2022-04-11T11:30:35-04:00

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

See further installments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

101) One doubted. Jn.20:24.
Some doubted. Mt.28:17.
All doubted. Mk.16:11; Lk.24:11,14.

That’s “Doubting Thomas” in John, and he believed after Jesus appeared to him (20:28). In Mark, the disciples didn’t believe Mary Magdalene’s report of the risen Jesus at first, but later did believe (16:20). Matthew doesn’t specify later belief of the doubters, but doesn’t deny it (argument from silence). We know from the Gospels and early Church history that all the disciples (save Judas) were enthusiastic believers and evangelists, and all but John died martyr’s deaths.

In Luke, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus later believed (24:32-35), and so did the rest of the disciples (24:52). What is the point of this “objection”? So some folks momentarily doubted . . . so what?! People often doubt things and come around later. People can waver, too, between faith and doubt, or have a perpetually weak faith, or fall away from the faith altogether. The accounts reflect this, with regard to a miracle that most of us would find hard to accept at first. It perfectly reflects human nature and how people usually react. This is supposed to be a demonstration of logical contradictions in the Bible and there are none here.

I definitely need supernatural grace to endure the inanities of the final 93 supposed “contradictions.” But I will do it!

102) Jesus said that his blood was shed for many. Mk.14:24.
Jesus said his blood was shed for his disciples. Lu.22:20.

The disciples were a sub-group of the “many.” Duh! If taxes were lowered for the entire middle class, then my family would have our taxes lowered, too!

103) Simon of Cyrene was forced to bear the cross of Jesus. Mt.27:32; Mk.15:21; Lu.23:26.
Jesus bore his own cross. Jn.19:16,17.

Jesus obviously carried His cross in all accounts. It was part of the Roman punishment. John simply didn’t mention Simon of Syrene, and never stated, “and no one else bore His cross . . .”. For the tenth time: arguments from silence are not “contradictions” and they don’t prove anything, one way or the other.

104) Jesus was offered vinegar and gall to drink. Mt.27:34.
Jesus was offered vinegar to drink. Jn.19:29,30.
Jesus was offered wine and myrrh to drink. Mk.15:23.

The Domain for Truth website offers a characteristically thorough and devastating rebuttal:

  1. Just a quick observation: What the skeptics call “vinegar” the NASB calls “sour wine.”
  2. The skeptic tries to pit Mark 15:23 on the one hand against Mark 15:36 and Luke 23:36 on the other hand.  According to the skeptic Mark 15:23 teaches that the Roman soldiers gave wine and myrrh for Jesus to drink while both Mark 15:36 and Luke 23:36 teaches that the Roman soldiers gave Jesus vinegar/sour wine to drink.  Yet the two are not contradictory because these two sets of passages occurred at separate time[s].
    1. Notice for Mark 15:23 wine and myrrh was offered before Jesus was crucified.  How do we know that?
      1. Jesus being crucified is stated in the next verse in Mark 15:24a.
      2. Notice the offering of wine and myrrh occurred right when they got to the place of the crucifixion as the verse before mentioned (Mark 15:22).
      3. Jesus being offered wine and myrrh is also before the soldiers divided Jesus’ garments in Mark 15:24b, suggesting the offer of wine and myrrh was early on.
      4. Why would they offer wine and myrrh?  It was a way to make the pain less painful.  Yet Jesus did not take it.
    2. As a contrast Mark 15:36 and Luke 23:36 recorded chronologically near the end of how before Jesus died the Roman soldiers offered vinegar/sour wine to Jesus. How do we know that?
      1. Luke 23:36 parallel Mark 15:36.
      2. Mark 15:36 which mentioned Jesus being offered vinegar/sour wine is obviously 13 verses after Mark 15:23.  So after Jesus was first offered with wine they offered Him vinegar/sour wine.
      3. Note also Jesus died in the next verse from crucifixion in Mark 15:37.
      4. Why would they offer Jesus vinegar/sour wine instead of wine and myrrh towards the end?  Very likely the better wine ran out.  Don’t forget there were two other men being crucified next to Jesus that day and there’s also the possibility that the Roman soldiers themselves helped themselves to drink the wine.  This observation fit with the biblical timeline.
    3. The two different offer[s] by Roman soldiers to Jesus of something to drink along with the order of first the wine and then the vinegar/sour wine is also confirmed in Matthew 27 (see Matthew 27:33-34 and Matthew 27:48).
    4. Thus it is not a contradiction with Jesus being offered on the one hand wine mixed with myrrh while also being offered vinegar/sour wine on the other hand, since these different offering[s] from the Roman soldiers occurred [at] during different time[s]. . . .

3. The skeptic rightly noted Matthew 27:34 teaches that the Roman soldiers offered vinegar and gall.  That is what the text says.  However this added detail of “gall” does not contradict with the passages that mentioned Jesus was offered vinegar.  None of those passages said the Roman soldiers offered Jesus only vinegar, with nothing else added.

4. As a side note it is important to note that the Greek word for “gall” doesn’t necessarily have to refer to literal liquid from the liver; it can refer to anything that is bitter and the meaning of bitter can be seen in Acts 8:23 and the verbal form in John 7:23.  Matthew 27:34 indicates that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:21 with what the Roman soldiers offered to Jesus: “They also gave me gall for my food And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.“ (“Bible Contradiction? What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?”, 8-7-19; the numbers are 3-4, 6-7 in the original)

105. Jesus refused the drink offered him. Mk.15:23.
Jesus tasted the drink offered and then refused. Mt.27:34.
Jesus accepted the drink offered him. Jn.19:30.

In Mark and Matthew, this was before Jesus was crucified, as indicated by the preceding and following verses in both cases. In John 19:30, it occurred while He was on the cross, just before He died. Since this is two different times, it isn’t a contradiction. One justifiably wonders what the skeptic was drinking when he/she came up with this silly one.

106. Both “thieves” mocked Jesus on the cross. Mt. 27:44; Mk.15:32.
One “thief” sided with Jesus on the cross. Lu.23:39-41.

It could have been that the two reviled Him initially, and in the course of doing that, one of them thought the other was too harsh on Jesus, and reconsidered and started defending Him (and/or what Jesus may have said — unrecorded — persuaded him otherwise). Such a thing not infrequently happens in arguments and debates. Human beings can change their minds. Matthew and Mark don’t say they reviled Him “the entire time” or never ceased doing so, etc. So the possibility for change of heart and mind exists, and seems to be a perfectly plausible explanation.

107) Joseph of Arimathaea boldly asked for the body of Jesus. Mk.15:43.
Joseph of Arimathaea secretly asked for the body of Jesus. Jn.19:38.

The two attributes aren’t mutually exclusive. One can be both bold and operating in secret. Every special forces raid is of such a nature, as is every clandestine espionage assignment. It was “bold” to ask Pilate (not the nicest guy) this, whether it was in secret or not.

108) Jesus was laid in a nearby tomb. Mk.15:46; Lu.23:53; Jn.19:41.
Jesus was laid in Joseph’s new tomb. Mt.27:59,60.

Again, these things aren’t mutually exclusive. Matthew merely adds the information that it was Joseph’s own planned tomb. Someone not saying something doesn’t contradict another saying something. If these logic-challenged skeptics would ever grasp this elementary logical principle and fallacy, half of their objections would instantaneously vanish. But let them keep doing it and making themselves look silly and foolish. That is to the Christian’s (and Bible’s) advantage and the skeptic’s / atheist’s disadvantage, in a “PR” and “strength of argument” sense.

109) A great stone was rolled in front of the tomb. Mt.27:60; Mk.15:46.
There was nothing in front of the tomb. Lu.23:55; Jn.19:41.

There was no stone yet in Luke 23:55 because this referred to the time when Jesus was placed in the tomb (see 23:53-54). When women went back two days later, they found the stone rolled away (24:1-2). John 19:41 simply doesn’t mention the stone, but in John 20:1 we learn that there was one, which was rolled away. Therefore all four Gospels — taken together — note that the tomb had a stone in front of it, which was rolled away. No contradiction; rather, it is complete harmony. 0 for 109 . . .

110) Nicodemus prepared the body with spices. Jn.19:39,40.
Failing to notice this, the women bought spices to prepare the body later. Mk. 16:1; Lu.23:55,56.

What happened is explained right in the challenge! The women likely didn’t see that Jesus’ body was prepared with spices, and the Sabbath was quickly approaching (Jn 19:42) — where this work would be disallowed –, so that they probably concluded that there hadn’t been enough time for such preparation. The women saw that Jesus was laid out with a linen shroud (Lk 23:53-55), but wouldn’t necessarily know if He had been anointed with spices. Therefore, they prepared the spices and ointments (23:56) and returned after the Sabbath to apply them (24:1).

111) The body was anointed. Jn.19:39,40.
The body was not anointed. Mk.15:46 to 16:1; Lk.23:55 to 24:1.

Mark and Luke don’t deny that Jesus’ body was anointed. If they don’t, there is no necessary contradiction. I submit that the women simply weren’t aware that at least some spices had been applied (as indicated in John 19:39-40). In any event, no contradiction has been proven.

112) The women bought materials before the sabbath. Lu.23:56.
The women bought materials after the sabbath. Mk.16:1.

Luke 23:56 doesn’t assert this. It says they “returned [back home], and prepared spices and ointments.” Then they brought them on Sunday (Lk 24:1; Mk 16:1). At this point (after 112 examples), with such absolutely lousy, clueless alleged “contradictions” like this sterling example, one wonders whether the skeptic even reads the passages that he/she lists. Certainly even a basic understanding of what they mean is absent in the majority of cases: in the zealous rush to find a “gotcha!” contradiction to embarrass Christians with. The embarrassment is (or should be) all on their end.

113) Jesus was first seen by Cephas, then the twelve. 1 Cor.15:5.
Jesus was first seen by the two Marys. Mt.28:1,8,9.
Jesus was first seen by Mary Magdalene. Mk.16:9; Jn.20:1,14,15.
Jesus was first seen by Cleopas and others. Lu.24:17,18.
Jesus was first seen by the disciples. Acts 10:40,41.

1 Corinthians doesn’t say that he “first” appeared to Cephas (Peter). Peter is singled out as a witness not because he was the absolutely first person to see the risen Jesus, but rather, because he was the leader of the disciples and the early church (see the first half of the book of Acts).

Mark 16:9 actually does say that Mary Magdalene was the “first.” And so she was. John’s account is consistent with that notion. Does Matthew contradict this because of the second Mary? Not necessarily. Many scenarios can be easily imagined that instantly harmonize the passages. For example, maybe “the other Mary” happened to be looking away when the risen Jesus suddenly “met them”, so that Mary Magdalene was, technically, the first to see Him. Or Jesus met Mary Magdalene with no other women around, and then Matthew 28:9 records a second instance of His appearing to her, except with another woman, too.

Luke 24 has the story of the two men on the road to Emmaus. Nothing definitely indicates they were the first; indeed, they could not have been because various Gospels record Mary Magdalene and the other Mary seeing Jesus early in the morning on the first Easter Sunday, whereas in this account it is said that the time was “toward evening” with the day being “far spent” (24:29).

Acts says that the disciples were in the select group to whom Jesus appeared, as opposed to “all the people.” But it doesn’t say they were absolutely the first, and doesn’t therefore rule out Mary Magdalene being the first person, which is expressly stated in Mark. Conclusion?: all of these passages are perfectly harmonious and pose no problem for biblical infallibility.

114) The two Marys went to the tomb. Mt.28:1.
The two Marys and Salome went to the tomb. Mk.16:1.
Several women went to the tomb. Lu.24:10.
Only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.

So Matthew didn’t mention Salome. So what? That’s of no relevance. In light of Luke, we can conclude that several women (more than the two Marys) saw the empty tomb (though not necessarily the risen Jesus). Mary Magdalene could have told these other women about the tomb and also the fact that she had seen the risen Jesus. This implies repeated trips to witness the empty tomb, which was easy because it was right outside of town.

As for John, this may have been an earlier, initial visit by Mary Magdalene alone: perhaps indicated by “while it was still dark.” Then she went again with others. The text never states that “only Mary” went to the tomb, or that “Mary alone and no other woman” did so. Those are the sorts of words that would be required for an actual contradiction to be present.  As it is, no contradiction has been established: not even to the slightest degree. The text simply records an instance with Mary Magdalene alone, without denying that other women saw the risen Jesus, too.

115) It was dawn when Mary went to the tomb. Mt.28:1; Mk.16:2.
It was dark when Mary went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.

Exactly! This confirms my hypothesis that Mary Magdalene made an earlier pre-dawn visit (see #114). Is there any law against that? No. Is it inconceivable? No. Is it possible? Yes. The skeptic acts as if no one could have possibly visited Jesus’ tomb (where the greatest miracle in history had just occurred) more than once.

116) An angel sat on the stone at the door of the tomb. Mt.28:2.
A man was sitting inside the tomb. Mk.16:5.

There could have simply been two angels. Or Matthew was referring to the time when the stone was actually rolled away, per my reasoning in my paper, Resurrection #14: When Was the Stone Rolled Away? [4-27-21].

117) Two men were standing inside the tomb. Lk.24:3,4.
Two angels were sitting inside the tomb. Jn.20:12.

Angels are often called “men” in Scripture. Luke indicates they were angels by describing them as having “dazzling apparel”, while John uses the description, “angels in white.”

118) Peter did not go into the tomb but stooped and looked inside. Lk.24:12.
Peter did go into the tomb, and another disciple stooped and looked inside. Jn.20:3-6.

Luke 24:12 is a disputed verse, not found in the earliest manuscripts, which is why RSV doesn’t even include it. So it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

119) After the resurrection, the disciples held Jesus by the feet. Mt.28:9.
After the resurrection, Jesus told Thomas to touch his side. John 20:27.
After the resurrection, Jesus said that he was not to be touched. Jn.20:17.

