exist?” (Bryan Windle, Bible Archaeology Report, 8-9-18), “Archaeologists: Jesus-Era House Found In Nazareth” (NPR, 12-21-09); also several related articles from a Google search. Did it exist before Jesus’ time? It looks like it did:

The Franciscan priest Bellarmino Bagatti, “Director of Christian Archaeology”, carried out extensive excavation of this “Venerated Area” from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. (Wikipedia, “Nazareth”)

That’s science. Sorry to disappoint! Jonathan then goes on to describe several more of the numerous possibly hypotheses of Fr. Raymond Brown. He has many theories; so do many others. Archaeology, in contrast, deals with ascertainable historical facts of settlement and other evidences of human presence, based on concrete artifacts.

If you take into account Salm’s whole thesis (which you don’t have to go that far), it didn’t even exist at the time of Jesus (work that wasn’t available to Brown in his life, and was followed up in 2015 with NazarethGate: Quack Archeology, Holy Hoaxes, and the Invented Town of Jesus). I also genuinely find some of the arguments more forceful (such as quoted from Brown above). . . . (since it is a real squeeze to even get archaeology that supports it existing in Jesus’ time).

Take that up with the folks doing the latest “digs” going on in Nazareth now. I go with current science, not desperate atheist myths, made up on the fly (or any fringe Christian conspiracist myths, either).

The Jerusalem Post published an article, “Have archaeologists found Jesus’s childhood home in Nazareth?” (Hannah Brown, 11-27-20):

The location of the home where Jesus, Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth when Jesus was a child may have been discovered by Prof. Ken Dark of the University of Reading in England, according to research Dark wrote about in his recently published book, The Sisters of Nazareth Convent: A Roman-period, Byzantine, and Crusader site in central Nazareth, which is available from Routledge Press.

Dark, who has spent more than a decade studying the first century ruins that are underneath a modern-day convent, said this spot was first suggested as the home of Jesus and his family in the 19th century but that archaeologists in the 1930s did not find the idea credible.

*

However, the professor was intrigued and launched a project to explore the site 14 years ago. “I didn’t go to Nazareth to find the house of Jesus, I was actually doing a study of the city’s history as a Byzantine Christian pilgrimage center,” he told the BBC. “Nobody could have been more surprised than me.” . . .

“I haven’t said that this was certainly the ‘house of Jesus,’ just that it was probably the structure believed by Christians from the fourth century at latest to be that house, and that there is no archaeological reason why that identification is necessarily impossible.”

The evidence is so strong for the existence of Nazareth during the time of Jesus’ childhood (early 1st century AD), that even the biblical skeptic Bart Ehrman, who denies the divinity of Jesus and asserts that He never claimed to be God, defends it (and rather well at that):

One question I repeatedly get asked is about my opinion on whether the town of Nazareth actually existed. I was puzzled when I started getting emails on this, some years ago now. What I came to realize is that mythicists (i.e., those who think that there never was a man Jesus; he was invented, a “myth”) commonly argue that Nazareth (like Jesus) was completely made up. . . .

One supposedly legendary feature of the Gospels commonly discussed by mythicists is that the alleged hometown of Jesus, Nazareth did not exist but is itself a myth. The logic of this argument, which is sometimes advanced with considerable vehemence and force, appears to be that if Christians made up Jesus’ hometown, they probably made him up as well. . . .

[René] Salm’s basic argument is that Nazareth did exist in more ancient times and through the Bronze Age.   But then there was a hiatus. It ceased to exist and did not exist in Jesus’ day. Based on archaeological evidence, especially the tombs found in the area, Salm claims that the town came to be re-inhabited sometime between the two Jewish revolts (i.e., between 70 CE and 132 CE), as Jews who resettled following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans relocated in northern climes. . . .

There are numerous compelling pieces of archaeological evidence that in fact Nazareth did exist in Jesus’ day, and that like other villages and towns in that part of Galilee, it was built on the hillside, near where the later rock-cut kokh tombs were built.   For one thing, archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus. Salm disputes the finding of the archaeologists who did the excavation (it needs to be remembered, he himself is not an archaeologist but is simply basing his views on what the real archaeologists – all of whom disagree with him — have to say). . . .