See my paper, Resurrection #18: “Touch Me Not” & Mary Magdalene [4-29-21].

120) Mary first saw Jesus at the tomb. Jn.20:11-15.
Mary first saw Jesus on her way home. Mt.28:8-10.

I proposed that John records a pre-dawn Sunday visit by Mary Magdalene (see #114 and it’s alluded to by objection #115), which was the first recorded post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to anyone.

121) The women entered the tomb. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:3.
The women stayed outside the tomb. Jn.20:11.

This again refers to Mary’s pre-dawn visit alone (see my reply #114 and #120). It’s different things happening at different times and hence, no contradiction. I know it must be frustrating for the skeptic, but logic is what it is. I didn’t make it up.

122) The disciples were frightened when they saw Jesus. Lk.24:36,37.
The disciples were glad when they first saw Jesus. Jn.20:20.

In Luke it was because they (just two of them) “supposed that they saw a spirit”: an event which almost always causes fear in recorded instances in Scripture. Then Jesus showed them His hands and feet (24:39) and they settled down. In John (a different incident) they were glad for the same reason: because He “showed them his hands and his side”: quickly proving that He was Jesus, so they wouldn’t be afraid.

123) Twelve disciples saw Jesus. 1 Cor.15:5.
Eleven disciples saw Jesus. Thomas was not there. Mt.28:16,17; Jn.20:19-25.

In 1 Corinthians, either it was after Judas’ replacement with Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), so there were again twelve, or the title “twelve” was being used as a description of the group (see my paper, Resurrection #26: “Twelve” or Eleven Disciples? [5-4-21]). Matthew 28 was a time right before Jesus’ Ascension, before Judas had been replaced. Hence, “eleven.” John uses “twelve” as the group title, even though Judas had by then departed. No problem here . . .

124) The disciples doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. Mt.28:17.
The Pharisees and chief priests believed it possible. Mt.27:62-66.

“Some” did, for a time, yes. It was the typical human skepticism regarding miracles. The enemies of Jesus believed no such thing. In the passage from Matthew above, they thought the disciples would steal Jesus’ body and fake a resurrection, which is why they asked for a guard in front of the tomb. I search in vain for any “contradiction” here.

125) Jesus ascended on the third day after the resurrection. Lk.24:21,50,51.
Jesus ascended the same day as the crucifixion. Lk.23:42 43.
Jesus ascended forty days after the resurrection. Acts 1:3,9.

See my paper, Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18].

***

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

2022-04-11T11:29:18-04:00

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

See further installments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

  1. None of the Synoptic authors were trying to present the material in a strictly chronological sequence
  2. Matthew principally organizes his Gospel by topic (like an encyclopedia)
  3. Luke principally organizes his Gospel by geography (like an atlas)
  4. Mark borrows from Matthew & Luke, sometimes following the order of one and sometimes the other (like somebody telling stories from memory) . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologetics Press offers one of their always-superb rebuttals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve already addressed this issue as well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference (not a contradiction) has to do with willingness to believe vs. unwillingness. Jesus knew who would accept His signs and miracles and who would not. With people who did not and would not (usually the “scribes and Pharisees”), He refused to do miracles and signs. This is made clear in the Bible:

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the common folk, it was entirely different, and so we also see a verse like John 6:2 (“And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.”). Because the atheist hyper-critic refuses to acknowledge or understand these simple distinctions, all of a sudden we have yet another trumped-up, so-called contradiction where there is none at all. E for [futile] effort, though . . .

41) Jesus stated that the law was until heaven and earth ended. Mt. 5:17-19.
Jesus stated that the law was only until the time of John. Lk.16:16.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 28:19 [Jesus] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

2022-03-25T10:55:22-04:00

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding in this article to a particular erroneous point Dr. Ehrman makes about the star of Bethlehem, in which (so I will contend) he fundamentally misunderstands the biblical text and the presence of habitual phenomenological language in the Bible. Here is what he has stated (his words will be in blue):

How does a star . . . lead the Magi not just to Bethlehem but stop over a house?  How does a star stop over a house? (12-26-19)

Miracles, of course, defy historical explanation. But even so, are there features of the two accounts that are difficult to explain even on the assumption that miracles happen?  How, for example, does the “star of Bethlehem” in Matthew stop moving over Jerusalem, resume moving, and then stop over a house? (11-18-21)

When I discuss this account while wearing my historical-critical hat, I talk about the plausibility of . . . a star that stops moving over a city, and then over an actual house, . . . (12-25-21)

What Does it Mean to Say that the Star of Bethlehem “Went Before” the Wise Men (Matthew 2:9)?

This refers to (in context) to the wise men being in Jerusalem and talking to Herod (Mt 2:1, 7-9). He “sent them to Bethlehem” (2:8), which is south of Jerusalem, about six miles (I myself traveled this route in 2014). Therefore, this (I submit) is what the Bible (which habitually uses phenomenological language) means by saying that the star “went before” them.

In other words, it would always have been “ahead” or “in front of” or “before” them as they traveled: much as we say we are “following the sun west” or how American slaves (in folklore, at least, if not in fact) attempting to escape to the north followed the “drinking gourd” (the “Big Dipper”) north.

Thus, one could say that the Big Dipper or North Star “went before” the slaves, just as we say they “followed” it. The North Star would also lead anyone to the North Pole if they kept following it; that is, by our vantage-point it would “go before” them.

We also refer to the sun “rising” and “setting” as if it is moving. But we know that the appearance of its movement to our eye is due to the earth’s rotation. It’s all phenomenological language, which we use all the time, just as the biblical writers also did. Hence, “The Bible History Guy” writes:

Later that year, in late November to early December of 2 B.C., Jupiter’s position in the sky, when viewed from Jerusalem, was to the south – in the direction of Bethlehem. This was six months after the brilliant birthday conjunction of Jupiter and Venus. This was just the right time for the Magi to reach Jerusalem. (1)

We know from the astronomical charts that Jupiter was to the south from Jerusalem; therefore, it “went before” the wise men as they traveled south to Bethlehem: the journey that the text refers to.

Jupiter wouldn’t have moved much on the way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. A camel travels about 3 mph average, so it would have taken two hours to get to Bethlehem. That’s roughly the entire time the Bible refers to them (in non-literal language, I believe) following a star. In the language of appearance (non-literal language), it “went before them” not in perceived motion, but because it was always ahead of them on the way.

Dag Kihlman provides an even more fascinating and specific view:

Jupiter — if this was the star of Bethlehem — was not seen in the early evenings in December in 2 BC. It rose very late, at roughly 9 PM. . . .

A more realistic view (if Jupiter was the star of Bethlehem) is that the magi traveled early in the morning, when Jupiter was still visible. . . . In the early morning, Jupiter was south of Jerusalem, and thus in the direction of Bethlehem.

If the magi travelled in the early morning they would probably have followed the normal route between Jerusalem and Bethlehem: Derech Beit Lechem. This route follows the terrain and slowly turns to the west. If the magi started at a suitable hour, they would have had Jupiter in front of them as they left Jerusalem. If they travelled by donkey, camel or horse . . . they would have had Jupiter in front of them all the way to Bethlehem, since Jupiter would have moved slowly to the west just as the road slowly turned west. (2)

How Do We Understand the Star of Bethlehem Coming to “Rest Over the Place Where the Child Was”?

Matthew 2:9 (RSV) . . . the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was.

“The Bible History Guy” again provides a good summary of what the astronomical data indicate:

On December 2, 2 B.C., Jupiter entered retrograde motion. It continued in this state till December 25 (Julian calendar). During this time, Jupiter appeared to travel horizontally above Bethlehem, when viewed from Jerusalem, while the other planets visible, Mercury and Venus, dipped normally toward the horizon as they traversed the night sky. Jupiter’s horizontal stasis throughout December – right above Bethlehem when viewed from Jerusalem – made it appear to come to rest, as Matthew recorded, above the City of David. (3)

What is the “retrograde motion” of planets? Astronomer Christopher Crockett explains:

Typically, the planets shift slightly eastward from night to night, drifting slowly against the backdrop of stars. From time to time, however, they change direction. For a few months, they’ll head west before turning back around and resuming their easterly course. Their westward motion is called retrograde motion by astronomers. . . . [It’s] an illusion caused by the motion of Earth and these planets around the sun. (4)

As an analogy, when we pass a car on the freeway, it temporarily seems to be moving backwards. As already noted above: in December, 2 BC, Jupiter appeared to come to a stop above Bethlehem and — according to some researchers — remained there seemingly motionless for six days (5).

Ernest L. Martin noted that at dawn on December 25th in that area, it would have been at an elevation of 68 degrees, above the southern horizon: shining down on Bethlehem. See:  The Star That Astonished the World, published in 1991 (6). It would have been the brightest “star” in the sky on that day and location.

Another important aspect of this discussion is the clause “it came to rest over the place where the child was.” First of all, the text does not say that this means it shone specifically onto a “house.” This is a common misconception. Matthew 2:11 (i.e., two verses later) simply says they went “into a house”: not that the star was shining on it, identifying it. We must be precise about what any given text under consideration actually asserts and does not assert. Two of the very best and renowned Protestant Bible commentators and exegetes of our time agree:

It is not said to indicate the precise house, but the general location where the child was. (R. T. France [see link for citation]) (7)

The Greek text does not imply that the star pointed out the house where Jesus was or that it led the travelers through twisty streets; it may simply have hovered over Bethlehem as the Magi approached it. (D. A. Carson [see link for citation]) (8)

Let’s examine the actual biblical text a little more closely. The Greek “adverb of place” in Matthew 2:9 is hou (Strong’s word #3757). In RSV hou is translated by “the place where” (in KJV, simply “where”). It applies to a wide range of meanings beyond something as specific as a house.

In other passages in RSV it refers to a mountain (Mt 28:16), Nazareth (Lk 4:16), a village (Lk 24:28), the land of Midian (Acts 7:29), Puteoli (Pozzuoli): a sizeable city in Italy (Acts 28:14), and the vast wilderness that Moses and the Hebrews traveled through (Heb 3:9). Thus it can easily, plausibly refer to “Bethlehem” in Matthew 2:9.

In RSV (Mt 2:9), hou is translated by the italicized words: “it came to rest over the place where the child was.” The question, then, is: what does it mean by “place” in this instance? What is the star said to be “over”? As we’ve seen, other uses of the same word referred to a variety of larger areas. The text does not specifically say that “it stood over a house.” Yet many able and sincere, but in my opinion mistaken, Christian commentators (along with the skeptics) seem to think it does.

This is an important point because it goes to the issue of supernatural or natural. A “star” (whatever it is) shining a beam down on one house would be (I agree) supernatural; not any kind of “star” we know of in the natural world. But a star shining on an area; in the direction of an area (which a bright Jupiter was to Bethlehem in my scenario: at 68 degrees in the sky) is a perfectly natural event.

Matthew 2:9 is similar to how we say in English: “where I was, I could see the conjunction very well.” “Where” obviously refers to a place. And one’s place is many things simultaneously. Thus, when I saw the “star of Bethlehem”-like conjunction in December 2020, I was in a field, near my house (in my neighborhood), in my town (Tecumseh), in my county (Lenawee), in my state (Michigan), and in my country (United States).

This is my point about “place” in Matthew 2:9. It can mean larger areas, beyond just “house.” If the text doesn’t say specifically, “the star shone on the house” then we can’t say for sure that this is what the text meant.

I have found 18 other English Bible translations of Matthew 2:9 that also have “the place where” (Weymouth, Moffatt, Confraternity, Knox, NEB, REB, NRSV, Lamsa, Amplified, Phillips, TEV, NIV, Jerusalem, Williams, Beck, NAB, Kleist & Lilly, and Goodspeed).

In all these cases, they are translating hou: literally meaning “where” but at the same time implying place (which is the “where” referred to). The Living Bible (a very modern paraphrase) has “standing over Bethlehem”: which of course, bolsters my argument as well (because it didn’t say “house”).

All these things being understood, all the text in question plausibly meant is that the bright star was shining down on Bethlehem, just as we have all seen the moon or some bright star shining on a mountain in the distance or tall building or some other landmark.

A man might see the light from the harvest moon romantically shining on his girlfriend or wife’s face. It need not necessarily mean that this is all it is shining on. It simply looks that way from our particular vantage-point.

All of this is in my opinion, more plausible and straightforward and in line with biblical thinking than positing a supernatural “star.” It’s true that many reputable and observant Christian biblical commentators exist who do argue for that interpretation, and I don’t disparage them at all. Theirs are honest efforts just as mine is. Reasonable and equally devout Christians can and do disagree. I can only present the reasons for why I hold to my opinion.

Thus it can easily, plausibly refer to “Bethlehem” in Matthew 2:9. It may be that many readers (filled with the endless – sometimes inaccurate — images of Christmas from childhood) confuse this with another Christmas passage:

Luke 2:8-9 And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. [9]  And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear.

Note that it is the light from an angel (rather than a star) that “shone around them” and they were not yet visiting Jesus. Thus, Luke 2:15 states: “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened . . .” They were not in the same place. When I visited Bethlehem in 2014, I saw exactly how far it was: at least according to local tradition. The birth site is a considerable distance away, and at a higher elevation.

We mustn’t be led astray by extraneous factors when exegeting Holy Scripture. I believe the explanation I have adopted is feasible and in complete harmony with both science and the biblical texts.

To say, then, that the star “came to rest over the place” is to observe that they didn’t see it moving much over Bethlehem once they arrived there. I’m not an astronomer, so I can only cite other people who know more about these aspects. If the wise men hit the right day (in Bethlehem), Jupiter would have appeared to be stationary.

In the Christian view, God in His providence could have again arranged that the wise men, exercising their own free will, arrived at just the right time when the bright Jupiter appeared to be a sign above Jerusalem for this king Whom they believed was indicated by what they saw in Persia or Babylon (both due east).

Commentator Peter Pett stated that Jupiter “was actually stationary on December 25, interestingly enough, during Hanukkah, the season for giving presents.” (9) That was in 2 BC. Note again that I am not saying this is when Jesus was born, but rather, when He was at least a year old.

Ivor Bulmer-Thomas opined (10):

As a planet approaches a stationary point and then moves away from it its motion is very slow, hardly detectable by the naked eye for about a week. The Magi would have noticed the slowing down of the planet as they approached Bethlehem, and they would have recognized that a stationary point was near.

Now what is even more interesting is Bulmer-Thomas’ documentation that the ancients knew about retrograde motion of the planets, and stationary points:

[T]here is a wealth of material showing directly that for several centuries before the birth of Christ and round about the time of his birth Babylonian astronomers were deeply interested in retrogradations and stationary points. It is contained in hundreds of cuneiform texts excavated in Babylon and Uruk . . . The three volumes of Neugebauer’s Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (1955) give a vast collection of Babylonian inscriptions dealing with retrogradations and stations. (11)

This is highly significant because it would mean not only that Matthew 2:9 uses phenomenological language, but also that the Magi understood retrograde motion of planets, which may lie behind the terminology (received from oral tradition) of “came to rest over” Bethlehem.

And in my opinion these facts support my natural interpretation all the more, because it’s not just (as a critic might say) “projecting” our modern scientific understanding onto the Bible, but an understanding that already existed and was known by the Wise Men.

But if the star didn’t shine right on the “house” (Mt 2:11) where Jesus was, how did the Wise Men find it? We too often make things too complicated by over-analyzing them.  They would simply have to ask the locals about this child who generated so much excitement one or two years previously, and where He lived. Word about notable events travels fast in small towns and people know each other.

It would be like when I visited Woodstock, New York in 1992 and asked someone at a gas station if they knew where “Big Pink” was: the famous house (i.e., to rock music fans) where Bob Dylan and The Band (some of whom lived there) recorded The Basement Tapes in 1967. It so happened that this man lived there, so he took me right to it. That’s how small towns are.

Woodstock, New York in 1990 had a population of 6,290, and yet I could get to a particular house (actually several miles away in the countryside) by running into one man at a gas station. The population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ infancy was estimated to be only 300 by eminent archaeologist William F. Albright. Other Bible scholars think it was no more than a thousand. Yet we are to assume that no one there knew where Jesus and Mary and Joseph lived? That goes against common sense.

Footnotes

(1) “The Bible History Guy”, “The Real Star of Bethlehem”, 12-12-19.

(2) The Star of Bethlehem and Babylonian Astrology: Astronomy and Revelation Reveal What the Magi Saw, self-published, 2017, pp. 97-98.

(3) “The Bible History Guy”, ibid.

(4) “What is retrograde motion?”, EarthSky, 2-6-17.

(5) See, for example, Susan S. Carroll, “The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomical and Historical Perspective”, 1997,

(6) Available online at Associates for Scriptural Knowledge.

(7) The Gospel According to MatthewAn Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1985), p. 84.

(8) Matthew; part of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, revised edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 1917), page undetermined at the Google Books page.

(9) Pett’s Commentary on the Bible (on Matthew 2:9). No date is given for the commentary. The author appears to still be living.

(10) “Star of Bethlehem” (Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 33, Dec. 1992), 371.

(11) Ibid., 370.

***

Note: in my particular model, the wise men visit Jesus in December of 2 BC, and I apply the objective data of what we know regarding astronomical events in and around Bethlehem at that time (particularly Jupiter and its retrograde motion). Elsewhere, I deal with the related dating issue of when Herod died, the census, etc. (see many articles collected on my Christmas web page). But generally speaking, retrograde motion of planets, the wise men’s knowledge of same, and phenomenological language in the Bible are points that stand on their own, and I believe that they provide the key to understanding the biblical texts here examined.

But Ehrman interprets hyper-literally (like fundamentalists do) and so he misses the entire point, which is far more subtle and complex than he seems to think possible with the biblical text and that time and place. This is not even a miracle, but rather, a perfectly normal celestial event, that we are able to determine through science: which took place in December, 2 BC in the vicinity of Bethlehem.

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: iessephoto (12-26-20) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman puzzles over what he thinks is a “star stopping over a house.” I counter that the Bible doesn’t even assert this in the first place.

2022-03-23T14:18:31-04:00

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his article, “Jesus and Paul: Are They on the Same Page?” (2-17-22). His words will be in blue.

I spent several posts explicating Paul’s understanding of his gospel, that by Christ’s death and resurrection a person is put into a restored relationship with God. He had several ways of explaining how it worked (the “judicial” model; the “participationist” model; and the other models I described). But in all of these ways, it was Jesus’ death and resurrection that mattered. It was not keeping the Jewish law. It was not knowing or following Jesus’ teaching. It was not Jesus’ miracles. It was not … anything else. It was Jesus’ death and resurrection. . . . 

Paul says something completely different.   Paul does not tell the person to follow the Law of God.  He tells him to “believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus and be baptized.”

Ehrman is here arguing as if he were a Protestant who believes in “faith alone”: a non-biblical and extra biblical tradition of men, and not the biblical teaching. He makes Paul out to be a “faith alone” zealot: as if he were no longer Jewish at all, and Jesus to be so “Jewish” in outlook that He scarcely offers any new developments in soteriology. Neither thing is true, of course, and they are quite consistent with each other: Jesus also teaches about faith (in Him) and Paul also teaches about observant faith and good works.

So the false dichotomy Ehrman tries to create in this regard is exactly that: false. It’s not “either/or” within Paul’s or Jesus’ teaching on salvation, and it’s not a dichotomy between them. Both teach about faith as a prerequisite of salvation and both teach about the necessity of good works for salvation. God’s grace is behind all of it.

First, here are no less than eighteen of Paul’s statements about salvation, which never mention Christ’s death and resurrection (which is indeed very important in his view and that of Jesus), and stress good works in the attainment of final salvation:

Romans 1:5 (RSV) through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith . . .

Romans 1:17 . . . as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 2:6-10, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. . . . [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:17, 19 . . . you . . . have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, . . . [19] . . . For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; . . .

Romans 13:13-14 let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. [14] But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Romans 16:26 . . . according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith 

1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.

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

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Galatians 5:6-7 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Colossians 3:23-25 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

2 Timothy 2:15, 21-22 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed. (cf. 3:8, 14)

I then summarized in my previous post, the teaching of Jesus himself, about the coming Son of Man and the need to prepare by keeping the Law of God, as revealed in the Torah, as summarized in the commandments to love God above all else and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.

Do these represent the same religion? . . . 

I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different. . . . 

[A]t the end of the day, it sure seems to me that they had different understandings of “salvation.”   Jesus had an urgent message to deliver about the coming kingdom of God to be brought by the Son of Man for those who were obedient to God; and Paul had an urgent message to deliver about the return of Jesus for the “saved” – those who believed in Christ’s death and resurrection.

In a comment for this post (2–20-22), Ehrman claims that Jesus would have found Paul’s letters “completely bizarre.”

Ehrman is presenting only one side of Paul’s soteriological views and one side of Jesus’ views. That hardly gives us the whole picture. He has failed in not presenting the legal notion of “the whole truth.” Jesus surely does teach the importance of works. I myself have highlighted this, in my efforts to refute the false doctrine of salvation by faith alone. See:

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

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

But Jesus did not refrain from also highlighting (just as Paul did) that salvation came from belief in Him, and His death and resurrection on behalf of all mankind:

Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. (cf. Mt 19:29; Lk 18:30)

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.

Luke 24:25-27 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

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

John 6:27-29 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal. Then said they to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ”

John 6:35-36, 40, 47 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. [36] But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. . . . [40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” [47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 7:38 He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, `Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.'”

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

John 12:32 and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

John 12:46-47 I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. [47] If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

So yeah, the two sets of teachings do indeed represent “the same religion.” There is no clash or contradiction whatsoever.

It is important to notice what Jesus’ response is to how to have eternal life.  You have to keep the laws God laid out in the Torah.  And if you want to have treasures in heaven, you are to do even more than that – you are to give love totally to your (poor) neighbor.   That’s how one earns salvation.

It’s not true that it is a universal requirement (according to Jesus) for everyone to give all their money to the poor in order to be saved. That’s what was required of the rich young ruler, because he had made riches his idol. But nowhere is this made a prerequisite for anyone or everyone else. Ehrman simply reads the universality into a very particular situation. The point that Jesus made to His disciples after this encounter, was not that all had to give up everything, but that, rather, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” and “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mk 10:23, 25).

***

Ehrman responded in his combox (3-23-22):

I’m not talking about Jesus as presented in the Gospel of John, but the historical Jesus — who never speaks about believing in his death and resurrection for salvation. And Paul certainly does not think that keeping the law will contribute to earning salvation — otherwise, as he says, “Christ died in vain.”

This is what Bible skeptics constantly do, and it is completely arbitrary and irrational. If they don’t personally care for a passage or group of related passages (if it doesn’t fit into their preconceived notions), they simply claim that they were made up and have no relation to actual history. He believes what he wants to believe (the will rather than the mind at that point). There is no way to rationally argue with this sort of utterly subjective fairy tale method of “exegesis.” Nothing objective exists in such a methodology. The only way we can object to it is to expose the methodology itself, as I just did.

If Ehrman agrees with a given biblical passage, he certainly has no objection to highlighting it as evidence for his overall disbelieving worldview. But if he doesn’t agree with it, he plays some variation of the game that we see above: it wasn’t really in the Bible or was modified by the nefarious orthodox Christians for their own ends. It’s conspiratorialism and mythmaking. This “enables” him or “justifies” him in thinking that he can dismiss with the wave of a hand all of the scriptural data that I brought to bear.

I continue to maintain that we have to analyze the Bible on its own terms. It is what it is (agree or disagree). The only way to determine if a biblical book is historically trustworthy (from a secular scientific perspective) is to examine it using secular and scientific criteria (archaeology and historiography). I have done this with the book of John. See: Gospel of John & Archaeology & History (17 Extrabiblical Verifications of the Gospel of John’s Historical Accuracy). Because of this demonstrated, tested accuracy, we can trust John to accurately report Jesus’ words (agree or disagree with those words).

It remains to be seen if Ehrman will seriously interact with my critiques, with an entire article, not just soundbites in combox replies. I’ve done six so far. Time will tell. He does seem like a nice and courteous man, as far as that goes. And that’s crucial these days, in seeking to engage in true, constructive dialogue.

 

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: Christ in Gethsemane (1886), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic & anti-theist Bart Ehrman attempts to draw a false dichotomy: Jesus vs. Paul on Salvation. He does so by only presenting one side of the teachings of each.

 

2022-03-11T11:45:57-04:00

Jason Engwer is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who is the main writer at the Triablogue site. I’ve had many debates with him; well, until he decided to stop interacting, some years ago now. One can see them by searching his name on my Anti-Catholicism web page. His words will be in blue.

*****

Recently, it struck me how Jason loves the argument from silence when it comes to the Church fathers and Mary’s Assumption, but then he doesn’t like it at all with regard to St. Paul hardly mentioning Jesus’ miracles, and never mentioning John the Baptist. Why the difference? I’d like to explore this a bit and make some semi-satirical analogies. Here is Jason decrying the argument from silence when atheists use it against St. Paul:

Skeptics occasionally object to the historicity of Jesus’ miracles on the basis that they aren’t mentioned in Paul’s letters.. . . We have no reason to expect Paul to have mentioned Jesus’ miracles. There are places where he could have mentioned them, but I see no way to argue that he should have brought them up in the manner under consideration. Watch the video clip here for some comments from Tim McGrew on the argument from silence. Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist is widely accepted as historical, yet Paul not only doesn’t mention it, but also doesn’t even mention John the Baptist (if we define a mentioning of such things the same way critics are defining a mentioning of Jesus’ miracles). And John the Baptist has a large role in the gospels. (Why doesn’t Paul mention Jesus’ miracles?, 3-6-22)

Interesting. I shall now apply this reasoning to Mary, by way of analogy:

Protestants frequently object to the historicity of Mary’s Assumption on the basis that it isn’t mentioned in the earlier Church fathers .. . . We have no reason to expect them to have mentioned her Assumption. There are places where they could have mentioned it, but I see no way to argue that they should have brought it up in the manner under consideration. Watch the video clip here for some comments from Tim McGrew on the argument from silence. Mary’s Assumption is widely accepted by Catholics as historical, yet the earlier Church fathers don’t mention it. And Mary has a large role in salvation history.

In an earlier paper, I also turned Jason’s argument against Mary back upon him, by analogy:

Sola Scriptura

Many patristic sources highly praise Scripture as God’s Word and provide extensive biblical texts in favor of the Christian doctrines that they defend. But no early patristic source says anything about the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith [as provided by, e.g., James White, Normal Geisler, and Keith Mathison]. Yet this is the Protestant rule of faith, and entire basis of its self-understood authority. How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith, even though they [so we are told, supposedly] knew of it, and believed it? If these early Christians held to sola Scriptura as the rule of faith as present-day Protestants do, or even close to so high a view, you’d expect them to cite its definition quite prominently. Instead, they don’t mention it at all.

The New Testament Canon

No early patristic source provides the complete list of the New Testament biblical canon until St. Athanasius in 367. Yet this is part and parcel of the Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura, [one can’t grant the Bible alone sole infallible authority unless one knows exactly what it is] and entire basis of its self-understood authority. How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain [prior to 367] from mentioning the exact parameters of the canon of the New Testament, even though they [so we are told, supposedly] knew of it? If these early Christians held to the 27-book New Testament canon, as present-day Protestants do, or even close to such a view, you’d expect them to mention this quite prominently. Instead, they don’t mention it at all. And several of these fathers included books in the New Testament canon that no Christian today includes.