Salm also claims that the pottery found on the site that is dated to the time of Jesus is not really from this period, even though he is not an expert on pottery. Two archaeologists who reply to Salm’s protestations say the following: “Salm’s personal evaluation of the pottery … reveals his lack of expertise in the area as well as his lack of serious research in the sources.”   They go on to state: “By ignoring or dismissing solid ceramic, numismatic [that is, coins], and literary evidence for Nazareth’s existence during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period, it would appear that the analysis which René Salm includes in his review, and his recent book must, in itself, be relegated to the realm of ‘myth.’” (“Did Nazareth Exist?”, The Bart Ehrman Blog, March 1, 2015)

***

Photo credit: Laura Dahl (12-22-05), Young Jesus Teaching at the Temple [Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0 license]

***

Summary: Atheist & anti-theist Jonathan MS Pearce flatly denies the plain evidence regarding archaeology & 1st century Nazareth. Its existence is abundantly confirmed.

WHAT?! Vaccinated = Higher Overall Death Rate in UK

Last updated on: November 4, 2021 at 3:05 pm By Dave Armstrong

Also, Two-Thirds of Deaths in the UK from the Delta Variant of COVID-19 Were Among Vaccinated People

Norman Fenton, Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London, and Martin Neil, Professor in Computer Science and Statistics at QMUL, wrote an article entitled, “A comparison of age adjusted all-cause mortality rates in England between vaccinated and unvaccinated” (Probability and Risk, 9-23-21). They stated:

The UK Government’s own data does not support the claims made for vaccine effectiveness/safety.

In a previous post we argued that the most reliable long-term measure of Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness/safety is the age adjusted all-cause mortality rate. If, over a reasonably prolonged period, fewer vaccinated people die, from whatever cause, including Covid-19, than unvaccinated people then we could conclude that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. We also pointed out that, to avoid the confounding effect of age, it is critical that data for each age category is available, rather than the aggregated data because, clearly, aggregated data might exaggerate vaccine mortality rates if more older people, with shorter expected mortality, are included. The UK roll out of the vaccine was executed in descending age order, from older to younger, . . .

The authors summarized (after being questioned) why they focused on “all-cause mortality” as “the most appropriate measure for overall risk-benefit analysis of Covid vaccines”:

• If Covid is as dangerous as claimed – and if the vaccine is as effective as claimed – we should by now have seen many more Covid related deaths among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated (in each age group).
• If the vaccine is as safe as claimed, then there should have been very few more deaths from causes unrelated to Covid among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated (in each age group).
• So, the count of all-cause deaths should be higher among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated (in each age group), confirming that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.
• Counting all-cause deaths completely bypasses the problem of defining what constitutes a ‘Covid case’ or a ‘Covid related death’ (definitions which can be easily manipulated to fit different narratives).
• We define a person as ‘vaccinated’ if they have received at least one dose. As we are not interested in whether a person becomes a ‘Covid case’, any other definition is flawed as it will fail to acknowledge that adverse reactions (including death) from vaccines often occur shortly after vaccination.
• The fact that the US CDC (Centre for Disease Control) and other agencies now counts a person as ‘unvaccinated’ if they die within 14 days of the second dose, or after just one dose, might make some sense if we are interested only in the vaccine’s ability to stop infection. But in the context of death attribution, it is nothing less than fraudulent.

The authors broke down the data (see also the many graphs in the article):

It turns out that, even using this age adjusted mortality rate, the death rate is currently higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

The age adjusted mortality rates for vaccinated against unvaccinated for weeks 1 to 26 of 2021 are charted below. Overall, the chart shows that, over time, the weighted mortality rate for the vaccinated has steadily increased and by week 16 (23 April 2021), surpassed that for the unvaccinated. . . .

The trends for the different vaccination categories are also concerning. In contrast to the unvaccinated, the mortality rates for the vaccinated have initially increased from very low initial values, but then have increased, whilst that for the unvaccinated has decreased.

If that weren’t bad enough news for those who place virtually all of their confidence and hopes in COVID vaccines, there is even worse news. Journalist Chris Waldburger , in his article, “BOMBSHELL UK data destroys entire premise for vaccine push” (8-21-21), reported:

The UK government just reported the following data, tucked away in their report on variants of concern:

Less than a third of delta variant deaths are in the unvaccinated.

Let me say that another way – two-thirds of Delta deaths in the UK are in the jabbed.

To be specific:

From the 1st of February to the 2nd of August, the UK recorded 742 Delta deaths (yes, the dreaded Delta has not taken that much life).

Out of the 742 deaths, 402 were fully vaccinated [54%]. 79 had received one shot [10.65%, or 64.65% of all who have had any shots]. Only 253 [34%] were unvaccinated.

The report is here. . . .

402 deaths out of 47 008 cases in vaccinated [0.86%]; 253 deaths out of 151 054 cases [0.17%, or five times less] in unvaccinated. If you get covid having been vaccinated, according to this data, you are much more likely to die than if you were not vaccinated!