[the canon of the New Testament wasn’t finalized until 397 A.D.]

Faith Alone (sola fide)

Even foundational and distinctive Protestant doctrines, such as the notion of Faith Alone or imputed, extrinsic, forensic justification, are well-nigh nonexistent all through Church history until Luther’s arrival on the scene, as, for example, prominent Protestant apologist Norman Geisler recently freely admitted:

[O]ne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! (Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995,  503)

There are other examples, too:

Original Sin

Cardinal Newman cited sixteen Church fathers who expressed the doctrine of purgatory in some form, and noted that the doctrine achieved “almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church.” Yet patristic teaching on original sin is far less apparent, and it didn’t even appear in the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed.

Deity of Christ and the Holy Trinity

The divinity of Christ was dogmatically proclaimed only at the “late” date of 325, the fully worked-out doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 381, and the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) in 451, all in Ecumenical Councils which are accepted by most Protestants.

Why is it that Protestants have no problem whatever accepting all of the above (including their two famous “pillars”: sola Scriptura and sola fide) even though patristic evidence is remarkably — sometimes literally totally — lacking? Perhaps some Protestant will educate us as to why the glaring double standard and application of “patristic absence” to the Marian doctrines but not to Protestant distinctives. I won’t hold my breath. No one has explained it to me yet in my 31 years since becoming a Catholic.

I provide many articles that deal with the question of the alleged total “absence” of the Assumption of Mary from Holy Scripture, too (see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page and search for “Assumption”). A fairly strong case can be made for it from the Bible alone. In fact, there is more about Mary’s Assumption in Scripture than there is about the biblical canon and the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura: that is, nothing at all in both cases; zip, zero, zilch.

I don’t think the Assumption is biblically implausible in the least. All it’s saying is that Mary received her resurrected body first among the saints (all of whom will eventually do the same thing). The mother of Jesus our Lord and Savior didn’t have to undergo the decay of death.

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: The Assumption of the Virgin, by Charles Le Brun (1619-1690) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Jason Engwer argues that an argument from silence doesn’t work with Paul regarding Jesus’ miracles. I apply his same reasoning analogically to Mary’s Assumption.

 

2022-02-15T19:15:16-04:00

. . . and Christian Epistemology

This exchange took place on atheist anti-theist Bob Seidensticker’s blog, under his article entitled, “Christians weaponizing scholars’ quotes: Sherwin-White, Russell, and Vilenkin” (2-14-22). Words of atheist “ericc” will be in blue.

Seidensticker wrote in the article above: “Christians quoting atheists can be legitimately done. They just need to follow the basic rules of research that one might learn in eight grade: a quote can be used only if it’s accurately quoted, correctly understood, excerpted in its context, and cited accurately. You’re welcome to hold me to these standards, because you know I will be doing that to the Christian apologists.”

One example of an “atheist” historian being supposedly misquoted by Christians that he gave was historian A. N. Sherwin-White.

*****

I cited Sherwin-White accurately in a recent article:

[T]he confirmation of historicity [in Acts] is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1963, 173)

See the quotation in context at Google Books.

He also analyzed Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands, and couldn’t find a single error. Assuming, then, that he was an agnostic or atheist, that’s an extraordinary support for not only the accuracy of Luke, but a minute, compelling historical trustworthiness characteristic of the very best ancient historians.

If I write something that accurately references 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, in which I flap my arms and fly between them, would you believe based on the accuracy of my place references that I flapped my arms and flew between them?

It’s possible to separate the two things, just as atheists accept historical accounts written by Herodotus and Josephus: both of whom included many supernatural elements. They only get “conveniently skeptical” when it comes to the Bible. The archaeological evidences and the accuracy are what they are.

I am not understanding how we non-believers are ‘only conveniently skeptical’ (implied by your message: of the bible. As in, we are treating it more skeptically than we would other texts.)

We treat Herodotus’ Greek divine actions, and the Koran’s divine actions, and miraculous acts described in the Gandhāran Buddhist texts the same way. As do you.

So it seems to me you’ve got the situation completely reversed here. First, we non-believers aren’t treating the bible any differently than we are any other texts: in all cases, we act consistently in ‘separating the two things’ i.e. the mundane details from the extraordinary claims. Second, you theists also separate the two things. But where we are consistent in doing so, you are not. You separate the two things when it comes to everyone else’s beliefs. It is only in the case of the NT where you would accept the logic that accurate place names is reason to believe in the recorded miracles. In no other case, for no other book, would you accept such logic.

I’m talking about how atheists routinely assume that the Gospel writers are inaccurate, and (beyond that) deliberate liars. The text and the external evidences provide no compelling reason to believe those things. It’s only atheist pre-existing bias that causes such skepticism. That is my point. I basically agree with the point you make above, but it doesn’t address my central point.

Sherwin-Wine is a true, objective scholar. He can acknowledge if a source is historically accurate regardless of whether it contains supernatural elements or not, or whether he himself is a Christian or not. He bows to the actual objective evidence. May his tribe greatly multiply!

My point regarding miracles is a bit different from how you characterize it. I would say that demonstrated historical accuracy gives us no reason to believe that Luke is deliberately making up miracle-stories for the sake of a nefarious agenda. In other words, the two things together strongly suggest that he sincerely believes that such miracles occurred.

That’s epistemologically distinct from the basis of believing in the miracles. In a nutshell, the Christian reasoning there would run as follows:

1. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. We have sufficient reason to know that He made the claims because historically trustworthy amateur historians like Luke and John said so.

2. Among His acts performed were miracles, including His own Resurrection. We believe that those things happened based on the accuracy of the writers and in faith (not with absolute proof) because He claimed to be God and this is what we would expect of God, since God (if He exists) would and indeed does perform miracles, as He sees fit. In other words, it’s plausible from within a dualist, theist, Judaeo-Christian worldview. Jesus talked like we imagine God would talk, based on what we know, and acted likewise.

3. I argue as an apologist for the archaeologically verified accuracy of biblical accounts because that knocks out a relentless objection from atheists: that the text is inaccurate; therefore can’t possibly be inspired revelation.

4. If the apologist like myself takes out that objection by showing again and again that the documents are accurate and trustworthy, then we show that the nature of the biblical books are consistent with the notion of being inspired (thus that it is not impossible that they are). That’s not the same as proving inspiration. Repeat: That’s not the same as proving inspiration. But it is well worth doing, to counter atheist misrepresentation of the nature of the biblical texts; to “defeat the defeater”.

Likewise, when Jonathan MS Pearce invents a fairy tale out of his head, that Matthew completely made up the guards at the tomb story, it does not become the case that there is any historical evidence for same, simply because he asserts it. [see also my reply to his “reply” on this issue).

But I could convince no atheist (from the looks of it) of this when I made that unarguable point of critique a little while ago. He thinks that simply because it is possible for something to happen, therefore it did, and should be stated with a straight face as a [choke] “fact.”

This is not just John Smith, atheist. He’s one of the most influential online atheists, and an author, etc.

The reason you can’t convince people is because it’s an utterly inapt comparison. One is an account of the past. the other is a hypothesis explaining why the account says what it says.

But we can use the JP example as a reductio analysis of your logic. JP could easily add tons of accurate references to places and people of 1st century AD to his explanation of what the (author of) Matthew did. Would the accuracy of his other details have any weight in your evaluation of his argument? No it wouldn’t, right?

You’re still not getting it. I have explained my outlook at length. Jonathan has no historical E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E whatsoever for his story about Matthew making up a story. Thus, it’s epistemologically no better than a fairy-tale. But when I said that, he irrationally took it as a personal attack. Nope. It is an argument about epistemology and how he “knows” what he claims to know.

No one will touch this critique. All they do is say I was attacking him personally (absolutely untrue), or change the subject.

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: Image by “Mary1826” (January 2017) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

***

Summary: Atheist “skepticism re the Gospels” is an intransigent thing that can’t be overcome, no matter how many “external” arguments from archaeology we provide.

 

2022-02-01T11:32:37-04:00

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page from his former site states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.” 

He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques. Before he departed his former site at Patheos, he 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. All the best to you and thanks for your critiques of my pieces. Sorry I couldn’t get to more of them.”

Again, at his new site (under a post dated 1-27-22), after a vicious attack by a commenter, calling for me and indeed all Christians to be banned, Jonathan offered an honorable and principled refusal: “I do welcome disagreements because I don’t want [my blog] to [be] just an echo chamber. As long as it is good faith . . . someone like Armstrong does give me ammunition for some of my pieces! As long as they aren’t trollish.” 

His words below will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to his post, Christian apologetics and defending Matthew’s guards (1-31-22), which in turn is a response to my articles, Pearce’s Potshots #57: Matthew & the Tomb Guards (1-28-22) and Pearce’s Potshots #58: Paul & Jesus’ “Empty” Tomb (1-29-22).

There’s something meta going on

Oooh! More conspiracies underfoot?

when a Christian apologist takes aim at a biblical account of mine with some typical apologetics, claiming I am making stuff up out of whole cloth when I myself accused the Gospel writers (or apologists) of making stuff up out of whole cloth to defend themselves against Jewish accusations 2,000 years ago.

Or perhaps this is not meta, but hypocrisy, as you will see.

Yes it is not only hypocrisy, but high irony, that Jonathan does what he falsely accuses Matthew of doing, or — to put it more mildly — offers no proof or evidence whatsoever that Matthew was doing what he accuses him of doing.

This all concerns a small section of narrative—a pericope—that is only found in one Gospel (Matthew) and looks very much like the author made it up to serve a purpose. 

Where is the hard historical evidence that he did this? And lacking same, why is the hostile claim made in the first place? Does Jonathan claim to be able to read the mind and discern the interior motivations of a Jewish writer from 1900+ years ago? If so, I hope he explains to all of us how that works. Simply stating something and assuming it is compelling is not an intellectual argument.

I’m sure many — like myself — are waiting with baited breath to see this revelation of how Jonathan can read minds and motives at a distance. But don’t hold your breath, folks, because you’ll be waitin’ a long, LONG time.

Christians don’t like such claims because, of course, it all has to be true!

Merely silly and useless comment. He believes very strongly what he does; so do I. My view “has” to be true as long as I believe there is sufficient epistemological reason and reason in general (of many sorts) to believe it to be true (along with a reason for religious faith itself). That’s how I’ve always lived my life and how I have approached disputes of fact and clashing beliefs: which is why I’ve changed my mind in many major ways throughout my life.

First let me again present the thesis I am proposing which is, just to confirm, constructed from the Gospel data and is drawing on a lot of pre-existent biblical criticism,

. . . which is itself almost always arbitrary and pulled out of thin air. This is a major point I make throughout.

and not pulled out of thin air, my posterior, or constructed from whole cloth:

Yeah, he gets it from theologically liberal or skeptical or atheist academics. Atheist arguments are almost always recycled and regurgitated and parroted from others. Very few of them are brand new. But these arguments from the big-name, fashionable academics among atheists must be substantiated on their own, not just accepted because they have an axe to grind that Jonathan also happily wants to grind along with them.

  1. Paul does not mention the empty tomb narrative at all in the passion sequence concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection. This is bizarre because we would have expected him to do so (perfect reasons for so doing to defend his arguments in 1 Corinthians, for example).

As I wrote at the end of my previous reply to Jonathan:

Paul is under no moral, logical, or “literary” obligation to replicate all that the Gospels have about the empty tomb. They already covered that. Paul did mostly systematic theology, not recounting of events.

Knocking him for that is yet more of the silly argument from silence. I say that Paul stated pretty much what he should have been expected to say, given his purpose in his writing. The epistles were written for theological instruction and exhortation, not to reiterate the facts of the life of Jesus that Christians were already well familiar with.

From this perspective, I don’t see why we should “expect” him to mention it. He referred to the “tomb” once, as I showed last time (Acts 13:29) and to Jesus’ “burial” three more times in his epistles. It’s much ado about nothing. He mentioned it. Because I dared to submit Acts 13:29 for Jonathan’s consideration, he immediately upped the rhetoric and polemics a thousand-fold and melted down in his combox:

Wow, you are being willfully disingenuous. Please show me where Paul mentions the empty tomb or any of the narrative the gospels include about the empty tomb. You are being really dishonest here and skating close to the mark.

Lacking any compelling reason to question to question the authenticity of Acts 13:29 and Luke’s record of what Paul preached in that instance, he immediately did what atheists almost always do when their particular claims are shown to be false: 1) make a huge fuss, and 2) arbitrarily and with no provided compelling reason, deny that Acts 13:29 is a truthful accurate record of Paul’s words. How do we know it’s not accurate? As I wrote in my second reply back to Jonathan:

Luke’s trustworthiness as an accurate reporter of all kinds of things in the book of Acts has been rather dramatically verified by archaeology, again and again. . . . This is the criterion for any other ancient historian: are the things they report independently verified or substantiated?

That’s objective, hard evidence: the opposite of what Jonathan is offering. One can quibble about how relatively strong each individual instance of this archaeological confirmation is, but it is evidence.

2. Mark, the first Gospel (written 40 years after the death of Jesus and some decades after Paul), mentions the empty tomb. But he adds an odd sequence at the end of his narrative that no other later Gospel writer adds. Indeed, they outright contradict the claim. He and his Gospel (later versions interpolate further details) with the women witnesses to the empty tomb leaving and specifically not telling anyone about the empty tomb and what they had seen. [five typos corrected]

3. This very much appears to act as an explanation as to why his audience has not heard about the empty tomb—because the women kept it a secret, of course! After all, we need to explain why he mentions this secret-keeping but all the other Gospels contradict this.

This is old ground that I have already covered. Word-search for the section “Jesus: Resurrection” in my Armstrong’s Refutations of Alleged Biblical “Contradictions”  to find fifteen articles about all the alleged “difficulties” in the biblical accounts.

4. Matthew admits that Jews had been arguing that a better explanation of the empty tomb was that someone had stolen the body: “and this story was widely spread among the Jews and is to this day.” (Matthew 28:15)

Yes, it’s a perfectly plausible thing to believe actually happened. They didn’t believe in Jesus’ Resurrection and so they had to make up an alternate explanation for the empty tomb: precisely as atheists do today: including this very “stolen body” rationalization. We have Matthew’s report. Is it something that seems plausible or not? I think it clearly is. People hostile to one explanation of a purported event provide a contradictory one to explain the same thing. When folks didn’t like Jesus’ miracles, they tried to claim that they were done under the inspiration of the devil and not God (to which Jesus replied with his “a divided house cannot stand” discourse).

5. Matthew is the next Gospel after Mark, some 15+ years later, and is the only Gospel to include the narrative of their being guards at the door. This is odd, and is part of a slew of good evidence that it was made up by Matthew.

Saying there is “evidence” (hard, concrete, historical evidence) is not the same thing as demonstrating it. It remains the case that Jonathan has provided no such evidence that Matthew made up a whopper, save the conspiracy theories that emanate from his head and the heads of atheists whose ideas he parrots. The idea underlying this silliness seems to be, “if a nefarious plot to deceive readers is possible from the Evangelists, then it must be plausible or actual.” That doesn’t follow.

[An] eminent Catholic exegete admits that Matthew’s guards are “almost unintelligible” and that “there is neither internal nor external evidence to cause us to affirm historicity.” (The Death of the Messiah, Raymond Brown, 1994, p. 1311) [two typos corrected]

I’m delighted that Jonathan brought up Fr. Brown. I’ve been doing apologetics for 41 years: the last twenty as a full-time, published (11 books) Catholic apologist. I have observed a zillion times that the enemies of Christianity always bring up liberal or skeptical scholars who claim the name “Christian” in order to fight against various things in Christianity that they disbelieve. Atheists and cultists like Jehovah’s Witness, and Muslims, all use precisely this same technique. And I’ve debated them all.

But if a person cannot be said to accurately represent historical Christianity, then it is improper to cite them, and it should be noted that their views are heterodox, not orthodox, according to standard, historical Christian theological categories. Fr. Raymond Brown is one of these who is always brought up. He had some good things to say, like almost all scholars do. But he was a Catholic dissident, as I have documented:

Fr. Brown . . . cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith. These articles of faith, proclaimed by Popes and believed by the faithful over the centuries, include Jesus’ physical Resurrection; the Transfiguration; the fact that Jesus founded the one, true Catholic Church and instituted the priesthood and the episcopacy; the fact that 12 Apostles were missionaries and bishops; and the truth that Jesus was not “ignorant” on a number of matters.

Not least, though, was Fr. Brown’s exegesis concerning the infancy narratives of Saints Matthew and Luke that calls into question the virginal conception of Jesus and the accounts of our Lord’s birth and childhood.

In addition to Cardinal Shehan, such eminent peers of Fr. Brown as Msgr. George A. Kelly, Fr. William Most, Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, Fr. Rene Laurentin, and John J. Mulloy were highly critical of the Brown revisionism of the Catholic Church’s age-old theology of inspiration and inerrancy. (“Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown’s Theories,” Henry V. King, The Wanderer, 10 September 1998; reprinted at the Catholic Culture website)

This guy is supposed to represent historic Christianity? He does not! He’s skeptical of Matthew’s guards because he was skeptical even of all kinds of Catholic dogmas (things all Catholics are required to believe as a member of the faith). And I’m quite sure that if we examined Fr. Brown’s stated reason for doubting the veracity of the guards account, we would find nothing of any evidentiary value. It’ll be — so I confidently predict — like peeling an onion: no core. Just because he was famous and wrote a big 1000-page book that atheists like Jonathan are ecstatic about, doesn’t turn a non-argument (bald statements with no substantiation) into an actual argument.

Now Jonathan (with his oft-employed broad brush) will say that I am dismissing Christian scholarship per se, which is nonsense. I am dismissing those who masquerade as orthodox Catholics, but who are not at all: which is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. He himself does exactly the same thing from the opposite perspective. So, for example, Jonathan roundly mocks archaeologist and Egyptologist Kenneth A. Kitchen, who is a profound scholar, as if he were some uneducated troglodyte whose opinions are utterly worthless.

And why does he do that? Well, it’s because Kitchen is an archaeological “maximalist” who actually believes the Bible is trustworthy in matters of historical detail, and he is a practicing evangelical Protestant. That’s more than enough reason for Jonathan to immediately dismiss him out of hand. Here is an example of him sarcastically doing this:

He [yours truly!] then lists a bunch of Jewish and Christian conservatives, many from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, throwing in archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen for good measure. Always good to see an axiomatic biblical maximalist in there for fair and objective academia. (7-3-21)

Thus, if he is justified in dismissing a scholar like Kitchen because he actually believes in Christianity and the Bible, then by the same token I can dismiss the erroneous opinions of Fr. Brown: a man who was a Catholic priest, but who denied many Catholic dogmas. Goose and gander. Jonathan thinks Kitchen was intellectually dishonest and not a “true” archaeologist. I think Fr. Brown was intellectually dishonest and not a “true” Catholic (in the full sense of the words, including acceptance of dogmas). It doesn’t mean I would never cite him ever. In cases where he made a true observation, I certainly would.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy (which I read many years ago) made a statement to the effect that a Christian (even someone like Thomas Aquinas) cannot truly do philosophy. Jonathan seems to think (with no basis) that an orthodox Christian cannot do theology, either. He or she must disbelieve several required tenets of their Christian faith in order to be a “true scholar.” This is epistemological madness.

Therefore, because I am an orthodox Catholic apologist, Jonathan must accuse me of “being willfully disingenuous . . . being really dishonest” when I defend the notion that Paul mentioned the empty tomb. He seems to be unable to classify me any other way. I actually believe that which I am defending, and so my opinions must be dismissed out of hand.

6. This looks like a counter-argument against the Jewish counter-arguments that the body was stolen. Matthew even phrases it like it is. Matthew appears to be privy to a private conversation between the guards and the Sanhedrin (Matthew 28):

I recently dealt with this issue of how the Evangelists could know “hidden / secret things.” In this case, one scenario that could explain it would be that a member of the Sanhedrin privy to such discussions later became a Christian and reported what was talked about. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were two such men. There could have been others. In fact, it could very well have been one of these two men who gave Matthew the information. Note that I am simply speculating on possibilities: not making foolish “certain” proclamations of what Matthew must have done, with no evidence.

7. This Christian polemic counter-counter-argument evidences that Mark invented (or communicated a developed narrative)

Yes, the oral traditions were present right from the time of Christ’s death and could be drawn from.

that did not exist in Paul’s time because otherwise Mark would have had to be dealing with the Jewish counter-arguments.

Of course it existed before Paul’s time . . .

But he didn’t because those arguments did not exist because no one in the wider community knew about the narrative before Mark’s Gospel.

Jonathan makes yet another universal negative statement — he never tires of these! — for which he has no hard evidence. Did you notice that he gave none? He simply spouts his fantasies as if they should be received with the utmost seriousness as unarguable profundities.

8. This is also supported by the fact that later Gospels did not include the women keeping secret since everyone did know about the empty tomb as a result of the late (compared to Paul and the events) communication of this part of the story. They had no need to explain the to their audiences why they had not heard of the empty tomb as Mark had to do.

See my defenses of the scriptural Resurrection accounts, under that category in my collection. Much ado about nothing. Groundless tin foil hat conspiracy theories . . .

9. The later Luke and John did not include the guards polemic. Christians equally need to explain this. I surmise that they saw it for what it was: an obviously ahistorical polemic.

I am not compelled to enter into a conspiratorial mindset. It’s a non-issue. The four Gospels have different emphases and different intended audiences. The Christian observes that if one of them mentioned something that was unique, so what? It’s in the New Testament somewhere, and that’s all that matters. There is no obligation for all four Gospels to be absolutely identical. What would be the point?! So all of them have unique things, because that’s what happens when four human beings take up writing about particular historical events.

I did not literally construct anything out of thin air. That is, er, literally impossible.

Did I even metaphorically do this?

No. I used data that is in the Gospels, and Matthew even admits to the Jews having a prevailing counter-argument. You cannot make things up out of thin air in proposing a coherent causal theory connecting actual data (Gospel claims). This is how all theories are constructed. Can we test it? Yes, for coherence. No, since we cannot go back in time. Data can disconfirm the theory (but doesn’t), if it could be found to do so. And this is the same case for the Christian thesis.

The hypothesis of Matthew simply making it up for polemical purposes has no supporting historical evidence. Period. Zero, zilch, zip, nada, nuthin’. The fact that Jonathan thinks it has explanatory value and should be believed because of the NT we have is not such evidence. One could “prove” [choke] virtually anything by the ridiculous criteria that Jonathan is employing.

Secondly, the fact that it is a hostile interpretation of Matthew’s motives has no connection whatsoever to what can be historically known. There is certainly nothing in the Bible about that. When  Evangelist Luke explains his motivation for writing his Gospel (1:1-4) it seems perfectly respectable, honest, and above board. We have no good reason to suspect his stated motivations. Likewise, with the other three.

But of course, in the conspiratorialist mentality (which always has a quick answer for everything), that is just a ruse to fool the folks, you see . . .

This part is pretty egregious: apparently I “constructed (literally out of thin air) an entire elaborate story of deceit and intent to deliberately lie about the events surrounding Jesus’ death.”

Yes! This is his view: Matthew made up a story and pretended that it was fact when he knew it to be fiction; a fairy-tale. As I noted today in his combox: that is serious immorality according to Christian ethics. It violates one of the Ten Commandments (not bearing false witness) and is an objectively mortal (grave) sin in Catholic teaching, and a serious sin according to all Christians.

Now Jonathan is trying to make out that he didn’t do what he has stated repeatedly. If I call him on it, he is highly offended. It’s the first part of his recent article (1-27-22) on the Guards at the tomb and Matthew (my bolding):

I’ve written before on why the guards at the tomb of Jesus, included only in the Gospel of Matthew, are almost certainly invented by the author of that Gospel. . . . 

Suffice to say that Matthew’s guards are a polemic created by the author to answer criticisms . . . 

Mark made up the Empty Tomb claim. [i.e., this is the basis for the further conspiratorialist claim that Matthew made up the guards story]

Everyone loves a good fairy tale, but this is a bad fairy tale.

I am not sure if my claims are deceitful and if I am lying about the events, or whether I claim deceit and lying in the sources I am talking about.

The latter. I haven’t (and have never) accused Jonathan of being deliberately dishonest or disingenuous. He has accused me of that (see the citation above).

Either way, he needs to sort out his rhetoric and walk back the accusation or not mischaracterize or misinterpret my claims. 

I don’t need to sort out or walk back anything. I have not misrepresented Jonathan. He thinks the Evangelists are (at least in some respects, not all) a pack of liars and that the ends justified the means for them. If they had to lie and deceive to get the story of Jesus Christ out, well, that’s just what they did! There’s not the slightest historical evidence for such an outrageous charge, but that won’t stop Jonathan from making it!

We’re back to the same old desperate Christian defenses that attack me rather than the substance of my arguments.

I have done no such thing. As always in my apologetics, I make a very vigorous “bulldog” argument against what I believe to be untrue and erroneous opinions. It’s ALL about the ideas, not persons. I think Jonathan is a nice guy who sincerely believes what he does, and that he is sincerely dead wrong on a zillion things, whenever he opines about the Bible and Christianity.

I have reiterated recently that I highly admire his allowing me to comment on his site. I have nothing whatever against him personally. I’m simply disagreeing with him. He’s said some nice things about me, too, but at times he becomes acerbic and makes it personal, and this is counter-productive in terms of good back-and-forth dialogue.

I think he may be too thin-skinned and oversensitive in this particular instance, causing him to “see” things in my critiques that simply aren’t there. He’s a human being. We’ve all done that at times.

Of course, it is worth noting that I didn’t pull the idea out of my posterior: the late Gospel invention of the empty tomb narrative has been around since Rudolf Bultmann proposed it in the early 20th century, and no doubt before.

Of course. See my comments about Fr. Raymond Brown above. All this does is send the process of how one manages to believe such conspiracy theories back to Bultmann, who has to explain where it came from; what actual evidence there is for it.  As we see in the Wikipedia article on him, Bultmann was another radical skeptic:

[H]e argued for replacing supernatural biblical interpretations with temporal and existential categorizations . . . This approach led Bultmann to reject doctrines such as the pre-existence of Christ. [which is blasphemy and rank heresy according to Christianity because it denies the divinity of Christ and the Trinity] . . . Bultmann carried form criticism so far as to call the historical value of the gospels into serious question.

Why should I care what such a man thinks? He hasn’t even gotten to first base in Christianity, having rejected Jesus’ divinity. He has no credibility for any orthodox Christian on those grounds alone. So your pride in drawing from him gets a “ho hum” / “what else is new?” from me. Of course you will like a guy who has beliefs like that.

Armstrong continues in a way that makes me pretty angry:

First and foremost, arguments of this type are arguments from silence (the logical fallacy, argumentum ex silentio), and as anyone familiar with logic and/or philosophy, and/or debating strategies in general knows (and Jonathan calls himself “a philosopher”), they carry little or no force at all.