Obviously some allowance must be made for more elderly people being vaccinated, but not enough to change the bottom line: this vaccine is not nearly as effective as advertised. . . .

The powers that be will not admit there is something terribly wrong. They will not acknowledge the clear science that people with natural immunity, and the young and healthy, do not need to take the risks of these injections.

I want to make it clear: I have never advised anyone (in the many articles I’ve written on the topic) not to get a vaccine (nor am I some conspiratorial opponent). Their personal decisions are none of my business (nor are mine, theirs). I don’t judge them, and ask for the same consideration in return. If someone is elderly or (especially) if they have existing serious conditions, I would be the first person to positively recommend that they get a vaccination (though with full knowledge of all the risks and best available information). I fully agree with what Chris Waldburger wrote:

I make no advice to anybody about taking the vaccine or not. I may well have decided to take it if I were in a risk category, or if I knew I did not have to wear a mask or get tested after taking a single shot. Your decision should be guided by consulting with a doctor, informed consent, and your own conscience.

For anyone who is interested, and who has refrained from judging and condemning me out of hand as one of the “deplorable unvaxxed” and supposedly “anti-science”, here are my eight purely medical / statistical reasons for remaining unvaccinated:

1) my holistic philosophy of medicine (which is not anti-conventional medicine, but simply wider and more inclusive in scope, and which is, in fact, the view of some 50% or more of physicians today) and health food diet.

2) my own strong innate immunity, as shown by never having received a flu shot and very low incidence of flu, colds, etc., no serious conditions, and having been in the hospital only once in my life for any condition (concussion and sprained wrist, back in 1969).

3) my avoidance of crowds (save for at church and one son’s wedding; and I also work at home) and complete observance of all legally binding requirements (masking, social distancing, washing, quarantines as necessary, etc.), and church requirements (removal of the Mass obligation and masking, etc. at parishes).

4) In light of two cited articles above, the statistical data (from advocates, not critics) suggesting that vaccines are far less effective than we have been told (as most evidently indicated by the constant push for ever more booster shoots), and that the unvaccinated actually have lower overall mortality rates. This vastly lowers the “practical” or “medical” necessity to receive a vaccine. The entire premise underlying vaccines is that they work; that they are effective. If they don’t work very well, or if the personal medical cost is too high (e.g., a long-lasting side effect that is even worse than most cases of COVID, which are flu-like and passing), then it is all the more sensible and rational to refuse them in (medically justified) individual cases.

5) The experimental and novel nature of the COVID vaccines. I am not required to be anyone’s “guinea pig.” And the public has been kept deliberately ignorant of much relevant information that they are entitled to know.

6) The alarming abundance of various serious possible side effects: up to and including far too many deaths from the vaccines (see another article I put up today on that topic).

7) Lack of “societal necessity” insofar as many are vaccinated in the US (59% fully, and 68% at least one dose), — notwithstanding the greatly under-reported shortcomings and myths about same — and most of the rest have (far more effective) natural immunity as a result of having had COVID, leading to herd immunity, thus resulting in lower cases overall, which has been the statistical trend now for two months, according to CDC data, though another spike can always possibly occur.

8) Undeniable statistics show that, overwhelmingly, deaths from COVID are greatly disproportionate among the elderly (over 65) and those with existing serious conditions (and especially people in both categories). Arguably, then, these are the people who need the vaccine, and not most of those who are not in these categories

It’s merely anecdotal, but nevertheless striking, and seemingly in line with the above data, that of the five people who have contracted COVID in my family (niece and her husband) and my wife’s family (mother, sister, and niece), all had been vaccinated. No one I am aware of has gotten it while unvaccinated. In my immediate family (four children, two daughter-in-laws, wife and I), no one has gotten it, and only one has been vaccinated.

Moreover, no one who has had relatively close contact to my wife and I has acquired COVID. We’re not passing it on to anyone else. It’s not our fault — by all indications — that anyone has contracted COVID. And when there was the slightest suspicion we might have gotten it from someone we know, we have tested negative. We’re as socially responsible as anyone else. No amount of mindless, prejudiced, misinformed, hysteria-driven and irrational propaganda against unvaccinated people can change that fact.

***

Practical Matters: if any of my 3,850+ free online articles and 50 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, and/or if you believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. 1 December 2021 will be my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com (change the “[at]” to @ and “[dot]” to an actual dot, and take out spaces). “Catholic Used Book Service” is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: geralt (4-15-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Recent remarkable data indicate higher overall death rates for the vaccinated (UK), & 5 times higher death rate of vaccinated sufferers of the delta variant of COVID.