Considering he wants me to, I presume, exchange cordially and intellectually with him, he goes about this in a bizarre way. He is intellectually and existentially insulting me with passive-aggressive comments…

Really? I have no such passive-aggressiveness. I like Jonathan. I have nothing against him; tons of objections to his beliefs. Noting that someone used the notorious argument from silence is not attacking the person who did it. It’s pointing out a logical fallacy. He just doesn’t like having his views vigorously critiqued. Almost everyone is that way. He’s not alone, by any means. And many get angry when that happens, as he now admits he is. But there is not the slightest reason to be.

If anyone should be angry here, it would be me, seeing what Jonathan is saying, but I’m not, because I have a very even-tempered, easy-going personality and am well-used to people getting angry when their views are critiqued. His task is to prove that he has not used the fallacy of the argument from silence. It’s pretty clear that he has, in talking about various Gospel writers who didn’t mention things, and then poor old pitiful Matthew, who feels led to construct a lie as a result.

But he is also wrong. This is not an argument from silence, only a part of it is. The Paul claim is the only part that is, and it is valid, as I set out in an entire chapter on this in The Resurrection: A Critical Examination of the Easter Story. He can deal with that. This isn’t “pulled out of thin air” but he is certainly “skating on thin ice”.

I’m not referring to only Paul, but also the other Evangelists. He asserts their silence over and over in his previous related article (1-27-22):

Mark mentions nothing of the guards at the tomb because there is not yet a counter-argument. . . . 

Yet Mark mentions nothing. There are no Jewish counter-claims, so Mark needs no counter-counter-claims. The lack of a pre-existing empty tomb narrative is the only thing that makes sense of the lack of guards in Mark, and their addition in Matthew. . . . 

Luke and John don’t include them at all, which is a very good argument for their lack of authenticity. . . . Presumably, Luke and John omitted them because they saw it for what it was—an obvious polemic mechanism. . . . 

So now Jonathan is objecting loudly to my characterization of his argument, while not even being aware of precisely what I am arguing.

He goes on to give three definitions of an argument from silence but does not in any way explain how the above entire claim is an argument from silence. Go figure.

Well, now I have! I thought it was so obvious that I didn’t need to spell it out.

Of course, as you will notice, mention of the tomb is in Luke/Acts, not Paul’s writing. 

So what? It’s irrelevant. You claimed Paul never mentioned the empty tomb. Luke records a sermon where he in fact did do so.

And the rest, well, this is embarrassing stuff. This is taking the idea that he has died and been buried (well, yes…), and projecting his own ideas onto that. “Well, he was buried, so it must have been a tomb! And he left it, so it must have been empty! So Paul obviously mentions the empty tomb narrative!”

Nice try. This is so wearisome. I was projecting no ideas of my own. It was cross-referencing, which Bible students do all the time: interpreting one passage in light of another on the same topic and/or from the same person. So Paul states three times in the epistles that Jesus was “buried.” What should we think he meant by that? Buried in what? Well, Acts 13:29 fills that little information gap.

Now we know that Paul agreed that He was buried in a tomb, and so when he says “buried” in the epistles it’s reasonable to assume in light of this that he meant “buried in a tomb.” This is simple logic. Jonathan can fuss and protest and raise a big stink about it all he wants (much ado about nothing, and it would be at least entertaining and amusing if it weren’t so boorish), but it’s simple logic and common sense.

Yes: if a tomb is mentioned as the resting place of a dead person (Jesus, here), and then the narrative goes on to say that He was resurrected, then it follows inexorably that we have also an “empty tomb.” I didn’t invent logic. It is what it is. A=a.

Jonathan wasn’t talking in those instances (at least going by his words) the entire story of disciples seeing the empty tomb, entering it, etc., but whether Paul mentioned the tomb at all. Thus, he wrote on 1-31-21: “Paul has no mention of an empty tomb; Just Jesus was ‘buried’.” And on 11-10-21: “The phrase ‘he was buried’ is ambiguous, and does not necessarily imply an entombment.” Acts 13:29 resolves all this speculation.

Except no. Paul has a spiritual body resurrection that has no need for an empty tomb, 

This is sheer nonsense, and I have refuted it several times:

Pearce’s Potshots #56: Paul & Jesus’ Resurrection [12-10-21]

Seidensticker Folly #26: Spiritual Bodies R Still Bodies! [10-9-18]

Seidensticker Folly #52: Spiritual Bodies R Physical [9-10-20]

and there is far, far greater likelihood that Jesus was dishonorably buried in a criminal’s necropolis. See my extensive chapter and writing in this in my Resurrection book.

I’ve dealt with this as well:

Pearce’s Potshots #49: Homer & the Gospels (Mythmaking Scholar Suggests the Story of Priam in the Iliad as the Model for a Fictional Joseph of Arimathea) [10-15-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #52: No Tomb for Jesus? (Skeptical Fairy Tales and Fables vs. the Physical Corroborating Evidence of Archaeology in Jerusalem) [11-10-21]

His claim that Jesus “was ‘buried’ (i.e., in a tomb, which is how they do it in Israel)” shows a real lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Criminals—especially ones accused of high treason and blasphemy—would never have been buried in a tomb, family or otherwise, at least until after a year of ritual purification in a criminal’s graveyard, or more likely in Jerusalem, necropolis. Such a place would have been the Graveyard for the Stoned and the Burned.

That’s simply not true (and there he goes with his irresponsible “never” statements again), as I showed in the above two papers (especially the second, which documents from actual relevant Roman law records regarding burials).

It is far more likely that Jesus was stoned, then hung upon a post, as this was literally the punishment for his crime. There are plenty of sources for all of this stuff if Armstrong wants to look:

  • Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 4.8.6.
  • Christian Byron R. McCane, in ‘“Where No One Had Yet Been Laid”: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial’.
  • Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.5 and 6.6.
  • Talmud Sanhedrin 47a (amongst also the Tosefta).
  • Midrash Rabbah Numbers XXIII:13 (877).
  • On stoning: Josephus Jewish Wares 4.202, 260; Leviticus 24:14; Acts 7; Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.4…
  • …and so on.

Yet somehow, the massive majority of historians and Bible scholars (Jonathan loves to count up academic heads) — conservative and liberal alike — believe He was crucified. I concur with them (and the Bible got it right, as always). Jonathan is free to adopt an eccentric opinion (drawn largely from “hostile witnesses”) if he likes. But he can’t present it as a mainstream opinion. See, for example, the “Crucifixion” sections of the article, “Punishments in Ancient Rome” (Facts and Details).

Now why is it that all of a sudden, Jonathan won’t cite Fr. Raymond Brown when it comes to whether Jesus was crucified? It’s probably because he wrote a book entitled, A Crucified Christ in Holy Week (1986). So he’s a font of wisdom when he agrees with Jonathan’s opinion, but alas, “Needs to [like me!] do his research” when it comes to the question of how Jesus was murdered.

Armstrong needs to do his research because, and even though he is providing merely inference based on his own projection, his inferences are wholly incorrect. If he can’t be bothered to read up about it, there is this:

Yeah, been there, done that, in installments #49 and #52 answering Jonathan, which he appears unaware of, seeing that he has ignored almost all of my recent critiques. Occasionally, — often when he gets teed off (as presently) — he will attempt an answer. But his mostly ignoring my replies makes him say silly things about what I have done or supposedly not done.

Paul would surely have made reference to some aspect of the entire empty tomb narrative given he is arguing with the Corinthians about certain elements of the Resurrection.

I don’t see any compelling reason why he “surely” must do so. Again, it’s mere empty speculation. That’s all Jonathan has been giving us with this particular argument of his.

Instead, he uses Old Testament quotes to buttress his arguments, which is bizarre.

Why is it at all “bizarre”? It was standard New Testament practice to cite the Old Testament, because before the NT was compiled, that was what they meant (almost always in the NT; a few exceptions) by “Scripture”: accepted by all observant Jews and Christians as God’s infallible revelation. Part and parcel of the Gospel is that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, Who fulfilled scores and scores of OT prophecies about the Messiah. It was regarded as evidence in support of His claims to be the Messiah and God in the flesh.

There is no reference to the women as first witnesses,

Yet another argument from silence . . .

nothing concerning Apostolic verification: “We know this, Corinthians, because X saw Y.”

This is untrue, as I have already shown:

1 Corinthians 15:5-7 (RSV) . . . he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

GO TO PART TWO

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (c. 1620), attributed to Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I critique atheist Jonathan MS Pearce’s relentless attack on the truthfulness of the Gospel texts & the honesty of the four Evangelists, i.e., fairy tale atheist eisegesis.

 

2022-01-28T12:38:12-04:00

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

For over three years, we have had (shall we say) rather difficult relations, with mutual bannings (while I have replied to his posts 77 times: all as of yet unanswered), but when Bob moved to his new location online at the OnlySky super-site, he (surprisingly to me) decided to allow me to comment. As a conciliatory gesture in return, I removed his ban on my blog.  He even stated on 1-21-22 in the same combox thread, replying to me: “There are a few new posts here. (Or, if you haven’t been to my blog for a while, lots of new posts here.) Have at ’em. Let me know what you think.”

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

*****

I am responding to specific portions of two of Bob’s posts entitled, “Problem of Evil: the Free Will defense” (1-24-22) and “Problem of Evil: the Soul-Making defense” (1-26-22). I will also include a few of the related combox comments.

I am unable to post a comment on Bob’s site, due to technical problems with the ridiculously inadequate and frustrating comments-system, called Viafoura. Everyone’s complaining about it and it’s a huge mess. I wrote for assistance and they still haven’t resolved the problem after a day-and-a-half. I have given up. Even if I could comment again, there are so many limitations and un-user-friendly features that it’s far more trouble than it’s worth.

I will continue to reply to Bob as necessary with blog articles: to defend Christianity and the Bible, when he attacks and misrepresents either or both. He can see what I write, and he’s not banned on my blog anymore, so he can counter-reply there or on his blog, as he wishes. But of course, thus far, he has universally not “wished” not to respond at all. Go figure . . .

I dealt with the evil that human beings commit against each other and with the issue of free will in my previous reply to Bob. Here I am dealing strictly with what is called “natural evil”: all the calamities that come about via nature, whether hurricanes or droughts or plagues or volcanoes and earthquakes, etc. Is it reasonable to posit that God could have made a world without such things, or that He should massively intervene so that no one is hurt by them?

Millions are sick or hungry, and the world is a carousel that spins from one natural disaster to another—hurricanes, drought, wildfires, and of course pandemics like covid. But on the other hand, how can a loving and omnipotent God have created such an inept rough draft? . . . 

If Creation is screwed up, blame the Creator who created it. 

And in comments (for the article dated 1-24-22):

Smallpox wasn’t [created in a lab like COVID]. The Black Death wasn’t. God’s fault. . . . And natural disasters give plenty of examples where God did it.

I posted in reply a portion of an old article that I will reproduce below. It was removed: either by Bob or the hapless Viafour folks. In his second article cited above, Bob seemed to reply to my now-deleted reply (or — as so often in his pathetic polemics — at least a straw man version of it):

But first, a palate cleanser. Here are two final points made to support the free-will defense, which says that God allows free will so that we can freely love him, despite the bad that free will brings with it. (The Christian argument is in italics below.)

God’s creation needs to be regular so we can depend on it, good or bad. A hot stove will burn you, without exception. A boulder falling down a mountain will hurt you if you’re in its path, without exception. God capriciously nudging boulders out of the way (but only sometimes) creates a world we can’t depend on.

So your argument is that if we had lots of miracles, the world would be confusing and undependable, so God does pretty much no miracles. Yeah, I’m sure the rape victim would’ve hated to have been confused, so I guess that’s a net good.

But it still seems that a god who is omniscient could’ve created a pain-free world.

This “response” was then elaborated upon by two commenters:

ericc: Problem 1: this argument is inconsistent with any standard reading of either the OT or NT. One can’t consistently argue that (a) the world NEEDs to be perfectly regular, and (b) the Bible portrays a world that ISN’T perfectly regular, and (c) the Bible is accurate. A, B, and C form a contradictory set.

Problem 2: once again, Christians seem not to grasp the implications of total omnipotence. Saying God needed the place to be regular for us implies that God was impotent to create beings who could grow and prosper under inconsistency.

larry parker: According to the bible, God often is “capriciously nudging boulders”. So much for the first assertion (“creation needs to be regular”).

Although I should be used to it by now, it still amazes me that religious apologists can contradict themselves in such a short paragraph.

None of this gibberish deals with my own particular argument, which (in a nutshell) has to do with the absolute necessity of uniformitarianism: if indeed science is to be possible (and also the corresponding implausibility of God massively doing miraculous acts to help everyone who would be hurt by “natural evil”). First of all, let me present a solid definition of uniformitarianism (a key notion in my argument). Wikipedia does a good job:

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It refers to invariance in the metaphysical principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of cause and effect throughout space-time, but has also been used to describe spatiotemporal invariance of physical laws. Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, some consider that uniformitarianism should be a required first principle in scientific research.

Here is my argument in a slightly abridged form, from my article, originally titled, “Christian Replies to the Argument From Evil (Free Will Defense): Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?” It was itself drawn from a chapter of my 2002 book, Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism:

II. NATURAL EVIL AND NATURAL LAWS

Critics object that the free will defense (FWD) doesn’t address natural evils (things such as disease, earthquakes, famine, falling off a mountain, etc.), thus it is insufficient, and fails. This isn’t true at all. FWD doesn’t have to address natural evils because these are a necessary consequence of natural laws themselves. For example:

1. Rocks are hard.

2. Gravity exists.

3. Human faces, after a significant fall due to gravity, do not mix very well with rocks (assuming they happen to sit at the bottom of the fall).

4. The “natural evil” of a crushed skull or broken nose and severe scrapes may, therefore, occur.

Logical conclusion(s):

A. #1-3 are all natural laws (physics, chemistry, and biochemistry).

B. Natural laws are such (by their very nature, and given physical objects) that “injuries” and “annihilations” will inevitably occur.

C. Therefore, “natural evil” (insofar as the term makes any sense at all – it simply reduces to “unfortunate natural events”) is a necessary result of natural laws.

D. Therefore, to eliminate so-called “natural evil” is tantamount to the elimination of natural laws of matter, energy, etc. themselves.

E. Ergo: since elimination of natural laws would produce a chaotic, utterly unpredictable and formless world, this cannot be a possibility in the natural world as we know it; therefore the entire objection to this “absence” in FWD fails utterly.

Natural disasters are a necessary result of natural laws as we currently know them, and this is the real world, not one of the fantasy worlds atheists sometimes invent in order to maintain their rejection of theism, on these grounds. God could have changed these laws and made them operate some other way. But He didn’t.

Unfortunately, natural laws as we know them involve decay and death. Everyone dies; we all get a “disease” in that sense. To have no disease and illness would mean being immortal and never having to age, decay or die. But cells, unfortunately, degenerate. Galaxies, stars, and universes all eventually “die.” So does biological life (much more quickly). That’s just how it is. The universe is winding down, and so is every one of us.

It is said that God could and should have performed many more miracles than Christians say He performs, to alleviate “unnecessary” suffering. But this is precisely what a natural world with laws and a uniformitarian principle precludes from the outset. How is it that the atheist can (in their hypothetical theories and arguments against Christianity) imagine all sorts of miracles and supernatural events that God should have done when it comes to evil and the FWD? “God should do this,” “He should have done that,” “I could have done much better than God did,” . . .

Yet when it comes to natural science (which is precisely what we are talking about, in terms of ”natural evil”), all of a sudden none of this is plausible (barely even possible) at all. Why is that? Legions of materialistic, naturalistic, and/or atheist scientists and their intellectual followers won’t allow the slightest miracle or direct divine intervention (not even in terms of intelligent design within the evolutionary hypothesis) with regard to the origin of life or DNA or mammals, or the human brain or eye, or even unique psychological/mental traits which humans possess.

Why would this be? I submit that it is because they have an extreme reluctance to introduce the miraculous when the natural can conceivably explain anything. They will resist any supernatural intervention into biological processes till their dying breath.

Yet when we switch the conversation over to FWD all of a sudden atheists — almost in spite of themselves – are introducing “superior” supernatural options for God to exercise, right and left. God is supposed to eliminate all disease, even though they are inevitable (even “normative”) according to the laws of biology as we know them. God is supposed to transform the entire structure of the laws of physics, so no one will ever get a scratch on their face. He is supposed to suspend a bullet in mid-air so it won’t kill its intended target, or make a knife turn to liquid before it rips into the flesh of yet another murder victim.

In the world these atheist critics demand of God, if He is to be a “good” God, or to exist at all, according to their exalted criteria, no one should ever have to get a corn on their toe, or a pimple, or have to blow their nose, or have chapped lips. God should turn rocks into Jello every time a child is to fall on one. Cars should turn into silly putty or steam or cellophane when they are about to crash. The sexually promiscuous should have their sexual diseases immediately healed so that no one else will catch them, and so that they can go on their merry way, etc.

Clearly, these sorts of critics find “plausible” whatever opposes theism and Christianity, no matter what the subject is; no matter how contradictory and far-fetched such arguments are, compared to their attacks against other portions of the Christian apologetic or theistic philosophical defenses. Otherwise, they would argue consistently and accept the natural world as it is, rather than adopting a desperate, glaring logical double standard.

In effect, then, if we follow their reasoning, the entire universe becomes an Alice in Wonderland fantasy-land where man is at the center. This is the Anthropic Principle! Atheists then in effect demand from God the very things they claim to loathe when they are arguing against theism on other grounds. Man must be at the center of the universe and suffer no harm, in order for theism to be true. Miracles must take place here, there, and everywhere, if theism is to be accepted as a plausible or superior alternative to atheism.

The same atheists will argue till they’re blue in the face against demonstrable miracles such as Jesus’ Resurrection. What they demand in order to accept Christianity they are never willing to accept when in fact it occurs to any degree (say, e.g., the healings performed by Jesus). God is not bound by human whims and fancies and demands. The proofs and evidences He has already provided are summarily rejected by atheists, one-by-one, as never “good enough.”

Atheists and other skeptics seem to want to go to any lengths of intellectual inconsistency and hostility in order to preserve their skepticism. They refuse to bow down to God unless He creates an entirely different world, in order to conform to their ultimately illogical imaginings and excessive, absurd requests for what He should have done. They’re consistent in their inconsistency.

By definition, the natural world entails suffering. One doesn’t eliminate that “difficulty” simply by resorting to a hypothetical fantasy-world where God eliminates every suffering by recourse to miracle and suspension of the natural laws He put into place.

The natural world can’t modify itself every time someone stubs their toe or gets a sunburn. That would require infinitely more miracles than any Christian claims have occurred. With a natural world and natural laws, any number of diseases are bound to occur. One could stay out in the cold too long and get pneumonia. Oh, so atheists want God – if He exists – to immediately cure every disease that comes about?

Again, the miraculous, by definition, is not the normative. It is the extraordinary, rare event. I might stay underwater too long, swallow water, and damage my lungs. I could fall while ice skating, bump my head severely and damage my brain. I might eat a poisonous mushroom, or get stung by a poisonous snake, etc., etc. That’s how the world works. It is not God’s fault; it is the nature of things, and the things of nature.

In an orderly, uniformitarian, largely predictable natural world which makes any sense at all, there will be diseases, torn ligaments, colds, and so forth. The question then becomes: “how much is too much suffering?” or “how many miracles is God required to perform to be a good and just God?” At that point the atheist can, of course, give no substantive, non-arbitrary answer, and his outlook is reduced to wishful thinking and pipe dreams.

Materialistic evolutionists resist miraculous creation at all costs precisely because they think miracles are exceedingly rare. Christians apply the same outlook to reality-at-large. We say that miracles will be very infrequent, by their very nature (“SUPERnatural”). And that must be the case so that the world is orderly and predictable enough to comfortably live in, in the first place.

The many atheists with whom I discussed this subject (I was on a list with some 40-60 atheists or agnostics) didn’t really deal at all with the difficulties inherent in making a world where there is not even any “natural evil.” All they did was imagine a world in which there was no suffering (which is easy enough for anyone to do, but extremely simplistic and not exactly a rigorously philosophical approach). They did not ponder all the logical – even physical – conundrums such a world would entail.

A small child could opine that the world ought not to have any suffering whatever. But an adult has the responsibility to properly think through all the ramifications of that. He no longer has the luxury of the child, to create fairy-tales at his whim and fancy, about reality.

[end of article]

Bottom line: if science, which has brought about tremendous benefits for mankind, is to be possible in the first place, one must adopt the notion of uniformitarianism. But once one does that, then the argument within the problem of evil question that demands God alleviate all suffering and every individual instance of it (lest He be either weak or non-loving) falls flat.

Put another way: if we want science, we have to have a predictable, uniformitarian natural world. And if we have that, it’s virtually impossible to imagine that all the suffering brought about by “natural evil” can be eliminated by massive, constant miracles brought about by God.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: aebopleidingen (11-11-15) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Atheists argue that God should eliminate all suffering: even that caused by natural laws & events. But the principle of uniformitarianism makes this implausible.

 

2022-01-22T15:30:44-04:00

[originally posted on my blog on 27 January 2006: which was Mozart’s 250th birthday, to the day]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) is (needless to say, but I will anyway) of inestimable importance to the world of music and western culture. Those of us who have a musical background all grew up with his music. My sister Judy [who sadly passed away in 2020 and who would have turned 70 on this day that I am re-posting this article] played his famous Rondo alla Turca endlessly on the piano back in the mid-60s (I listened to it today to celebrate the birthday), while I often played (and immensely enjoyed) one of the famous sonatas in the piano books (I don’t recall the opus; any pianist will know which one I mean, I’m sure).

I reached the height of my piano career in 1970 at age 12, with Chopin’s Minute Waltz (I botched the correct fingering terribly, but managed to barrel through the piece with some semblance of respectability). But alas, my classical piano days ended in 1971, when my sister moved and took the piano with her. After that I concentrated, over the next five years, on trombone in junior high and high school orchestra and band.

Once I got to high school, I discovered what is probably my favorite Mozart piece, Horn Concerto No. 1 in D, K. 412 (from 1782), which is playing on my turntable (yes, turntable!) as I write (Barry Tuckwell with the Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, conducted by Neville Marriner, Angel EMI S-36840, 1972). I once went to a Tuckwell recital in Orchestra Hall in Detroit. [Tuckwell died in 2020] An acquaintance of mine played the solo horn part with my high school orchestra, shortly before I joined it myself. He was very good (as were many at my public school, Cass Technical High in Detroit, which is renowned nationwide for its music program, and offers vocational and avocational music majors — the latter was my choice), and, last I checked, was teaching French horn at some respectable musical establishment somewhere.

Another person who played cello in our orchestra (Paul Wingert), played in the Detroit Symphony Orchestra [recently retired, in 2020, after 41 years]. Many of my musical friends in high school are professional musicians now, while I became a Catholic and a writer. Back in 1976, I would have thought I had more chance to become an astronaut or ballet dancer than that! I didn’t have the slightest idea what I would do with my life. I was scarcely a Christian at all, let alone a Catholic (which would come 14 years after that time).

But those days playing music in ensemble are some of the very fondest memories of my life. It was fabulous, and should be experienced by any young person who loves music. I took lessons on trombone from the first chair in the DSO, and later actually played Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture with them. Our brass section was invited to play during the finale. We came rising up out of the pit in front of the stage, blasting away, to the tremendous acclaim of the young crowd (I think it was one of those days where school kids visited the symphony). What a thrill!

My first job (if you can call it that) was as an usher at the Detroit Symphony concerts. I think we got $5.00, plus, of course, the free concert. Shortly afterwards, Antal Dorati became the musical director, and began with a series of Beethoven concerts (that being 1977: the 150th anniversary of Beethoven’s death). I was able to get in for free, as a former usher (which was good, as I had little money), and heard most of the symphonies and got to meet the maestro, too. I had read biographies of Beethoven as a child, and was always fascinated by him. I also thoroughly enjoyed whatever Mahler symphonies were played (he’s my third favorite composer after Wagner and Beethoven).

But enough of all that (little-known facts about the early life of a Catholic apologist . . .): today is Mozart‘s birthday. I thought it would be interesting to note a few myths about Mozart, from Wikipedia, in honor of the occasion:

Mozart’s final illness and death are difficult topics of scholarship, obscured by romantic legends and replete with conflicting theories. Scholars disagree about the course of decline in Mozart’s health—particularly at what point Mozart became aware of his impending death and whether this awareness influenced his final works. The romantic view holds that Mozart declined gradually and that his outlook and compositions paralleled this decline. In opposition to this, some contemporary scholarship points out correspondence from Mozart’s final year indicating that he was in good cheer, as well as evidence that Mozart’s death was sudden and a shock to his family and friends. The actual cause of Mozart’s death is also a matter of conjecture. His death record listed “hitziges Frieselfieber” (“severe military fever”), a description that does not suffice to identify the cause as it would be diagnosed in modern medicine. Dozens of theories have been proposed, including trichinosis, mercury poisoning, and rheumatic fever. The contemporary practice of bleeding medical patients is also cited as a contributing cause.

. . . According to popular legend, Mozart was penniless and forgotten when he died, and was buried in a pauper’s grave. In fact, though he was no longer as fashionable in Vienna as before, he continued to have a well-paid job at court and receive substantial commissions from more distant parts of Europe, Prague in particular. Many of his begging letters survive but they are evidence not so much of poverty as of his habit of spending more than he earned. He was not buried in a “mass grave” but in a regular communal grave according to the 1784 laws.

Mozart is unusual among composers for being the subject of an abundance of legend, much due to the problem that none of his early biographers knew him personally. They often resorted to fiction in order to produce a work. Many myths began soon after Mozart died, but few have any basis in fact. An example is the story that Mozart composed his Requiem with the belief it was for himself. Sorting out fabrications from real events is a vexing and continuous task for Mozart scholars mainly because of the prevalence of legend in scholarship. Dramatists and screenwriters, free from responsibilities of scholarship, have found excellent material among these legends.

An especially popular case is the supposed rivalry between Mozart and Antonio Salieri, and, in some versions, the tale that it was poison received from the latter that caused Mozart’s death; this is the subject of Aleksandr Pushkin’s play Mozart and Salieri, Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera Mozart and Salieri, and Peter Shaffer’s play Amadeus. The last of these has been made into a feature-length film of the same name, which won eight Oscars. Shaffer’s play attracted criticism for portraying Mozart as vulgar and loutish, a characterization felt by many to be unfairly exaggerated.

According to an essay by A. Peter Brown, “the Mozart mania of the 1980s was initiated by Peter Shaffer’s play Amadeus. It and the subsequent film directed by Milos Forman did more for Mozart’s case than anything else in the two hundred years since the composer’s death.” The same could be said of the popular myths currently surrounding Mozart, many of which are firmly rooted in the film.

However, Shaffer and Forman have never claimed that Amadeus was based in fact, as pointed out by Shaffer himself: “From the start we agreed on one thing: we were not making an objective Life of Wolfgang Mozart. This cannot be stressed too strongly. Obviously Amadeus on stage was never intended to be a documentary biography of the composer, and the film is even less of one.”

Shaffer and Forman are equally quick to defend elements of the film which they believe are accurate but are disputed by Mozart historians. Shaffer has detailed in many interviews, including one featured as an extra on the DVD release of the film, how the dramatic narrative was inspired by the biblical story of Cain and Abel—one brother loved by God, and the other scorned. Transcribed as creative rivalry between Mozart and Salieri, the notion of divine blessing and murderous jealousy provides the basic premise for Amadeus, although there is no historical evidence of any rivalry between the two composers. Conversely, it is well documented that Salieri frequently lent Mozart musical scores from the court library, and Mozart selected Salieri to teach his son, Franz Xaver. One of the more detailed essays on the “dramatic licenses” present in Amadeus is written by Gregory Allen Robbins, titled “Mozart & Salieri, Cain & Abel: A Cinematic Transformation of Genesis 4”.

. . . It has been speculated that Mozart suffered from Tourette syndrome. . . .

***

What about the Catholic faith of Mozart? Music writer David Wright, in some concert notes, stated: “Certainly the letters of those two composers [Bach and Mozart] are full of references to their (respectively) Lutheran and Roman Catholic faith.” One music website opined:

Later generations, in their fervor for the only “true church music,” have found Mozart to be wanting in the requisite seriousness and lacking, with respect to his membership in a Masonic lodge, a genuine attachment to the Roman Catholic faith. Surely this is unjust: Mozart used the Masonic lodge primarily to cultivate his social contacts (and to secure many a loan from his fellow Masons), and the accusations of superficiality and lack of commitment are completely unfounded.

Liane Ellison Norman wrote a review [no longer available online] of the book, Mozart and the Enlightenment: Truth, Virtue and Beauty in Mozart’s Operas (W.W. Norton & Company, 1992), by Nicholas Till, in the non-Catholic Christian periodical Sojourners (May 1994):

Till . . . concludes that Mozart was “one of the most penetrating intellects of his age, and…undoubtedly one of the great religious artists of Western culture.” . . .

Shaffer and Foreman made Mozart into a sort of giggling rock star whose glorious music was both peerless and timeless. Till describes an altogether different figure. . . .

Because the German Enlightenment largely repudiated religious music in its attempt to rid society of superstition and the power of the church, Mozart had relatively few opportunities to express his faith in religious music. Mozart thought of his talent as a gift from God and his work as a duty to God. His operas, Till thinks, work out his understanding of a Christian God in the context of real life.

Beginning with The Marriage of Figaro, Till suggests, Mozart worked on operas in pairs, trying to resolve problems posed by the Enlightenment in terms of his own sense of the continuity and values of his religious faith. Figaro, a play by the French dramatist Beaumarchais, was considered offensive by the emperor: In it a pair of servants are both morally superior to and smarter than their aristocratic employers. . . .

Mozart explored what the legal equality necessary for making contracts like marriage entailed. While affirming marriage, Mozart drew on his understanding of the Catholic doctrine of forgiveness. His “Christian Enlightenment recognizes that society can only operate effectively if human beings are also able both to apologize and to forgive….that only those who are willing to pardon others can hope for ultimate pardon for themselves.” Forgiveness implies a different kind of contract, fidelity and sympathy of a more spiritual kind, than that any legal system recognizes.

All of Mozart’s operas, according to Till, “deal with the theme of ultimate forgiveness…charting a passage from transgression of some sort to forgiveness….In [Figaro] theological grace becomes truly immanent.” The plot moves on the popular theme of a woman’s constancy, which “has the power to redeem the unsettled, improvident male worlds of business and politics with its promise of transcendent certainty and ultimate forgiveness.” . . .

In Don Giovanni, literal damnation is a sign that Mozart was not prepared to abandon the ultimate sanction of Christian belief for the secularist’s confidence that nature can be regulated by gardens or contracts.

Don Giovanni is an unreflective sensualist, whose freedom is used to satisfy his appetites. He rapes, murders, violates the bonds of marriage, seducing women casually and indiscriminately and boasting of their numbers. Contracts have no meaning for the Don, because he breaks his promises just as casually. He ignores class distinction, regarding all women as the same, and thus destroys the distinctions among individuals. . . .

The question for Mozart, says Till, was “how can Don Giovanni be stopped?”

Dimitrios Markatos, who runs a website about Brahms [no longer online], offers some marvelous particular evidence of Mozart’s deep faith, along with that of other composers, especially Beethoven:

Two of the greatest composers in all of history, Beethoven and Mozart, consoled to God as a child does with his earthly father to whom he confides all his joys as well as sorrows. They stood toward God in the relationship of a child full of trust in his father. God was to Beethoven the Supreme Being whom he had jubilantly hymned in the choral portion of the Ninth Symphony in the words of Schiller, “Brothers, beyond yon starry canopy there must dwell a living Father.” He was through and through a religious man, as Mozart was. . . . they knew God and sought after Him. Beethoven, in his diary wrote: “He who is above, – O, He is, and without Him there is nothing.” As concerns Religion, he said: “Religion and thorough-bass are settled things concerning which there should be no disputing.” The ways of God were ever-present with him at all times, which inspired him to quote in his diary, “In praise of Thy goodness I must confess that Thou didst try with all Thy means to draw me to Thee. Sometimes it pleased Thee to let me feel the heavy hand of Thy displeasure and to humiliate my proud heart by manifold castigations. Sickness and misfortune didst Thou send upon me to turn my thoughts to my errantries. – One thing, only, O Father, do I ask: cease not to labor for my betterment. In whatsoever manner it be, let me turn to Thee and become fruitful in good works.” In is of no coincidence that this proclamation by Beethoven is also stated and verified in the Bible “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Ps. 139:23-24). This is the profound effect God and His divine word had on Beethoven. It’s no wonder or some random luck that he’s a supreme genius, either.

The eternally pious Mozart, had a cheery temperament which made it virtually impossible that his religious life should be as profound as that of Beethoven, but nonetheless he was still intensely devout. Mozart being a very religious person, disliked anyone who wasn’t. In regard to them, he wrote to his father, saying: “…in a word I do not trust them. Friends who have no religion are not stable.” Mozart personally knew God, and was greatly inspired by Him in his life and in his music (which attests that fact immeasurably), which in turn made him to say to his earthly father: “…I live with God ever before me. I recognize His omnipotence, I fear His anger; I acknowledge His love, too, His compassion and mercy towards all His creatures; He will never desert those who serve Him. If matters go according to His will they go according to mine; consequently nothing can go wrong, – I must be satisfied and happy.” Furthermore, he wrote, at another time, to his father, saying: “Moreover take assurance that I certainly am religious, and if I should ever have the misfortune (which God will forefend) to go astray, I shall acquit you, best of fathers, from all blame. I alone would be the scoundrel; to you I owe all my spiritual and temporal welfare and salvation.”

Beethoven, Mozart and the other great masters, didn’t need to physically see God to realize His reality. The ever-inspired Beethoven observed: “God is immaterial, and for this reason transcends every conception. Since He is invisible He can have no form. But from what we observe in His work we may conclude that He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.”  To further proclaim Beethoven’s humility before God, at one point, a copyist of his, Rampel, obsequiously addressed Beethoven as “gracious Sir,” to this Beethoven replied “Go to the devil with your ‘gracious Sir!’ There is only one who can be called gracious, and that is God.” This is who God is and what He does, and the impact He has on all true geniuses who are inspired by Him. Again, Johannes Brahms knew this of God, and said that God’s “Spirit cannot be defined, but we can appropriate it,”23 just as they attained, and look at what they have bestowed us with. The great Brahms, further added: “You see, the powers from which all truly great composers like Mozart, Schubert, Bach and Beethoven drew their inspiration is the same power that enabled Jesus to work His miracles. We call it God, Omnipotence, Divinity, the Creator, etc.”

In like manner, Brahms was asked: “Dr. Brahms, how do you contact Omnipotence? Most people find Him aloof.” “That is a great question,” Brahms replied. “It cannot be done merely by will power working through the conscious mind, which is an evolutionary product of the physical realm and perishes with the body. It can only be accomplished by the soul-powers within – the real ego that survives bodily death. Those powers are quiescent to the conscious mind unless illumined by [God’s] Spirit. Now Jesus taught us that God is Spirit, and He also said, ‘I and my Father are one’ (Jn. 10:30). To realize that we are one with the Creator, incidentally as Beethoven did, where he said, ‘I know God is nearer to me than others in my craft. I consort to Him without fear,’ is a awe-inspiring experience. Very few human beings ever came into that realization and that is why there are so few great composers or creative geniuses in any line of human endeavor. I always contemplate all this before commencing to compose. This is the first step.” And after realizing all this, then, as he so well put it, said: “Straightaway the ideas flow in upon me, directly from God…” Then Brahms was asked to further clarify what he meant, “Just what is your process in appropriating it [God’s Spirit]? You must have some definite attitude towards that Power but what I wish to know is how you contact it?” And the ever-inspired Brahms replied: “Well, first of all, I know that that Power exists. You cannot appropriate unless you believe that it is a real living Power, and the source of our being” (Heb. 11:6).25 That is the profound understanding and insight, which so few are unable to comprehend nor grasp. The affect that God has in our entire completeness and of our progressive culmination towards perfection under His inspiration. The inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit acting influence upon the ones who acknowledge Him, and therefore in turn produce divinely inspired treasures. Thus, God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him (Acts 5:32). As Beethoven did, in knowing so declared that his ideas came from God. He knew quite well the source of his genius, as do all the composers that I have and will mention. Again, there is no coincidence – none! (“The Great Presence and Inspiring Effect of God in Man’s Life”)

Markatos also notes the strong religious faith of Haydn, Bach, Handel, Richard Strauss, Edward Grieg, and Giacomo Puccini. He concludes near the end:

The music of these profound masters speak louder than anything else, in defense of Theism. Think of all the timeless masterpieces we would have been deprived of, if they were atheists. And don’t think they didn’t come across any. Mozart (as we said earlier) who was like his father, a man of sincere piety, absolutely abhorred atheism. Mozart, who when he heard of Voltaire’s (an atheist) death, wrote to his father, saying: “Now I give you a piece of news which perhaps you know already; that godless fellow and arch-rascal, Voltaire, is dead – died like a dog, like a beast. That is his reward.”

Just one correction: Voltaire was not an atheist, as commonly supposed. I’m pretty sure (without double-checking at the moment) that he was a theist, but vehemently opposed to the Catholic Church and institutional Christianity. The same was true of Hume, Paine, and Rousseau: also often thought by many to be atheists. I once shocked a philosophy professor with the proof about Hume (quite easy to discover with just a little checking). That just shows the needless ignorance about these matters, which reigns in academia.

On a humorous note; I just heard on the radio, which is broadcasting from Mozart’s birthplace, Salzburg, Austria, and ringing the bells in celebration (they started right after I finished writing this), the following delightful little story:

A young child who was learning music wrote to Mozart asking if he could teach him how to write a symphony. Mozart wrote back, “a symphony is a very complicated piece of work. Perhaps you should try something a little simpler at first.” The persistent child wrote back, “but Herr Mozart, you wrote a symphony when you were eight years’ old!” Mozart replied again, “but I didn’t have to ask anyone how to do it.”

Indeed. I heard a lovely, very beautiful and moving piece of Mozart music on the radio yesterday. I was wondering what it was, and afterwards they said that he wrote it when he was 15 years old. What an amazing genius this devout Catholic man was. Happy birthday once again to the glorious Mozart: great witness of God’s gifts and beauty. May he rest in peace, and above all, let us give thanks and praise to a God who will bless us with artistic giants like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Dante, Raphael, and Shakespeare (all Catholic, save for Bach).

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: “Hagenauer portrait” of Mozart: discovered in 2004 and determined by rigorous analysis to be authentic. [web page: “A new portrait of W.A.Mozart from the mid-1780s”]

***

Summary: Reflections on the deep and pious Catholic faith of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: widely considered one of the greatest composers of all time, if not the greatest.

 

2021-12-30T16:17:15-04:00

Justin is a Seventh-Day Adventist. His words (from a combox on my blog) will be in blue.

*****

Ecclesia just means assembly or congregation, all examples of church in the NT are little c-churches.

This is sheer nonsense (and an extraordinarily ignorant thing for any serious student of the Bible to assert):

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

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,

1 Corinthians 11:22 . . . do you despise the church of God . . .?

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Galatians 1:13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it;

Ephesians 1:22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,

Ephesians 3:10, 21 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. . . . [21] to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.

Ephesians 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [24] As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, . . . [27] that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. . . . [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;

Philippians 3:6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Holy Scripture says we are one “body” in Christ, it doesn’t say we are one church in Christ.

This is nonsense as well, because St. Paul writes:

Colossians 1:18, 24 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. . . . [24] Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

In other words, the Body of Christ = “the Church.” Therefore, if there is “one body in Christ” (Rom 12:5) and this “body” is “the Church” (Col 1:18, 24), then there is one Church in Christ also, by simple logic (a = b, therefore if a = c, b also = c). The Church is also called the “body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12).

The Bible states that Paul persecuted the Church, and Jesus Himself equates that with persecuting Himself (since the Church is the Body of Christ):

Acts 9:4-5 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” [5] And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;

Jesus also referred to “my Church” when He commissioned Peter to be the leader of it (the first pope):

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

The Roman Catholics high jacked [sic] the term Ecclesia to refer to an organisation rather than to people (Protestants have kept the same terminology usage because it is now part of the vernacular but it’s not biblical in its meaning)

The claim that Catholics have perverted the biblical meaning of “church” is the exact opposite of the truth. It’s Protestants and your own Adventists who have done so. But many Protestants still refer to “the Church” because it is an undeniable NT concept. They just deny that it is institutional, historical, founded on apostolic and papal succession, centered in Rome, and infallible and indefectible, as the Bible teaches.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: user32212 (1-23-18). [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Seventh-Day Adventist disputes the use of “the Church” in the New Testament, referring to an institutional organization, founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter.

 

 

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives