2021-05-21T12:40:23-04:00

Last updated on: May 21, 2021 at 12:40 pm   By

And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?

This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good friend of mine who is a Byzantine Catholic priest, and my co-author of the book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (3rd revised edition: July 2015, 335 pages). His words will be in blue. He likely has more to say. If so, that will be  added to this dialogue.

*****

[for background, read Acts 15]

Saint Peter did not preside at the council of Jerusalem.

Ah, east and west. Here is the argument for St. Peter presiding, as I understand it, from a 2017 article of mine (some repetition from the above and some new elements, too):
*
From Acts 15, we learn that “after there was much debate, Peter rose” to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter’s exposition, speaking about “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what “Simeon [Peter] has related” (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter’s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the “host.”
St. Peter indeed had already received a relevant revelation, related to the council. God gave him a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). St. Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).
*
This was the secondary decision of the Jerusalem Council, and Peter referred to his experiences with the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15:7-11). The council then decided — with regard to food –, to prohibit only that which “has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled” (15:29).
*
Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore expands upon this:
*
Jerusalem Council: Orthodox or Catholic style of council?
So, did the Jerusalem Council operate like the Orthodox model of an Ecumenical council? Or rather like the Catholic model? Here’s how it worked:
*
The bishops met TO EXAMINE the matter. They DEBATED.
*
Then, Peter — after listening to the debate — gave HIS TEACHING (vox Petros).
*
After this, the Council FALLS SILENT (a la, the Tome of Leo).
*
Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter’s teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in the Immaculate Conception dogma backed up by the miracles at Lourdes).
*
And, thereafter, James gives a ruling. And, THIS is the only thing that seems unCatholic to some.
*
However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage — meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.
*
So, why does James speak?
*
We think there are three reasons:
*
He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor.
*
What he says, he …like Paul and Barnabas …ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God…” etc.
*
And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes:
*
“Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.’
*
They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says:
*
“It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”
*
Who was “troubling” the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas.  Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to.
*
So again, the Council of Jerusalem was not an Ecumenical Council by Byzantine Orthodox definition. Rather, it was COMPLETELY based on the Petrine teaching office: the magisterium of the Church.
*
Thanks for the reply. Here is what I just posted on my page.
*
DID ST PETER PRESIDE OVER THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM?
*
This to me is an interesting and important question in part because it highlights the importance of Petrine primacy in support of local or regional primacy. Here I defer to Pope St John Paul II:
*
“The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.” – Ut Unum Sint, #97
*
It is simply an anachronistic reading to say that Peter “presided” over the Council, when in fact (as the Pope references) he spoke in the name of the apostolic community and in service to the unity of the brethren, while respecting the authority of James. What authority was that? To preside over the Council as the head of the local Church in Jerusalem.
*
I certainly agree with Petrine primacy and believe that this is a model for how it can and should function – in service to unity and to the strengthening of the local and regional authority of bishops, not in presiding over every activity, including Synodal activities.
*
Fr. Daniel,
*
I think we are basically quibbling over the meaning of “preside.” I used it in a way to mean that Peter had the greater overall authority. But it can also be used to denote administrative or procedural authority or in the sense of the “local bishop presiding over his own jurisdiction.” St. James did the latter (I agree; I don’t think anyone disagrees about that). But Peter had more authority overall. I don’t see that this disagrees at all with what Pope St. John Paul II wrote (Peter represents the apostles while James is Bishop of Jerusalem).
*
Mark Bonocore wrote in another part of his article that I didn’t cite: “It is interesting to note that, in Acts 15, Peter does not act as a bishop of a see. Rather, he is merely a visitor. Yet, his Petrine office and teaching authority are in place — even over the resident reigning bishop (James).”
I agree.
*
I think another issue is what we view the Jerusalem Council as representing (as a prototype or analogy). There is a sense in which it was a local council and also by analogy, the prototype of what was to become the ecumenical council. It’s the only example of a council (after Pentecost) in the NT that we have. And so if we are to learn about the nature of an ecumenical council in the NT, this is it. I believe that we could find statements from popes and theologians expressing this analogy.
*
Thus, in the “prototype of ecumenical councils” model, Peter would obviously ultimately preside. But in the “local council” perspective it would be James.
*
Is it only a local council, though? I say that it clearly wasn’t, because its decision (about circumcision and clean food requirements) was binding thereafter on the entire Church: not just Jerusalem (which would be the case in a merely local council).
*
Hence, Paul pronounces the decision as binding upon the Christians in all the cities he was visiting in Asia Minor [Turkey] (Acts 16:4). Therefore, the Jerusalem Council is more a model of an ecumenical council, in my opinion: because of who is affected by its decision (the entire Church). If we say that a local bishop presided over a decision that affected the entire universal Church all through history, I think that is a mix-up of categories and makes little sense. But if we view Peter as “presiding” in the sense of ultimate authority and the issuance of the central proclamation, then it makes more sense of a universal decision being presided over by the universal bishop.
*
It might be objected that with regard to the Deuterocanon, local councils were originally the ones that declared it. But those were ratified by the pope. Thus, for the rulings of the Jerusalem Council to be universally binding, would they not have to be “ratified” by the first pope, Peter (whether he technically “presided” in the sense that we agree James did or not)? I think so.
*
Moreover, by further analogy (can you tell that I love that sort of argument?), the book of Acts, prior to this council, had already presented Peter as overwhelmingly preeminent in the early apostolic Church:
*
1) Peter’s name occurs first in a list of the apostles (Acts 1:13; cf. 2:37).
2) Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
3) Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).
4) Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
5) Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
6) Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
7) Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
8 ) Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
9) Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
10) Peter is the first [named] person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
11) Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
12) Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
13) Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
14) Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).
15) The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
16) Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
17) Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”
18 ) Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
19) Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
20) Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).
21) Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
22) Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.
*
So — again, by analogy — when we get to the Jerusalem Council isn’t it plausible to ALSO think that Peter had the greatest authority? Whether James presided as local bishop doesn’t affect Peter’s overall authority as pope and head of the universal Church. And he exercised that at this council, by delivering the central and definitive message. In the first part of Ut Unum Sint #97, Pope St. John Paul II also wrote:
*
The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith.
*
I will come back to this later, but for now let me only say that I think we need to consider a couple of points.
*
First, to preside at a council even if it is simply a council in seed form is to preside over an act of the magisterium – in this particular case and apostolic magisterium. I don’t think we should reduce the role of James to purely an administrative one when in fact very clearly he speaks for the whole council and renders an authoritative judgment in the name of all present.
*
Second, I think the issue of who has more authority is really an attempt to read into a narrative a concern that is not being answered or addressed by the narrative. It is essentially to ask the question – what if James had disagreed with Peter, could he have rendered a different judgment? Such a notion would have really been foreign to the concerns or spirit of the apostolic age, so again I think what we have here is an anachronistic reading addressing later theological concerns. I’m not saying it is entirely illegitimate, nor am I saying that James would or could have disagreed with Peter at this point. I think he rightfully identifies this act of the council as a work of the Holy Spirit.
*
All that being said, I do not disagree with the importance of Peter’s role and his authority in all of this, although there is a definite shift in focus from Peter to Paul in the book of Acts. But I do not believe that it can be said that he (Peter) is presiding over this council and I think the Pope is pointing this out, Nor do I see the necessity of arguing that he is presiding here in order to support Petrine primacy as I indicated.
*
I don’t think I’m being “anachronistic” at all, though it’s possible: more on that below. I’m simply analyzing a “primitive” instance of ecclesiastical / ecclesiological matters that obviously highly developed through the centuries.
*
We have to actually address the biblical texts involved and exegete them to have this discussion, no? I have presented (rightly or wrongly) many dozens of them.
*
The Bible is not gonna offer a full-fledged, fully developed ecclesiology: however we construe what that is. That’s why I speak of models and prototypes and analogies, because the ecclesiology of Latin Catholicism or Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy (or any form of Protestantism) will not be seen in its fullness in Scripture.
*
I have no problem whatsoever with the jurisdiction of each bishop in his own See. James presided in that sense. That’s Catholic teaching. But it’s a question about who has more authority over a council whose decisions were interpreted by no less than St. Paul as having essentially universal binding application.
*
The Jerusalem Council occurred as the Church was just starting to determine how it would run itself. It had elements of being a local council, and also (I would say, much stronger) elements of being the prototype of an ecumenical council. I think that’s why we can have these two somewhat differing interpretations, that I actually think aren’t far apart at all.
*
We both bring the bias of eastern and western ecclesiology in how we approach and exegete the text (let’s not fool ourselves). If I have a bias leading to “anachronism” so do you, just as much, I respectfully submit. You will tend to sort of regard Peter as relatively less authoritative, just as I will tend to view him as more so. And so we observe that in our respective arguments. All the more necessity to exegete the actual texts more deeply . . .
*
But (it may surprise you to learn, though it shouldn’t), I have argued (in an article for National Catholic Register) that the Jerusalem Council was quite democratic and almost egalitarian (thus more “Eastern” and not at all “ultramontanist”) in the way in which it reached its conclusion:
*
[T]he Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:
*
Acts 15:2 . . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Acts 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, . . .
Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, . . .
Acts 15:23. . . “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia, . . .
Acts 16:4 . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.
*
“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).
*
What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It’s not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that “bishops and the pope [and non-bishop theological advisers] gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.” We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.
*
But we don’t know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It’s the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).
*
St. Peter worked within that framework, in a council presided over by James (in the sense I have agreed with), but he still provided the central rationale for the decision and in that sense exercised ultimate and universal (and “theological”) authority. He functioned as the foremost interpreter of past religious practice and beliefs (even more than St. Paul: for whom I also have a very strong bias in the overall scheme of things). He worked together with other apostles and elders, just as popes have habitually done (as I have argued many times).
*
Dom Bernard Orchard (Catholic Commentary, 1953) offers some interesting insights:
*
7. Perhaps 6 describes a private meeting, during which ‘there had been much debate’, and now St Peter announces the result to the multitude. Be that as it may, he speaks with an authority that all accept, and by re-stating his decision in the case of Cornelius, implies that the question should not have been re-opened. . . .
*
19. From St James’ ‘I judge’ it has been argued that he and not St Peter had the first position, but a word cannot prevail against the context, so favourable, here, as in the rest of Ac, to the Petrine primacy. The phrase bears a very different interpretation. ‘For which cause’, in view of Simon’s action in the case of Cornelius, and of the prophecy, ‘I’, without wishing to engage others, ‘judge’, am of opinion, a usual sense of the Gk κρίνω, and one found often in Ac, ‘that the Gentile converts are not to be disquieted’. St James shows why he adheres to the decision which has already been given by Peter on the point at issue. He then puts forward a practical suggestion, which so far from being a decree of his own, is expressly attributed to the Apostles and presbyters who adopted it, 15:28; 16:4.
*
Navarre Commentary adds:
*
6–21. The hierarchical Church, consisting of the Apostles and elders or priests, now meets to study and decide whether baptized Gentiles are obliged or not to be circumcised and to keep the Old Law. This is a question of the utmost importance to the young Christian Church and the answer to it has to be absolutely correct. Under the leadership of St. Peter, the meeting deliberates at length, but it is not going to devise a new truth or new principles: all it does is, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to provide a correct interpretation of God’s promises and commandments regarding the salvation of men and the way in which Gentiles can enter the New Israel.
*
This meeting is seen as the first general council of the Church, that is, the prototype of the series of councils of which the Second Vatican Council is the most recent. Thus, the Council of Jerusalem displays the same features as the later ecumenical councils in the history of the Church: a) it is a meeting of the rulers of the entire Church, not of ministers of one particular place; b) it promulgates rules which have binding force for all Christians; c) the content of its decrees deals with faith and morals; d) its decisions are recorded in a written document — a formal proclamation to the whole Church; e) Peter presides over the assembly.
*
According to the Code of Canon Law (can. 338–341) ecumenical councils are assemblies — summoned and presided over by the Pope — of bishops and some others endowed with jurisdiction; decisions of these councils do not oblige unless they are confirmed and promulgated by the Pope. This assembly at Jerusalem probably took place in the year 49 or 50.
*
7–11. Peter’s brief but decisive contribution follows on a lengthy discussion which would have covered the arguments for and against the need for circumcision to apply to Gentile Christians. St. Luke does not give the arguments used by the Judaizing Christians (these undoubtedly were based on a literal interpretation of the compact God made with Abraham — cf. Gen 17 — and on the notion that the Law was perennial).
*
Once again, Peter is a decisive factor in Church unity. Not only does he draw together all the various legitimate views of those trying to reach the truth on this occasion: he points out where the truth lies. Relying on his personal experience (what God directed him to do in connexion with the baptism of Cornelius: cf. chap. 10), Peter sums up the discussion and offers a solution which coincides with St. Paul’s view of the matter: it is grace and not the Law that saves, and therefore circumcision and the Law itself have been superseded by faith in Jesus Christ. Peter’s argument is not based on the severity of the Old Law or the practical difficulties Jews experience in keeping it; his key point is that the Law of Moses has become irrelevant; now that the Gospel has been proclaimed the Law is not necessary for salvation: he does not accept that it is necessary to obey the Law in order to be saved. Whether one can or should keep the Law for other reasons is a different and secondary matter. . . .
*
[16:4] 4. The text suggests that all Christians accepted the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem in a spirit of obedience and joy. They saw them as being handed down by the Church through the Apostles and as providing a satisfactory solution to a delicate problem. The disciples accept these commandments with internal and external assent: by putting them into practice they showed their docility. Everything which a lawful council lays down merits and demands acceptance by Christians, because it reflects, as the Council of Trent teaches, “the true and saving doctrine which Christ taught, the Apostles then handed on, and the Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, ever maintains; therefore, no one should subsequently dare to believe, preach or teach anything different” (De iustificatione, preface).
*
Scott Hahn (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible) observed:
*
15:11 . . . Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church. He formulates a *doctrinal* judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a *pastoral* plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21).
*
*
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion. . . .
*
Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
*
It occurred to me that Pope St. John Paul II didn’t actually state [using the word] that James “presided” at the council of Jerusalem in Ut Unum Sint #97. I grant that it’s possible to interpret it that way, but in the next sentence after what you cite, he wrote:
*
Do not many of those involved in ecumenism today feel a need for such a ministry? A ministry which presides in truth and love so that the ship—that beautiful symbol which the World Council of Churches has chosen as its emblem— will not be buffeted by the storms and will one day reach its haven.
*
Note that when he refers to “presides” he is referring to Peter, not James. This is obvious in the immediate context and in the larger context of the entire encyclical, since the previous section (88-96) is entitled, “The ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome” and even the title of the section cited is called “The communion of all particular Churches with the Church of Rome: a necessary condition for unity.”
*
All that was said about James was that Peter was “respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem.” So the question is: what does this mean? As I said, I think “James presided over the council” is a plausible take, but if so, I think it has to be qualified, per my overall argumentation. And could not one say that you might be reading too much into that, because of your prior bias (as we all have biases)?
*
I will be looking to see if I can find anything in JPII or Benedict XVI elsewhere dealing with this specific question of “who presided?” and/or whether James “presiding” has a particular sense. If I find that JPII said elsewhere that Peter presided, then it seems to me that Ut Unum Sint has to be interpreted in that light.
*
The presiding referenced in the subsequent paragraph pertains to his presidency over the whole Church, not to the council specifically. It is in the context of the council that he makes specific reference to respecting James’ authority.
*
Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out that when he used the word “presides” it referred to Peter, not James; and you agree. I was simply talking about that word. He never wrote, “James presided . . . ” or some such. “Respecting the authority of James” could mean “respected his authority to speak last” or “to ‘run’ a council held in his See” or any number of things. We don’t know for sure. I haven’t been able to find anything else in searches, to make it more clear. I wish I could. “The Holy See” search engine is lousy and frustrating to use.
*
Related Reading
*
*
*
*
Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
Were the Jerusalem Council Decrees Universally Binding? [National Catholic Register, 12-4-19]
*
Which Has More Authority: A Pope or an Ecumenical Council? [National Catholic Register, 5-19-21]
*
Photo credit: Reconstruction of Herod’s Temple (at the time of Jesus), with Robinson’s Arch in the foreground [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license]
*
Summary: Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.
*
2021-05-19T17:18:14-04:00

Last updated on: May 19, 2021 at 5:18 pm   By

Reformed Belgic Confession (1561) and Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

[Taken from Chapter Ten of the above volume (see book and purchase information), completed in June 2002]

Belgic Confession (1561)
[Words from the Belgic Confession will be in blue]

Article 29: The Marks of the True Church

We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God,

Who is to discern? The individual? Seems like it to me.

What is the true church– for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of “the church.” We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves “the church.” The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel;

What is the gospel? What is “pure preaching” of it? How many errors are allowed? For example, Luther’s baptismal regeneration is anathema to the Reformed, so is his gospel not a pure one; thus Lutherans — and many Anglicans and Methodists, etc. — are not in the “true church”; therefore not Christians? What about the Reformed Baptists who don’t baptize infants — some or many of whom would even deny that baptism is a sacrament at all?

If the gospel is defined as the Calvinist TULIP or suchlike, then this is circular reasoning (the gospel is merely what these folks say it is, on the basis of their own unproven and unsupported axioms). The Bible, which is supposedly the criteria of truthfulness here, does
no such thing. It defines the gospel as the birth (incarnation), life (with all its miracles and teaching), death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, not as some technical theory of soteriology and justification. One can certainly deduce some theory of soteriology from it, but my point is that this is not what the Bible describes as “the gospel.”

it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them;

How did Christ institute them? We have seen the differences concerning baptism above. So are Lutherans and Reformed Baptists and other sorts of Baptists out of the fold? As to the Eucharist, similarly serious differences arise. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation; so their belief here is not “pure.” And of course, if we look to the early Church Fathers, they unanimously accepted the Real Presence, so that one must believe that the
apostasy of the early Church on this score was well-nigh universal, and that only in the 16th-century was true eucharistic belief restored, and even then not by Luther (or for that matter, Zwingli), but by Calvin.

Now, what authority does he have? Certainly not apostolic authority, nor the prestige of passed-down apostolic Tradition, as his view is a novelty and an innovation. So there are a host of difficulties in almost every sentence here. The words may sound great, but they conceal myriad historical and biblical problems and contradictions, as clearly seen in this merely brief, cursory treatment.

it practices church discipline for correcting faults.

Sure, then when someone disagrees, he simply goes to another sect, on the basis of his own judgment as to what the pure church is, based on the Word of God (first sentence above). He applies the same criteria stated here to go somewhere else, because the final authority must reside in the individual, due to unresolvable difficulties and contradictions among the various sects. These appeared at the beginning of the Protestant Revolt
(inevitably) and will always remain, because of this flawed principle of how one determines theological truth. If in fact there had always been one Protestant Church and one only, then these axioms might hold at least some water, but as this has never been the case, the system is burdened by self-contradiction and an inability to consistently apply these standards to the real world.

In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head.

This sounds noble and glorious, but it is not nearly this simple, because there were and are foundational differences on almost every issue where Protestantism is to be distinguished from Catholicism in the first place. Until these can be resolved, then such talk within the Protestant paradigm is a pipe dream of the most illusory sort.

By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church — and no one ought to be separated from it.

The only self-consistent, historically demonstrable way to establish this is by apostolic succession and an examination of history (as the Fathers taught). No Protestant sect can pass this test. But even using their own stated criteria of authenticity above, no one can figure out which sect is the true one, because the doctrinal disagreements run too deep and are too serious.

As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith,

What is faith? Protestants disagree on this, too. How does regeneration and election relate to personal faith? How is one assured of saving faith? Can one lose that and fall away?, etc.

and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

This sounds great, too, but it has never occurred in an entire group. Since sin is present in all professed Christian groups, the absence of it can hardly be the “proof” of the authenticity of one sect over another.

Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.

Virtually all Christian groups would adhere to this notion, so it is of no help for our task, either.

As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ;

What does this mean?

it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases;

The problems in this statement were already discussed. One can either appeal to the constant Tradition throughout the ages and apostolic succession, or else choose one of a host of Protestant options, all themselves ultimately arbitrary and man-centered and unable to be supported by Church history.

it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ;

No Christian system is more man-centered than Protestantism, where a single man’s word (Calvin, Luther, Fox et al) has the greatest authority, far greater than any pope ever dreamt of. Any local pastor has far more influence or effect on the lives of his congregation than the pope has on a Catholic, in a practical, everyday sense. That’s why Protestant congregations often split in two merely because a popular pastor might feel called to move on to another assembly.

it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

The sin argument resolves nothing. Protestants were at least as intolerant in the 16th century as Catholics — arguably far more, especially in light of their supposed principles of tolerance and supremacy of the individual conscience.

These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

Not quite. Until Protestants can answer the difficulties I raised above, and many more brought about by their utter inability to resolve their own internal squabbles, any claim to a true Church in their ranks, of whatever character, visible or invisible, institutional, creedal, confessional, or metaphysical, over against the Catholic Church, is self-defeating, upon close scrutiny.

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)
[Words in green]

Chapter 2 – Of Interpreting the Holy Scriptures; and of
Fathers, Councils, and Traditions [complete]

The True Interpretation of Scripture. The apostle Peter has said that the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation (II Peter 1:20), and thus we do not allow all possible interpretations.

How many are allowed then? Which ones, and why?

Nor consequently do we acknowledge as the true or genuine interpretation of the Scriptures what is called the conception of the Roman Church, that is, what the defenders of the Roman Church plainly maintain should be thrust upon all for acceptance.

Obviously not, having enthroned private judgment of individuals and traditions of men in its place . . .

But we hold that interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and love, and contributes much to the glory of
God and man’s salvation.

More high-sounding, pious, noble language with little concrete or particular content. This assumes (quite absurdly) that Protestants are in sole possession of these hermeneutical tools, and that one “true” teaching on any topic will appear and be evident to all true followers of Christ. These are pipe dreams.

Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures;

Who decides where they agree or disagree, and by what criteria? There are a host of doctrines where the Fathers contradict Reformed Christianity en masse.

but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures.

Who decides what the Scriptures teach? A panel of venerable, grey-bearded Reformed worthies, assembled in 1566?

Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.

Yes, as judged by the apostolic Church and its authoritative Councils, and its popes, not by individuals eight, nine, or ten centuries later who count the noses of their comrades in some given sect and conclude that the majority opinion is therefore the “biblical” one.

Councils. And in the same order also we place the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time. Who is the judge? Therefore, we do not admit any other judge than God himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be avoided.

But of course! God will settle all the issues! Who could argue with that? But as we are not God, but mere men — and prophets are a relatively rare occurrence –, there must be some human Christian authority as well — binding in some sense; to some degree. One can, then, either believe that God promised to guide His Church and preserve it free from error, under a properly unified authority, with councils and bishops and a gift of
infallibility (as Catholics believe) or that individuals ultimately decide what is or what is not true, dissenting from councils, Tradition, the Fathers, and apostolic succession alike if needs be. These are given lip service above and elsewhere in similar Protestant statements, but it is obvious that the individual retains the right to dissent from all of this ecclesiastical authority, since his conscience is supreme. It all began with Luther at Worms.

So we do assent to the judgments of spiritual men which are drawn from the Word of God. Certainly Jeremiah and other prophets vehemently condemned the assemblies of priests which were set up against the law of God; and diligently admonished us that we should not listen to the
fathers, or tread in their path who, walking in their own inventions, swerved from the law of God.

This is a large reason why I became a Catholic: because Protestant innovations were merely the inventions of men. They had no pedigree in Church history, and thus, no reason to be accepted. The Catholic believes that just as the Holy Spirit can teach people today, that He could do so in the past — that Christian history of thought means something. G.K. Chesterton insightfully described Tradition as “the democracy of the dead.”

Traditions of Men. Likewise we reject human traditions, even if they be adorned with high-sounding titles, as though they were divine and apostolical, delivered to the Church by the living voice of the apostles, and, as it were, through the hands of apostolical men to succeeding
bishops which, when compared with the Scriptures, disagree with them; and by their disagreement show that they are not apostolic at all. For as the apostles did not contradict themselves in doctrine, so the apostolic men did not set forth things contrary to the apostles. On the contrary, it would be wicked to assert that the apostles by a living voice delivered anything contrary to their writings. Paul affirms expressly that he taught the same things in all churches (1 Cor. 4:17). And, again, “For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand.” (2 Cor. 1:13). Also, in another place, he testifies that he and his disciples–that is, apostolic men–walked in the same way, and jointly by the same Spirit did all things (2 Cor. 12:18). Moreover, the Jews in former times had the traditions of their elders; but these traditions were severely rejected by the Lord, indicating that the keeping of them hinders God’s law, and that God is worshipped in vain by such traditions (Matt. 15:1ff.; Mark 7:1 ff.).

Who determines which teachings are “traditions of men” and how? And why should we value their opinions or heed their authority more so than the venerable Fathers of the Church?

***

Summary: I interact with two 16th century Protestant confessions: particularly their treatment of ecclesiology and private judgment. I ask the hard questions that these confessions ignore.

***

2021-05-17T11:01:34-04:00

Last updated on: May 17, 2021 at 11:01 am   By

The Reformed Protestant / Calvinist anti-Catholic site, Evangelical Miscellanies produced (anonymously) the article, “The Perseverance of the Saints” (2-5-21). It was a [very selective] reply to my paper, Absolute Assurance of Salvation?: Debunking “Prooftexts”, which is Chapter Thirteen of my book, Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” (Oct. 2010). The words of the writer will be in blue; my older cited words in green, and my present response in plain black.

*****

  1. Perseverance of the Saints: Can we be assured of our salvation?

Dave Armstrong:

Perseverance of the saints, or the “P” in TULIP, is merely a tautological truism: saying that the elect (i.e., those who are eschatologically saved) will be saved (Jesus says in John 6:39: “I should lose nothing of all that he has given me”). No one disputes that. Of course they will be saved, because that is the very definition of “elect” (Romans 11:29: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable”). I am specifically critiquing the notion that we can possess or achieve absolute assurance of our own salvation or anyone else’s.

[my paper and book, had contained the obvious error of asserting that it was the “T” rather than “P” in TULIP. The author went on to correct it (which is fine) but also seems to imply if I wasn’t aware of that and hadn’t made merely a simple inadvertent, human error (which is silly and unnecessary)]

[T]echnically the saints do not persevere but rather are preserved by Christ (cf. Phil 1:6; Jn 6:39). 

Heaven forbid we do absolutely anything in the process . . .

Philippians 1:6 (RSV) And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

John 6:39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.

As readers can see, I mentioned John 6:39 in my paper (almost all of which was ignored in this “reply”). As for Philippians 1:6: absolutely! But God being sovereign and faithful and the source of all good things, including absolutely every good thing and act of obedience that we do. Catholics fully believe in the predestination of the elect. But this doesn’t preclude the willing participation with His enabling grace, in these elect, as the Bible also teaches:

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them . . .

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers . . . (Phillips: “In this work, we work with God . . .” / Amplified: “For we are fellow workmen — joint promoters, laborers together — with and for God . . .”)

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 15:58 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.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him [i.e., Jesus; see 5:21], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. (Calvinists claim that such grace is irresistible; so why is Paul warning them not to accept it in a wrong way?)

Galatians 5:6 . . . faith working through love.

Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians 2:12-13 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.

Titus 3:5-8 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration [i.e., baptism] and renewal in the Holy Spirit, [6] which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. [8] The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

Notice that our friend provides two biblical passages that supposedly prove his half-truth and in fact do not, whereas I provide ten to prove the partly contrary and true biblical view of cooperation of man with the God Who always enables any and all good things by His grace.

The Council of Trent:

CANON XXIII.—If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,—except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema.[3]

The Roman understanding of justification is predicated on a synergistic view of soteriology.

Yes, it is synergistic because that is the biblical view, as I just showed with ten passages (and there are many more). Because it is the teaching of the Bible, I believed in Arminian soteriology (as opposed to Calvinist) as a Protestant before I ever read Trent or was bound to it as a Catholic.

God alone does not save, rather God contributes in part to salvation and the individual contributes in part to salvation.

That’s not the Catholic teaching, as he is insinuating. Trent taught in its canons on justification:

Canon 1 If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Canon 2 If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

Canon 3 If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

One might describe the different views as follows:

Reformed / Calvinist / “Either/or” outlook: God does all, therefore it is senseless and heretical to speak of man doing anything as regards to grace and salvation, and to do so is at least a semi-Pelagian position, detracting from God’s sole work in salvation.

Catholicism / Bible / “Both/and” outlook: God does all and enables all, pertaining to grace and salvation, yet man can also cooperate with God and in a non-Pelagian sense “participate” in the process.

The Catholic Church teaches salvation by grace alone (sola gratia) and rejects both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, just as Calvinists do.

If the individual falters, that state of grace is lost.

Yes, per the many passages that I provided in the very paper that was supposedly being critiqued (but which was mostly ignored). God doesn’t force us to follow Him. We’re not robots. Therefore, we can rebel, just as Satan did, even though he was with God in heaven and knew much better than to be that stupid and evil.

Compare with the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Chapter XVII.—Of the Perseverance of the Saints.   

I. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

The elect are the elect. Of course they are. This is saying, in effect, “those who are eschatologically saved will in fact be eschatologically saved.” It’s circular reasoning (the conclusion already being in the premise). The error is based on the false notions of 1) no human free will (irresistible grace) and 2) that the state of grace or salvation is identical to being in the elect. It’s not. Not all those in a state of grace will be so ever after.

Armstrong:

I am specifically critiquing the notion that we can possess or achieve absolute assurance of our own salvation or anyone else’s.[6]

This is semantics. How do we define absolute? If we define absolute as an infinite or exhaustive knowledge of any given subject then of course man, who is by definition finite, cannot have an absolute or infinite knowledge of any given subject.

It’s just word games. It would be an assurance without any doubt present; not one iota of non-assurance; indubitable knowledge. Even John Calvin taught that we could not know who was a member of the elect; therefore, he denied absolute assurance of salvation, just as I do:

[W]e are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . . (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV. 1. 3.)

We must thus consider both God’s secret election and his inner call. For he alone “knows who are his” [II Tim. 2:19] . . . except that they bear his insignia by which they may be distinguished from the reprobate. But because a small and contemptible number are hidden in a huge multitude and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his secret election. It is not sufficient, indeed, for us to comprehend in mind and thought the multitude of the elect, unless we consider the unity of the church as that into which we are convinced we have been truly engrafted. (Inst. IV. 1. 2.)

Of those who openly wear his badge, his eyes alone see the ones who are unfeignedly holy and will persevere to the very end [Matt. 24:13] – the ultimate point of salvation. (Inst. IV. 1. 8.)

It is . . . not our task to erase from the number of the elect those who have been expelled from the church, or to despair as if they were already lost. It is lawful to regard them as estranged from the church, and thus, from Christ – but only for such time as they remain separated. However, if they also display more stubbornness than gentleness, we should still commend them to the Lord’s judgment, hoping for better things of them in the future than we see in the present. Nor should we on this account cease to call upon God in their behalf . . . let us not condemn to death the very person who is in the hand and judgment of God alone; rather, let us only judge of the character of each man’s works by the law of the Lord. While we follow this rule, we rather take our stand upon the divine judgment than put forward our own. Let us not claim for ourselves more license in judgment, unless we wish to limit God’s power and confine his mercy by law. For God, whenever it pleases him, changes the worst men into the best, engrafts the alien, and adopts the stranger into the church. And the Lord does this to frustrate men’s opinion and restrain their rashness – which, unless it is checked, ventures to assume for itself a greater right of judgment than it deserves. (Inst. IV. 12. 9.)

The election of God is hidden and secret in itself . . . men are being fantastic or fanatical if they look for their salvation or for the salvation of others in the labyrinth of predestination instead of keeping to the way of the faith which is offered them . . . To each one, his faith is a sufficient witness of the eternal predestination of God, so that it would be a horrible sacrilege to seek higher assurance. (Commentary on John 6:40; in Francis Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, New York: Harper & Row, 1963, 270)

Let us, then, keep this in view above all other things, that it is no less insane to crave for other knowledge of predestination besides that which is given us in the word of God, than if one wanted to walk over inaccessible rocks or to see in darkness. (Inst. III. 21. 2.; in Wendel, ibid., 270-271)

Calvin even went so far as to state that we should never conclude that even obstinate excommunicates are lost or determined to not be of the elect by their sinful behavior, and should hope better for them (Inst. IV. 12. 9.)

Funny, then, that on one abominable Calvinist discussion group (around 1999-2000 or so), once it was discovered that I was Catholic, some idiot said I was damned and shouldn’t even be prayed for. Virtually no one disagreed with his judgment (all in opposition to their master, John Calvin, not to mention Jesus), excepting Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, who actually displayed rudimentary Christian charity and not pharisaical legalism and false teaching. I didn’t know that he was a famous theologian at the time. He was an impressive Christian. It was an honor to meet him.

Calvin and Luther, of course, both regarded Catholicism as a species of Christianity. For this reason, neither of them felt that they had to be baptized (“again”). But not these clowns in this discussion group (minus Dr. Lee) . . .

Armstrong:

We can, however, arrive at a moral or practical assurance…[7]

I have no surface level objection to this statement, though we would likely disagree on the details. That aside, I am uncertain if Rome would agree.

I’ve written about this issue. Catholic writer Andrew Preslar, underneath his excellent article, “St. Thomas Aquinas on Assurance of Salvation” (Called to Communion, 8-3-09), made a comment relevant to this question:

One cannot have hope, in St. Thomas’s sense, without faith. Hope is based upon faith, but not reducible to faith. Faith accepts the Gospel as divine truth, and hope receives that truth as good news “for me.”

Chapter XII of Session VI (Trent) refers to the possibility of “absolute certainty” of predestination to life, which knowledge can only come by special revelation. In my last comment, I had primarily in mind assurance of being in a state of grace, though I did not mean to rule out assurance of predestination. The evidence from Trent for a kind of “moral certainty” or comforting assurance other than the absolute certainty of faith lies in the phrases and adjectives that qualify the noun “certainty,” both in Chapter XII and in the Canons that touch upon the matter of assurance (emphasis added):

Canon 13.
If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certainty and without any hesitation arising from his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema.

Canon 14.
If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

Canon 15.
If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema.

Canon 16.
If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

Among other things, this is to say that our faith is not in faith (Canons 13 and 14), and that the status of one’s own soul and eternal destiny are not among the articles of faith (Canons 15 and 16), to which pertain “absolute and infallible certainty.” The qualifying language (which I emphasized), furthermore, would be entirely gratuitous if the Church denied that, apart from special revelation, Christians could enjoy some form of certainty, and corresponding assurance, about their spiritual condition and eternal destiny.

He elaborates at great and glorious length, in a later comment:

Certainty, or perhaps more accurately, certitude, is a subjective condition relative to a variety of factors. Perhaps some examples will convey my meaning, and at least by implication address the several aspects of your question:

1. I am certain that God is love, and that God loves me. These certainties are based upon what I know (through reason and revelation) about the nature of God and the operations of God. This is what gives rise to the certainty of hope, regarding God’s provision for my own salvation.

2.I am certain that he who has begun a good work in me (at Baptism) will bring it to completion on the Day of Judgment. This is the certainty of hope. . . .

The different kinds or classifications of certainty / certitude (however many they might be; on the one hand: knowledge, faith, hope, moral certainty; on the other hand: presumption, delusion) correspond to the different things of which one is certain, together with the conditions under which certainty obtains, and perhaps the differing significance and subjective “feel” of each instance of certainty (although the latter can vary somewhat from person to person and time to time). My confidence in God regarding salvation is an instance of the certainty or assurance of hope. My confidence in my brother is an example of what I mean by “moral certainty”; that is, although in the realm of logically possibility his intentions could be otherwise, and though God has not revealed my brother’s intentions to me, I am certain that he means me no mortal harm.

This same kind of certainty, moral certainty, to be distinguished from the certainty of the rationally inescapable, the certainty of faith, and the certainty of hope, can legitimately be enjoyed by Catholics with respect to being in a state of grace, at least in the sense that Trent seems not to disallow such moral certainty of grace, as indicated in comment #6. Of course, being morally certain of being in a state of grace is not a necessary condition of actually being in a state of grace.

I can have doubts about myself, and still trust in God for deliverance from sin and sustenance in a state of grace, so long as I make faithful use of the means of grace, especially going to Confession and Mass. For me, one usual result of this religious activity, especially right after a double dose of the sacraments–Reconciliation and Communion–is a kind of confidence, a moral certainty or certitude if you will, of being in a state of grace. Among the conditions or presuppositions underlying this sacramental certainty are a constant reliance on the mercy of God (“Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”), the intention to obey his will, and a right understanding of the difference between mortal and venial sin.

These sorts of things are indeed, Catholic teaching. Again, in another comment, Preslar sums up:

[A]s I have been arguing in previous comments, there is a kind of certainty distinct from both the certainty of scientific knowledge and the certainty of faith, and this would be moral certainty.

Armstrong:

But the Calvinist has a ready explanation; a stock answer to explain the person who seemed by all appearances to be a Christian, and then fell away or fell into extremely serious sin: they were “obviously” never saved.[8]

I’m not sure I would call the word of God a stock answer, but perhaps I am now the one arguing semantics.

1Jn 2:19 (NASB)

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

Of course I didn’t call the Bible a “stock answer” (nice try!). Once again, we don’t have absolute assurance of salvation, and John Calvin taught this as strongly as we Catholics believe it. He obviously felt that he had biblical backing on the question. In my quotations from Calvin above, he mentioned, for example, 2 Timothy 2:19 (“The Lord knows those who are his, . . .”) and Matthew 24:13.

As for 1 John 2:19, I reply that this is inspired Scripture, whereas we, today, don’t have the same certainty of knowledge about individuals, as a writer inspired by God will have. Secondly (and more to the point), this book contains many proverbial-type statements, that are obviously not literal, and admit of exceptions,. So, for example, he writes:

1 John 3:6, 8-9 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.. . . [8] He who commits sin is 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.

This is clearly not literal, and means “sin doesn’t typify the behavior of a true Christian” or “the essence of a Christian life is to be mostly sin-free” etc. because, for one thing, John himself contradicts a literal understanding by also writing (in these instances, literally and not hyperbolically):

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 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Moreover, we have biblical examples of man (kings of Israel or Judah) who did good according to God, but are described as having fallen away. I went through some of these in my Chapter Ten of the same book, dealing with total depravity. Here are some excerpts:

What do we make of, for example, King Jehoshaphat? Here is a very interesting case study indeed. He was subjected to the wrath of God, yet it is stated that he had some “good” and sought God: [I cited 2 Chronicles 19:2-3]

Not only the king, but many people in Judah also sought the Lord: [cited 2 Chronicles 20:3-4]

How can this be, under Reformed Protestant assumptions of total depravity? Was he (and all these multitudes who “came to seek the Lord”), therefore, regenerate? The text doesn’t say. He hadn’t heard the gospel, though; that’s for sure. Nor had the people of Judah.

According to Hodge and Calvinism generally, no one can do any “spiritual good” (as opposed to a merely natural good or natural moral virtue) whatsoever unless they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Were all these people “good men and women”? Did they seek God or not? . . .

Was Jehoshaphat himself a “good” man? Various passages state that he was (2 Chronicles 19:4-7, 9; 20:3, 6-7,1 2, 18-21). His reign is described as a good, righteous reign, by and large, but not totally: [cited 2 Chronicles 20:32-37]

Was King Jehoshaphat regenerated and saved in the end? We don’t know. But if he wasn’t, he couldn’t do any “spiritual good” at all, according to Calvinist theology. The Bible clearly teaches that he did much good; indeed, that he “did what was right in the sight of the LORD” (if that’s not “spiritual good,” what is?). Yet he didn’t destroy the high places, which were idols, and the last thing written about him was that he was prophesied against for joining with wicked King Ahaziah of Israel.

If he was indeed damned in the end, then how does Calvinism account for the spiritual good that can’t be done except by the regenerate (a state, in turn, that cannot be lost, according to Calvinism)? . . .

How about King Uzziah? The Bible says he sought God too: [cited 2 Chronicles 26:3-5]

But Uzziah met an even more tragic end than Jehoshaphat: [cited 2 Chronicles 26:16-21]

This passage places Calvinists in a tremendous predicament. . . . if it is maintained that only a regenerate person can seek God, so that, therefore Uzziah must have been regenerated, then how is his spiritual demise explained?

For Calvinists also hold that one can never lose regeneration or salvation, precisely because God gives it unconditionally (the “U” in TULIP) and His grace is irresistible (the “I” in TULIP) and that the elect always persevere and cannot fall away (the “P” in TULIP). No one can do any spiritual good unless regenerated because of the “T”: total depravity. If Uzziah was saved in the end, again there is no text whatsoever that would indicate such a thing.

Mt 7:22-23 (NASB)

“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never [οὐδέποτε] knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Notice: “I never knew you,” not “I knew you for a little while and then you departed from me.”

These people were never of the elect because Jesus said so. He knows everything. We know very little: especially about other souls. This is the point. But this doesn’t preclude anyone falling away from grace, ever. I just provided examples of Kings Jehoshaphat and Uzziah, who did truly good things (so the Bible tells us) yet fell away.

Luke 22:31-32 (NASB)

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded [ἐξῃτήσατο – or, obtained by asking] permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once [ποτε – when, not if] you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Both Peter and Judas betrayed Christ, both events were known beforehand by Christ, and yet one was always a believer, and one never was.

Sure, but this has no relevance to our subject matter: whether we ourselves have absolute assurance and/or whether we can know with certainty who else will be eschatologically saved (i.e., will go to heaven) or of the elect. If we had observed St. Paul killing Christians, many of us would conclude that he could never be in the fold. And we would be wrong.

Cf. Jn 17:11-12, 24; 6:70; 13:10-11

John 17:11-12, 24 simply talks about the elect who will not be lost (by definition). No one denies that, so there is nothing to dispute about that. In John 6:70 Jesus says Judas is a “devil” which no one denies, either. 13:10-11 tells us that Jesus knew Judas was corrupt. Of course. Who denies it? None of this tilts the debate between Calvinists and almost all other Christians one way or the other, because we all agree about these things.

Moving on:

Armstrong:

But this perfectly illustrates the conundrum: if such a person was thought by everyone to be saved and in the elect, but actually wasn’t, as later proved by his behavior (that no one imagined ever happening), then in fact, neither the person in question nor anyone else possessed the so-called “assurance” that he or she was saved, from the beginning.[11]

This is the same argument used by the serpent in the garden of Eden. 

Cf. Gen 3:1 (NASB)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman,  “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any [כֹּל – every] tree of the garden’?”

Why does the serpent phrase the question thus? Certainly he knew that God did not say this, so why ask the question? What is the obvious implication? If there is even one tree from which you cannot eat, if you are limited in any way, if you do not have absolute autonomy as God does, then you are not really free at all. Armstrong asserts that if a finite man cannot have an absolute (exhaustive or infinite) knowledge of assurance as God does, then he cannot have true assurance at all. This line of reasoning is absurd, and is very clearly not applied to his own beliefs.

All of the above is a lie, and not analogous to my beliefs at all, save for the final sentence. The reasoning described is absurd, but (here’s the catch) it’s not my reasoning. It’s a caricature of my reasoning, or a straw man. And indeed it’s not applied to my own beliefs, as already explained above, in my lengthy distinction between absolute assurance (a falsehood) and moral certainty or assurance, which is Catholic belief. So the above (minus the last sentence) is perfectly irrelevant (what we call in logic, a non sequitur). But clever attempt (like the devil) at sophistry there . . .

Rom 5:1 (NASB)

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace [εἰρήνην] with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

How can we have peace with God if we do not have assurance as to the state of our souls? The answer is that we cannot.

Again, in Catholic soteriology, we can know right now that we are in good graces with God, through a serious examination of conscience. We can’t be absolutely sure that we always will be, because that’s the future, and we don’t know the future. Only God does because He is there already (being outside of time).

I do not believe it would be profitable to address all of the assertions made . . . 

Yeah, I noticed. It’s not “profitable” is (in my opinion) code for “I have no solid answer to much of his argumentation; therefore, I will ignore those portions.” This being the case (his ignoring of many, many of my biblical passages and commentaries upon them), I will ignore the rare “exception” where he actually does attempt a reply. Goose and gander . . .

I am left wondering if the Roman Church has infallibly defined the verses that Armstrong is expounding upon or if he is merely providing us with his own personal interpretations of the scriptures (which based on his statements, he certainly appears to believe are perspicuous). 

Very few passages have been infallibly defined (seven; possibly also two more). My biblical (and any other sort of) arguments are in line with Catholic dogmas and doctrines, which they are required to be if I am an orthodox, obedient Catholic (as I am), just as my opponent’s biblical (and any other sort of) arguments are in line with Calvinist dogmas and doctrines, which his are required to be: coming from an orthodox, obedient, five-point Calvinist. There is no difference in this respect: except that Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Church, whereas Calvinists don’t. But we both believe in an authoritative, teaching Church, and in arguing and defending our theology from Holy Scripture, which is held in common as God’s inspired and infallible revelation.

Assurance: 

Assurance ultimately rests upon God, upon His strength, His faithfulness and His ability to preserve (cf. Phil 1:6), not upon the strength, faithfulness and perseverance of man.

Yep. See my ten passages about that, presented early on. But man cooperates with what ultimately causes salvation (God’s grace and power alone). He isn’t led along by God like a lobotomized donkey who can do no other. He actively cooperates and “works with God” as a “co-laborer” or “fellow worker.” Biblical descriptions, not mine . . . The Bible says that we cooperate and we persevere:

James 1:17-25 Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. [18] Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures. [19] Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, [20] for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. [21] Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. [22] But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. [23] For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; [24] for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. [25] But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.

2 Cor 5:5 (NASB)

Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge [ἀρραβῶνα,[15] lit. down payment, guarantee]. (cf. 2Cor 1:22; Eph 1:14)

Great! God is good! We can be assured right now of our salvific status and of being in a state of grace, in fellowship with God.

Certainty:

1 Jn 5:13 (NASB)

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know [εἰδῆτε] that you have eternal life.

I am not aware of any Bible translation which renders εἰδῆτε as anything other than know.

See my paper:

“Certainty” of Eternal Life? (1 Jn 5:13 & Jn 5:24) [5-8-02]

The Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter XVIII – Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation:[17]

…such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, [a] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed. [b] …certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; [c] but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, [d] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, [e] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God: [f] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption. [g]

a. 1 John 2:3; 3:14, 18-19, 21, 24; 5:13. • b. Rom 5:2, 5. • c. Heb 6:11, 19. • d. Heb 6:17-18. • e. 2 Cor 1:12; 2 Pet 1:4-5, 10-11; 1 John 2:3; 3:14. • f. Rom 8:15-16. • g. Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:21-22.

The first part of this reads like a Catholic proclamation. The rest is not bad, except that it is a bit more sure about the future than the Bible gives us warrant to be. Earlier my opponent claimed “the saints do not persevere”. But here they do!: “endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him . . ” That’s something we do, enabled by God’s grace. It’s synergism (a dirty word for Calvinists). Now lets take a look at the “prooftexts”:

1 John 2:3 says “by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” Once again, it is works and doing things; working with God: not a one-way monergism, and from this we become assured that we “know” God: precisely as in the Catholic view. But knowing God now is not the same as being saved for all eternity.

1 John 3:14: “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.” Again, we are in good graces as long as we do these things, as evidence of the authenticity of our faith (a teaching of both Calvin and Luther). We have to love (that’s us doing it, not God). In fact, this good work of loving others is so crucial that we are spiritually dead and on our way to hell if we refuse to do it. This simply verifies the central place of works and cooperation with God in the schema of salvation. They’re so important that I found fifty Bible passages proclaiming their centrality, as opposed to “faith alone”: which is never stated (and actually flatly denied in James). But nothing here is opposed to the notion that this status or state of soul can be lost.

1 John 3:18-19, 21, 24: 3:18-19, 24 reiterate the essential status of good works in the salvation equation, mentioning “love . . . in deed and in truth” (3:18): the means by which “we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts” (3:19; cf. 3:21); in other words, this love, proven by deeds (good works), is what brings about reassurance in our hearts; precisely as in the Catholic examination of one’s own heart. 3:24 is again proverbial language: “All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. . . .” But it’s a great rule for the Christian walk of discipleship, How do we know we are in good graces with God? By good works: love and keeping the commandments. That’s how we know; not by the memory of a “sinner’s prayer” and alleged absolute assurance of one’s eternal salvation from that moment on.

Romans 5:2 refers to “this grace in which we stand”: present tense; not eschatological salvation. 5:5 adds: “hope does not disappoint us.” No it doesn’t. But we have to maintain it in our lives by being willing to suffer and endure (more human perseverance), as 5:3 states.

Hebrews 6:11 requires us to “show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end”; i.e., more human perseverance and good works. The verse before identified these as “your work and the love which you showed . . . in serving the saints.” 5:12 urges us to not be “sluggish” (i.e., refusing to do the necessary good works that are required to obtain hope, out of laziness). 6:17-19 teaches that God’s promises are trustworthy. Of course they are. But that’s His end. We also have to hold up our end.

2 Corinthians 1:12 again points to good works: “we have behaved . . .  toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.” This is exactly harmonious with the Catholic view. The Westminster Confession is arguing that this Bible passage provides the rationale for “the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made.” And what is the evidence?: good works, done “by the grace of God”! There is not a word about “faith alone” here (as always). Yet this non-biblical concept of sola fide is — oddly enough — one of the “pillars” of the so-called “Reformation.”

2 Peter 1:5 gives us the very Catholic teaching (appropriate form the first pope) of “make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue”: lots of human effort and perseverance to do the good works of virtue and another denial of faith alone. This faith must be “supplement[ed]”. Then we have a rather spectacular “Catholic” and very “unProtestant” passage:

2 Peter 1:10-11 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; [11] so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The call and election isn’t simply taken for granted, with us doing nothing but receiving it passively. No; we must be “zealous” and “confirm” it. This is done by good works and perseverance, described in 1:6-7: “self-control, . . . steadfastness, . . . godliness, . . . brotherly affection, and . . . love.” All of this issues in a conditional (not an absolute) promise of salvation: “if you do this you will never fall; [11] so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom.”

We have to persevere and do good works by God’s grace. “If” we do that, then we can be eternally saved. If we don’t, we can lose this grace and salvation that goes along with it. It’s exactly as it was in the Old testament and prophetic warnings: “If Israel followed the commandments, then God would save them; if not, they would be judged and rejected by God.”

Romans 8:15-16: “it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,” (8:16): a wonderful verse referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit: one of the several marks of the authentic Christian, walking in God’s grace. But the Confession omits the next verse: “and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” Suffering is another persevering work we do, to help assure our salvation.

Ephesians 1:13-14: I dealt with this in my paper that my opponent was supposedly critiquing. He dealt with probably a tenth of it: if that much. My reply concerning this passage was as follows:

This is initial justification. Final or eschatological justification and salvation, however, is conditioned upon walking in the good works “which God prepared beforehand” (Eph 2:10; cf. 4:22-32; 5:1-18). Paul later in his epistle emphasizes that attaining salvation is an ongoing struggle, possible only by God’s grace: “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (6:10-11).

Nothing here gives any assurance that this battle is already won; it’s not yet certain. Paul is urging perseverance: “take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (6:13); “keep alert with all perseverance” (6:18).

Ephesians 4:30 is related to all this. In the context of the larger passage (Eph 4:22-5:12), Paul issues many stern warnings about various serious sins: “deceitful lusts [4:22] . . .  falsehood [4:25] . . . [prolonged] anger [4:26] . . . [giving] opportunity to the devil [4:27] . . . evil talk [4:29] . . . bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander . . . malice [4:31] . . . fornication and all impurity or covetousness [5:3] . . . filthiness, . . . silly talk, . . . levity [5:4] . . . unfruitful works of darkness [5:11]. Now, right in the middle of this “catalogue of sin and infamy” Paul warns very strongly:

Ephesians 5:5-6 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. [6] Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Note how Paul had just warned the Ephesians not to do all of these things that he now says will bar anyone who does them from salvation (“inheritance in the kingdom of Christ”): lusts (which Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount said would lead to adultery / fornication), impurity, and covetousness. It is perfectly plausible, then, to interpret the passage as a warning against these grave sins, that can potentially cause individuals among the Ephesians to fall away from grace and salvation.

If, for example, a landlord says, “don’t do a, b, c” and later says “if you do a, b, c, you’ll be kicked out of your house for good” then we can say that there is a possibility of his losing his rented house based on doing bad, warned-about things. Likewise, by analogy, Paul is saying “if you do these things, you can possibly lose your eternal salvation.” They could be “deceive[d]” and receive “the wrath of God” as a result. And that’s not Calvinism. It’s Catholicism and Bible.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22: yes the Holy Spirit is a “seal” for us. But we have also seen that we can throw away all the good things God has given us in His grace and mercy and spurn salvation. That’s why Paul warned in Ephesians 4:30: “do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed”. Why make that warning if there was no serious danger? All the Bible verses I produced that made this peril of salvation if we don’t persevere crystal clear were ignored by my critic. He didn’t think “it would be profitable” to do that. One can see why! I sure wouldn’t want to, either, if I were in his shoes. But I’m comprehensively addressing his arguments, as anyone can see. Which methodology suggests more confidence in one’s case and more actual biblical support? Yeah, that’s my opinion, too.

I will conclude with the words of Johnathan Edwards, who speaks thus regarding the attainment of assurance:

It is not God’s design that men should obtain assurance in any other way, than by mortifying corruption, and increasing in grace, and obtaining the lively exercises of it.—And although self-examination be a duty of great use and importance, and by no means to be neglected; yet it is not the principal means, by which the saints do get satisfaction of their good estate. Assurance is not to be obtained so much by self-examination, as by action. The Apostle Paul sought assurance chiefly this way, even by “forgetting the things that were behind, and reaching forth unto those things that were before, pressing towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus; if by any means he might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” And it was by this means chiefly that he obtained assurance: 1 Cor. 9:26, “I therefore so run, not as uncertainly.” He obtained assurance of winning the prize, more by running, than by considering.[18]

I’m delighted that he chose this excerpt to end with: as it is in harmony with the Catholic view in so many ways. It has “working with God” (faith and works; faith without works is dead) all through it: “increasing in grace” is necessary (not much different from Catholic merit), “self-examination” is part of it, but “action” (good works) is even more important. Yeah, Catholicism is right along with that! St. Paul had to metaphorically “run the race” to be saved. It wasn’t a given. This work gave him assurance. We fully agree! Edwards never mentions “faith” in the entire excerpt: quite odd if indeed if the great “pillar” of faith alone minus works is so central to salvation.

***

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

***

Summary: In-depth refutation of Calvinist prooftexts for perseverance of the saints. I show how the Bible, again & again (even in passages supposedly “Protestant”) is thoroughly Catholic in substance.

***

2021-05-05T09:56:46-04:00

Last updated on: May 5, 2021 at 9:56 am   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Michael Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #99 Initial Contradictory Responses of Jesus to His Disciples

Mark 16:14 reported that Jesus verbally rebuked his disciples for their disbelief and hardness of heart: “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven
as they sat at meat and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

Matthew did not describe an initial response in Jerusalem. Neither did Matthew record Jesus’s initial response to the disciples’ lack of faith when it was reported that some doubted while meeting him in the Galilee.

In direct contradiction to Mark, Luke has Jesus attempting to reassure his disciples by demonstrating that he was really a physical and fully materialized person. This he tried to accomplish by showing his hands and feet and by eating.

Similar to Luke, in John, Jesus seemingly tried to allay and dispel any thought that he was not physically risen from the dead. Here, too, he showed the disciples his hands. However, Jesus did not offer to show his feet. Instead, he offered to show his side. (p. 578)

It’s no contradiction at all. Jesus had all along rebuked His disciples for being slow to believe. Thus, Mark expresses something that was rather “old hat” by that time. Jesus had told His disciples many times that He would suffer, be killed, and rise again after three days. But they just didn’t “get it” till it actually happened. And we can understand that because these are no ordinary events.

Matthew happens not to mention this motif in his description of the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus, but not mentioning something is not a contradiction, as I have reiterated over and over. It’s not like Matthew never talks about unbelief in his Gospel. He certainly does:

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

Matthew 16:1-4 And the Pharisees and Sad’ducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. [2] He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather; for the sky is red.’ [3] And in the morning, `It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. [4] An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” . . . (cf. 12:38-42; Mk 8:11-12)

Matthew 16:21-23 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. [22] And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” [23] But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.” [this is right after Jesus renamed Peter “Rock” and made him the head of His Church (i.e., the first pope) that He was to establish]

Alter noted that Matthew did state that “some” of the “eleven  disciples” who saw the risen Jesus “doubted” (28:16-17). He simply doesn’t provide the details of how they verbally doubted and what Jesus said in reply. He is under no obligation to do so. God in His providence, in inspiring the supernatural revelation of the NT,  saw that this was incorporated into other accounts. But so far, Mark and Matthew don’t contradict in the slightest.

Alter claims that the Gospel of Luke contradicts Mark because it describes Jesus eating and showing His pierced hands (i.e., empirical evidence that He was physically — not just “immaterially” — resurrected). But no one can say that Mark (and Matthew) denied this. They simply didn’t include it. Nor does Luke in his Gospel omit all rebukes of Jesus for lack of faith simply through hearing:

Luke 11:29-32 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah. [30] For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nin’eveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation. [31] 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 16:27-31 And he said, `Then I beg you, father [Abraham], 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.'” [story told by Jesus, thus revealing His views about “necessary” (?) empirical evidence]

Moreover, in Luke, right before Jesus ate with His disciples and showed them His physical hands and feet, He also said:

Luke 24:25-27 “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.

Then Alter acts as if John has a different, contradictory view. He doesn’t. He has Jesus disdaining the demand for signs as well:

John 2:18-21 The Jews then said to him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” [19] Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [20] The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” [21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.

John 4:48 Jesus therefore said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.”

In the Gospel of John, we have the famous episode of Doubting Thomas, who refused to believe until He touched the risen Jesus. So Jesus, in His mercy for those who are slower than others, appeared to and for Thomas, knowing that he would believe if this evidence were provided. And indeed, Thomas did; even calling Jesus “Lord” and “God” as a result (Jn 20:28). But note what Jesus said right after that:

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Jesus’ behavior and the four Gospel descriptions of it are utterly consistent throughout His ministry: He was reluctant to, or outright refused to do miracles and signs when He knew (in His divine omniscience) it was to no avail; that those who opposed Him would not be swayed by them. They would simply say He was possessed or did miracles through a diabolical rather than divine power. Nothing was good enough for them.

But when He was, on the other hand, with those He knew would believe and be positively affected by His miracles (like Thomas the disciple), He would perform miracles, and appear after He rose. This is the key to understanding what Alter doesn’t understand, thus leading him to (what else?) his usual misguided, misinformed cry of “contradiction!”. Well, atheists and skeptics like Alter are in good company: the disciples were also clueless until they themselves saw the risen Jesus. It’s only by the grace of God that any of us come to believe in God and in Jesus as the incarnate God.

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: Michael Alter claimed that Jesus & the Gospels were contradictory with regard to Jesus’ view of unbelief & evidence. They were not at all, as I explain. It’s more “pseudo-contradictions.”

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Jesus’ view of unbelief & evidence

2021-05-04T10:14:22-04:00

Last updated on: May 4, 2021 at 10:14 am   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

In this installment, I document the views of Michael Alter regarding the motives and ethical standards of the writers of the New Testament; showing how he is indeed a very hostile witness when it comes to these writings, and engages not infrequently in ad hominem attacks. The biases that we all have in one way or another affect our reasoning and the premises we accept, as well as the conclusions that we arrive at, based on those premises. Thus, these false presuppositions adversely affect Alter’s reasoning all throughout his book.

Alter reiterated the gist of his many statements documented below, today (5-3-21) in a comment on my blog: “Throughout John’s Gospel, he has made up additional fictional elements.”

After now 24 replies to his book and also significant personal correspondence, I have never stated, nor implied, that Michael Alter is deliberately dishonest, deceptive, insincere, disingenuous, or a liar (or even a purely ignorant, unassuming, innocent mythmaker). I do not do so now. I think he is wrong about many things, because he has adopted false premises and built false conclusions upon them. I believe that he sincerely believes these things, and the demands of rudimentary Christian charity requires me to extend that benefit of the doubt in the first place. He simply sincerely believes what I firmly believe to be erroneous, untrue things. I hope to dissuade him of these falsehoods through the use of reason and explanation of the meanings of New Testament texts, as best I can ascertain them (with the guidance of Christian — and sometimes also Jewish — tradition).

All bolding is my own; italics are his own.

[I]t is, in fact, possible that the author of one of the gospels (or other portions of the Christian scriptures) was writing what he considered were actual facts and in so doing he was correcting and thus contradicting the earlier narratives . . . (p. 26)

Luke rejected Matthew’s historical narratives many times. (p. 120)

Perhaps Luke’s omission, in fact, confirms that the event is an invention of Matthew. (p. 146)

Why then did Luke omit such an important event that coincided with Jesus’s death? Perhaps his omission is, in fact, a deletion and confirms that the earthquake event is an invention, that is a “myth” developed by Matthew. Moreover, here too there is no historical verification from even one external source for this remarkable event. This omission from sources other than Mark, Luke, or even John should raise the proverbial red flag. (pp. 147-148)

Perhaps Luke’s omission is a deletion that confirmed that the event (i.e., “myth”) is an invention of Matthew. (p. 160)

Either the information in John was unknown to the synoptic authors, deliberately omitted, or a later fabrication. (p. 175)

[subtitle] John’s Invented Dubious Details and Theology (p. 182)

Luke’s omission suggests that either the event was invented by John after Luke had finished his narrative or that he was verifying the narratives of Mark and Matthew that no such event occurred. (p. 185)

Perhaps his omission, in fact, confirms that the event was an invention of John. (p. 238)

Nicodemus appears only in the Fourth Gospel. This remarkable absence casts doubt as to his historical existence. (p. 238)

A more probable explanation is that the synoptic authors did not record this detail because John invented it. (p. 267)

Of course, in addition, these speculations presume that the burial episode is historical. (p. 273)

The entire Joseph of Arimathea personality may be an invention. (p. 279)

It is speculated that Matthew employed unusual wording in 27:62 to deliberately obscure the fact that he would have the Jewish leadership violating the Sabbath. (p. 292)

Nonetheless, according to Christian apologists, members of the Sanhedrin, perhaps all of them, are now going to order non-Jews to work on the Sabbath in direct violation of God’s instruction and in full public view. Such a blatant and deliberate violation of the Torah in public refutes the historicity of this legendary episode [the story of the Roman guards at the tomb]. (p. 294)

[I]t makes perfect sense that Luke deliberately omits this event as a part of his narrative if, in fact, he doubts Matthew’s sources. (p. 295)

One of the foremost objectives of the Gospel of Matthew is to prove Jesus’s resurrection. In order to fulfill this objective its author invented the
episode of the guard at the tomb. Matthew 27:64 narrates that the purpose of the guard is to secure the tomb “least his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people. He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.” However, this uniquely written episode is nothing more than a clever façade of the author.

Having a guard at the tomb suggests that Jesus’s body could not have been stolen. Given that the body has not been stolen or the tomb mistaken
for another, there is one explanation for it being empty: Jesus’s miraculous resurrection from the dead. The presence of the guard is irrelevant. The issue of concern for Matthew is to create a fail-proof set of circumstances to prove that Jesus resurrected from the tomb. (pp. 297-298)

. . . the writing of this legendary episode [the Roman guards at the tomb] . . . (p. 298)

Yet another explanation is that the gospel writers were writing a legendary account. Gundry (1994, 623-40) has termed these legendary accounts [of the women visitors to Jesus’ tomb] as “Midrash.” (p. 318)

Obviously the three following gospel authors deliberately changed the text of Mark because they understood the inappropriateness between the women’s intention to anoint Jesus’s body and their initial oblivion to the problem of moving the large stone. (p. 326)

Matthew’s legendary earthquake probably occurred between 3:00 and 5:00 a.m. (p. 329)

Undoubtedly, without the empty tomb there could not be a resurrection legend. (p. 333)

[T]he writer did an excellent job not writing a lie but narrating a legendary account to further his theological agenda based on the Hebrew Bible. Specifically, Matthew creatively and skillfully weaves a legendary account incorporating passages from Joshua 10 and Daniel 6 that are supposedly fulfilled by Jesus. (p. 342)

The episode of the guards at the tomb is, in part, artificially created to serve a dual agenda: as an apologetic and as an ad hominem against the Jewish leaderships. (p. 344)

If the guards had made an accusation that they knew it was Jesus’s disciples who carried off his body, they would have had to make some arrests.
Yet there are no arrests or trial for this supposed crime. Furthermore, the guard would have needed some false witnesses to convict the accused body snatchers. Since these events never happened, it demonstrates that Matthew made up the entire episode. (p. 348)

There are several practical problems that challenge the assumed authenticity and historicity of Luke’s narration with the women entering the tomb. (p. 359)

[T]hese writers have omitted at least one other possibility: the entire episode was a fabrication and invention by its author or final redactors. (p. 384)

Later, of course, an unknown redactor of Mark added the final eleven verses not found in the original to cover up the discrepancy of Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:9, which had the women going forth to tell the disciples. (p. 385)

The evolution of the clothes is apparent: (1) from no clothes (Mark and Matthew), (2) to clothes lying about (Luke), and finally (3) to clothes orderly arranged (John). Thus, the Gospels are clearly and unmistakably embellished. A second possibility advocated by detractors is that the entire burial and Resurrection narratives are ahistoric and written for evangelical and theological reasons. (p. 396)

There are several practical problems that challenge the authenticity and historicity of Peter and the other disciple entering the tomb (similar to the women) on Easter Sunday. (p. 405)

In conclusion, it is dubious that Peter was (1) told before by Jesus that he was going to be arrested, crucified, and resurrected multiple times (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; Mt 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; Lk 9:22; 18:31-33 and perhaps 24:6 by the women) and (2) Jesus performed multiple supernatural and miraculous events in Peter’s presence on almost a daily occurrence, and yet he did not believe. Rather than being historical, these events were written to serve a theological intent to demonstrate that faith was more important than seeing or witnessing miracles and signs. (p. 409)

[T]he gospel narrators probably lied in the modern sense of the word. When a witness in a court of law deliberately excludes, includes, or rearranges material according to his purposes, he is committing perjury. The authors and final redactors of the gospel narratives were liars in a modern sense. (p. 447)

John 12:1-8 substantially embellishes the text, making Judas appear progressively more heinous and odious than the synoptic narratives: . . . (p. 448)

For several reasons John’s addition that Judas was a one-time thief seems like an artificial embellishment. First, this highly significant fact that Judas was a thief is omitted from the earlier gospels. Second, this information has the ring of a literary design to entertain the reader by making Judas a more contemptible and despicable person. Third, this fact is dubious, . . . (p. 451)

Only Judas would ultimately know why he betrayed Jesus, assuming that this episode is historical. (p. 455)

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles present an ever-increasing evolution and embellishment of Judas’s life. (p. 458)

The significant embellishment of Luke was that Judas had now become a Satan-inspired character. (p. 463)

Matthew embellishes Mark in several ways. Matthew’s narrative contained 43 extra words and Jesus speaks 83 extra words (i.e., AV
translation). (p. 468)

This gospel embellished the synoptic Gospels by have the arresting party withdraw backward and falling to the ground. (p. 470)

After being apprehended, John further embellished the synoptic Gospels that not only Jesus was taken but that they also “bound him.” In no previous gospel was Jesus described as being bound. (p. 470)

[T]he Gospels and Acts present an obviously ever increasing evolution and embellishment of Judas’s life that portrayed him in an ever growing negative light. (p. 471)

By understanding this verse, it will be unequivocally apparent that Matthew’s citation is either erroneous or a deliberate embellishment to serve as a proof that the Hebrew Bible foreshadowed (typology) Judas’s heinous crime. (p. 473)

[T]he Judas episode was a legendary development that evolved many years after the events were reported to have occurred. (p. 525)

Assuming that there was an historical Judas . . . (p. 525)

The Judas episodes in the Gospels and Acts do not reflect historicity. (p. 530)

In other words, the narrative [the story of the disciples walking to Emmaus] is theological, not historical! (p. 538)

[A] practical explanation is that the story is Luke’s invention to serve his theological agenda. (p. 544)

Another subject that challenges the historicity and reliability of the Christian scriptures relates to the Emmaus narrative and the Passover. (p. 544)

This listing assumes that Paul is writing historicity [sic] and not theology. (p. 552)

The pertinent question is whether or not the Christian scriptures permit pious fraud to achieve this goal. Writing approximately twenty to thirty years prior to the synoptic Gospels, none other than the apostle Paul unequivocally declares that it was permissible to employ virtually any method to win converts and gain souls:

• Rom 3:7-8 For if the truth of God hath more abounded though my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather,
(as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

• 1 Cor 9:20-23 And unto the Jews I become as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak become I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might partaker thereof with you. (Refuted by Brown 2000, 14-15)

• Phil 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

This last reading is awkward and somewhat arcane. However, this verse is much easier to understand in the NIV rendering: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

Unequivocally, the Christian scriptures advocate and promote pious fraud. Given that the gospel narrators had access to Paul’s epistles, it is speculated that they followed the advice of Paul and employed pious fraud, that is, they incorporated ahistorical portions in their gospels to fulfill their theological agendas. (pp. 553-554)

[O]ne purpose of John’s narratives in 20:20 and 20:27 was to corroborate itself with details which seemingly created an illusion that the side-piercing episode was historical. . . . Here, history was being replaced with theology. (p. 579)

The historicity of Jesus’s response to his disciples on Easter Sunday evening in Jerusalem is questioned on three grounds. (p. 579)

The eating episodes [involving the risen Jesus] appear to be legendary embellishments that served a theological agenda. (p. 583)

[T]he Doubting Thomas episode was written to fulfill a theological agenda. In this episode of the Christian scriptures, there is no historicity. (p. 600)

John’s agenda was to write a missionary and theological text, not one that was historical. This agenda is clearly delineated in John 20:31: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” . . . To recap, the deliberate agenda of John was both missionary and theological. One such agenda was promoting blind faith in a risen Jesus.
Although there may be “grains of truth” (historicity) within his gospel, many of the signs were nonhistorical and definitely unconfirmed. (p. 604)

It is speculated that the historicity of the call to the lake is doubtful. Instead of being a real historical event it is posited that this episode, recorded only in John 21, was really a larger call. . . . John’s call to the lake served as a theological metaphor. (p. 605)

[A] speculated alternative is that this episode [of Peter catching 153 fish] was a legendary account written to promote Peter over the other apostles. (p. 609)

[I]t is possible that this entire episode was a literary invention with a hidden symbolic or theological agenda. (p. 609)

[I]t must be remembered that the Christian scriptures approve of pious fraud when they support the spread of Christianity. (p. 628)

John, being the last of the Gospels, embellished and aggrandized the postresurrection appearances. (p. 632)

If Paul, in fact, lied [about there being 500 witnesses of the risen Jesus] and the lie was in fact discovered, he still would have gotten away with his deceit by claiming that it must have had something to do with a conspiracy against him. Such a potential argument is found in 2 Corinthians 11:2: “Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices” and in Thessalonians 2:2: “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.” Similarly, those who denied Paul’s claims could simply have been accused of being false teachers. 

Rom 16:17-18 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them [[false teachers]] which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. . . .

Furthermore, there is ample reason to believe that Paul’s claim was nothing more than a facade, knowing full well that his assertion could not have been successfully disproved. (pp. 673-674)

Perhaps his omission was, in fact, a deletion and Luke was, in fact, challenging the historicity of Paul’s claim. (p. 685)

Only Luke provided an exclusive description of Jesus’s ascension, although here there is much to doubt regarding the authenticity of this narrative. (p. 702)

Barnes’s apologetic that the differing accounts confirm that the two writers [Luke and Paul]: . . . (2) . . . are honest men is bogus. (p. 723)

It is the position of doubters and skeptics that the events recorded in Matthew and Luke were embellishments or legendary texts incorporated to fulfill a theological agenda. (p. 724)

On a prima facie level the episodes detailed in Acts [about Paul’s conversion] are historically dubious. (p. 731)

[T]here is a stronger argument that can be raised about Jesus employing this Greek proverb, an argument that raises doubt regarding the
historicity of the incident. . . . it seems highly dubious that Jesus would choose to quote a Greek proverb to Paul while speaking Aramaic even if the proverb was well-known. (p. 732)

Collectively, these and other differences in the three readings raise doubt to the historicity of this episode. (p. 733)

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: I document Michael Alter’s many contentions in his book that the New Testament writers sought to produce ahistorical legends, fables, myths, & pure inventions of fictional accounts.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, NT writers: unethical mythmakers?, New Testament writers, the four evangelists, skeptical claims regarding biblical writers 

2021-04-20T11:47:21-04:00

Last updated on: April 20, 2021 at 11:47 am   By

. . . Including the Analogy of Historical Skepticism Against Many Renowned Persons from the Hebrew Bible

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review, and has committed himself to counter-response as well: a very rare trait these days. All of this is, I think, mightily impressive.

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and eagerly enjoy the dialogue and debate. This is a rare opportunity these days and I am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

His words will be in blue.

*****

Michael Alter devotes 18 pages (pp. 31-48) to the date that Jesus was killed. I contend that it’s all to no avail in the end because the New Testament (like the Hebrew Bible) exhibits virtually no concern for actual dates and precise, exact chronology. That sort of thinking is largely inherited from Roman culture. On page 34, Alter announces “CONTRADICTION #1: The Year Jesus Was Crucified.” But it’s not a biblical contradiction at all because the date is never asserted. Therefore, what he is describing as a “contradiction” is only the usual, inevitable differences and disputes among historians, archaeologists, and various sorts of Bible scholars. That can hardly even be called a “contradiction” since it’s one of thousands of disagreements that scholars have amongst themselves. Alter states precisely that:

Theologians, New Testament scholars, historians, standard reference sources, evangelicals, and even evangelical organizations are divided regarding the exact “year” Jesus was crucified and resurrected. (p. 34)

To which I say: “ho hum” and “so what?”

Alter — in his usual excruciating and impressive detail (he read about 5,000 books and articles in the course of his research) — goes through all the various theories for different dates, summarizing their rationales. Most of the “eleven selected years” (p. 34) have one or only a few advocates: at least judging by the ones he references in his book. Three dates have quite a few more listed proponents: AD 29, 30, and 33. But Alter opines about the year 29:

The year 29 can absolutely be eliminated because in that year the Passover occurred at the beginning of the week. In addition, the date assumes a one year ministry. Consequently, this cannot be reconciled with any of the other evidence. The Passover cannot occur that early. (p. 40)

Prima facie, this sounds good enough for me. So that leaves two likely years, according to Alter’s survey of many scholars. He cites (on p. 41) a bunch of scholars who opt for AD 30. Finally, he concludes about AD 33: “Perhaps AD 33 is one of the most often cited years for Jesus’s death” (p. 43). Then he states in the objections section: “Others argue that year 33, with a Friday crucifixion does not provide for a literal seventy-two hours in the tomb” (p. 44). But 72 hours aren’t required to fulfill the saying, “three days and three nights”: according to how the ancient Jews construed time and these sorts of statements (as I have written about). In other words, it’ not a literal 72 hours being referred to. That’s our modern, precise Greek- and Roman- influenced thinking about time and sequence: not Hebraic thought.

In his Conclusion for the chapter he observes:

It must be remembered that Christian apologists . . . maintain that the year Jesus died and was resurrected is the most important and significant event in the history of mankind. (p. 47)

Sure; but again we must remember that it is not the exact year that is important; it’s the event. The above sentence ought to read (I submit): “Christian apologists maintain that Jesus’ death and Resurrection are the most important and significant events in the history of mankind.”

Alter then contrasts (on p. 47) this uncertainty with several events of known dates, such as the deaths of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Herod the Great, Caesar Augustus, and Caligula, and the birth dates of Julius Caesar, Tiberias, etc. Most of the people and events mentioned were Roman. They kept precise dates. And this is my point. They thought like the Greeks, because they emulated them in many respects. But the Hebrews did not follow Greek thought. They had been Hellenized, it’s true, but they maintained key aspects of their culture and ways of thinking through the New Testament period.

Since Alter provided us with this chart of 16 precise dates, I’d like to share a lot of imprecise dates (even among the Greeks themselves), in order to show that this particular aspect of the debate is quite a mixed bag:

1) Strabo, Greek geographer and historian, died at some unknown date after AD 20.

2) Herodotus, the Greek “father of history” died around 408 BC.

3) Xenophon, Greek historian, died around 359 BC.

4) Aristophanes, Greek comic poet, died around 380 BC.

5) Thales, Greek philosopher, died around 546 BC.

6) Pythagoras, Greek philosopher and Mathematician, died around 495 BC.

When it comes to founders of some other religions, it gets far more inaccurate:

7) Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), according to Wikipedia, is said to have been born in “c. 563 BCE or 480 BCE” and died “c. 483 BCE or 400 BCE.”

8) About Lao-Tze or Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism, it is stated in Wikipedia: “A semi-legendary figure, Lao Tzu was usually portrayed as a 6th-century BC contemporary of Confucius, but some modern historians consider him to have lived during the Warring States period of the 4th century BC.”

9) As for Zoroaster or Zarathustra: founder of Zoroastrianism, Wikipedia pitifully declares:

There is no scholarly consensus on when he lived. Some scholars, using linguistic and socio-cultural evidence, suggest a dating to somewhere in the second millennium BCE. Other scholars date him in the 7th and 6th century BCE . . . By any modern standard of historiography, no evidence can place him into a fixed period and the historicization surrounding him may be a part of a trend from before the 10th century CE that historicizes legends and myths.

How about the famous and influential figures in the Hebrew Bible and Judaism? How much do historians agree about them?:

10) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: if Jonathan wants to rely on historians for his arguments, and regard them as the “last word” when it comes to Christianity, let’s see how these three patriarchs of Judaism fare. Wikipedia (“Abraham”) summarizes:

In the early and middle 20th century, leading archaeologists such as William F. Albright and biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who lived in the “patriarchal age“, the 2nd millennium BCE. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel’s past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson‘s The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters‘ Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts. His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations. By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.

There we go. If modern scholarship is the “hill we want to die on” then we have to die on it across the board. I don’t accept the research of the more skeptical historians and archaeologists (Albright being the quintessential “non-skeptical” example), because it’s based on erroneous premises. I stood in Israel in the place where Abraham is said to have met Melchizedek (according to our guide). I stood as close as I could get to the rock where Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac: where the first temple (and perhaps the later temples) stood. I’ve also written about possible archaeological evidences for Sodom and Gomorrah.

11) Moses: it’s the same as with Abraham: so declares Wikipedia (maybe even worse):

The modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is a mythical figure while also holding that “a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C.” and that archeology is unable to confirm either way. Even though his name is Egyptian, no references to Moses appear in any Egyptian sources prior to the fourth century BCE, long after he is believed to have lived. No contemporary Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus–Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure.

I have argued that archaeology has not disproven the Exodus, as part of my apologetics replies to atheists, and I have also presented stunning archaeological evidence for Joshua’s altar on Mt. Ebal.

12) Joseph: let’s follow the scholars and “higher critics” to see what they think of this great biblical figure. Wikipedia summarizes:

The historicity of the Joseph narrative cannot be demonstrated. [footnote: “The majority of current scholars believe that the historicity of the Egyptian sojourn, exodus, and wilderness wandering that the Bible remembers cannot be demonstrated by historical methods.”] . . .

Hermann Gunkel, Hugo Gressmann and Gerhard von Rad identified the story of Joseph as a literary composition, in the genre of romance, or the novella. As a novella, it is read as reworking legends and myths, in particular the motifs of his reburial in Canaan, associated with the Egyptian god Osiris. Others compare the burial of his bones at Shechem, with the disposal of Dionysus‘s bones at Delphi. For Schenke, the tradition of Joseph’s burial at Shechem is understood as a secondary, Israelitic historical interpretation woven around a more ancient Canaanite shrine in that area.

13) King David is barely considered as historical, and even when he is, for most of these “skeptical” / ultra-“critical” scholars neither he nor events related to him are anything like what the Bible describes; that is, if we are “gullible” enough to believe that they ever happened at all (see Wikipedia for the gory details).

Christians like myself, on the other hand, fully believe that he reigned over a significant kingdom starting around 1000 BC. I visited my namesake’s original city in 2014 when I visited Jerusalem. I walked beside the hill where ancient Jerusalem was and kept looking up at it in awe. I saw where David battled Goliath and collected stones from where he would have gotten them (souvenirs for my kids). I visited Khirbet Qeiyafa: a town from his time, and collected pottery there that may be 3,000 years old. So I believe it, because I believe the Bible, which has been shown to be historically accurate times without number. But the bulk of scholars apparently don’t (so we are now told).

Mr. Alter (here’s the thing) can’t have it both ways: accept the Hebrew Bible and Judaism in some semblance of traditional fashion, and at the same time the “word” of a head count of scholars, which he recruits for the purpose of skepticism towards the New Testament accounts of Jesus. The two don’t mix very well. If he wants to enlist them to question events in Jesus’ life, then all the more will they also take “down and out” pivotal events and people in Judaism.

14) Daniel: Wikipedia: “The consensus of modern scholars is that Daniel never existed, . . .”

All of this is going on with these skeptical, anti-biblical scholars and Michael Alter thinks it is significant and a “contradiction” that the bulk of scholars have basically concluded that Jesus died in either 30 or 33 AD? Seriously?

The uncertain dates extend well into the current era also. For example, I have compiled three books of quotations from the Church fathers: eminent men and teachers from the first to the eighth centuries. Oftentimes, the dates of their deaths and/or births are not known with certainty. I list 52 in one of my books. Out of those, 45 (an astonishing 87%) have dates of death or birth that are uncertain. Here they are:

Pope Clement of Rome (d. c. 101)

Ignatius of Antioch (50 – c. 110)

Theophilus (fl. 185-191)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215)

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225)

Hippolytus (d.c. 236)

Origen (c. 185-c. 254)

Dionysius of Alexandria (d.c. 264)

Lactantius (c. 240-c. 320)

Eusebius of Caesaria [Church historian] (c. 265-c. 340)

Aphraates (c. 280-c. 345)

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-368)

Athanasius (c. 297-373)

Ephraem (c. 306-373)

Basil the Great (c. 330-379)

Optatus of Milevis (c. 320-c. 385)

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-387)

Gregory Nazianzen (c. 330-c. 390)

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-c. 394)

Ambrose (c. 336-397)

Epiphanius (c. 315-403)

John Chrysostom (c. 345-407)

Jerome (c. 343-420)

Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428)

John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444)

Theodotus (d.c. 445)

Sozomen [Church historian] (c. 375-c. 447)

Socrates Scholasticus [Church historian] (c. 379-c. 450)

Vincent of Lerins (d.c. 450)

Peter Chrysologus (c. 405-450)

Prosper of Aquitane (d.c. 455)

Patrick (c. 390-c. 460)

Pope Leo the Great (c. 400-461)

Theodoret of Cyr (c. 393-c. 466)

Caesar of Arles (c. 470-542)

Gregory of Tours (538-c. 594)

Pope Gregory the Great (c. 540-604)

Augustine of Canterbury (d. c. 605)

Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560-638)

Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662)

Germanus of Constantinople (c. 634-c. 733)

Venerable Bede (c. 673-735)

Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740)

John Damascene (c. 645-c. 749)

Nor does it stop there. I wrote in one of my articles about 23 Catholic “proto-scientists” of the 12th and 13th centuries. Again, we find the same lack of precision: with uncertain birth or death dates or both for 17 of the 23 (74% ): including many men who are quite famous (e.g., St. Albert the Great and Roger Bacon). I could find many more historical examples, but I trust that my point is adequately made by now.

Alter states:

In fact, the precise year that Jesus died as well as the date or day of his birth is not known. Obviously the date of these occurrences should be
the most knowable events of the history of mankind, yet how is it possible that the dates of . . . the supreme events in the history of our world are totally unknown? . . . 

From this issue it is clear that nobody has the faintest idea when Jesus died! The year of Jesus’s crucifixion is unknown, . . . (p. 48)

Not the “faintest” idea? Is this not quite a bit of rhetorical exaggeration? Good ol’ Wikipedia informs us, after all, that, regarding the date of Jesus’ birth, “a majority of scholars assume a date between 6 BC and 4 BC.” So we have (even among our blessed scholars) a range of three years and two likely and plausible dates for His death  (30 or 33) and a range of three years for His birth. In light of everything else we have seen above, that’s very good.

And since the Bible never asserted either date as such, and doesn’t “care” about such things generally speaking, I contend that it is a non-issue altogether. We know enough. Yes, Christians indeed regard the events of His life as “supreme events in the history of our world” but it doesn’t follow at all (not in the slightest) that we must know the exact dates when they occurred in order to rationally believe them. We know more than enough, and according to biblical thinking the things themselves are far more important than exactly when they happened.

The analogy of Judaism is again instructive. Observant Jews for over 3,000 years have devoutly celebrated Passover every year. It commemorates an actual event (and a supernatural one at that), that occurred about the time of the Exodus. Yet the “consensus” of historians is that we have no evidence of the Exodus or that (even more strongly) it never happened at all, and they (and we) don’t know exactly when Moses was born or died.

Needless to say, these same historians would mock and deny the notion of Moses going up to a holy mountain, talking to God and receiving tablets with the Ten Commandments written by God Himself; as well as receiving also a great deal of oral tradition from God, to be passed down for thousands of years, as it has turned out. They would laugh about and deride what they consider foolish notions such as a parting of the Red Sea, the several plague miracles in Egypt, pillars of smoke and fire leading the Hebrews through the desert, manna falling from the sky, and Moses going up to Mt. Nebo and being buried by God. Nor would they believe that God was specially present above the ark of the covenant, between the wings of the golden cherubim. It’s all nonsense and mythology to them.

Does this historical skepticism stop Jews from observing Passover and the more traditional ones from continuing to painstakingly keep all 613 commandments of the Law of Moses: assuming all the while that both things are based on real history and a real person: Moses, who had a unique relationship with God? No. Why, then, is a date discrepancy (in opinions) of two or three years for Jesus’ birth and death supposedly an “issue” or a “contradiction”? I confess that I cannot for the life of me comprehend such an argument.

I believe all these things recorded in the Hebrew Bible, and it matters not a whit to me whether a bunch of hyper-critical, anti-supernaturalist, sometimes secular or atheist historians (and even less traditional adherents of Judaism), operating on a host of false and unsubstantiated (and often downright hostile) premises disbelieve all of them or not. There are also historians and archaeologists who do not deny these things, or at least take a neutral / non-hostile approach. It all depends on the premises that one chooses to accept and assume, in doing historiographical research.

Likewise, Jews celebrate Hannukah, or Chanuka every year, which commemorates a miracle when the temple was rededicated: most likely in 164 BC. It’s precisely the miraculous [historical] event that occurred, which is recalled and celebrated. The Talmud states:

For when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the kohen gadol (high priest), but which contained sufficient [oil] for one day’s lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein, and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving. (Shabbat 21b)

Yet the Wikipedia article on this Jewish holy day informs us that “The miracle of the oil is widely regarded as a legend and its authenticity has been questioned since the Middle Ages.” Once again, then, Judaism finds itself clashing with the all-knowing, unquestionable skeptical historians. Which is to be believed? I go with the reported miracle and Jewish religious belief and practice.

But back to Jesus: the view that He never existed is still considered fringe and extreme and is held by very few historians, though (oblivious to such trifles) atheists are currently becoming increasingly enthralled with this ultra-ludicrous mythology. It’s also obvious to one and all that we basically know when Jesus was born, too, because our entire system of determining what year it is (the “BC” and “AD” system) is derived from His life (specifically, the approximate year of His birth). The very terminology of “CVE” and “BCE” was designed to extricate itself from the historical connection to Jesus. As Wikipedia explains:

The term “Common Era” . . . became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish religious scholars. Since the later 20th century, CE and BCE are popular in academic and scientific publications as culturally neutral terms. They are used by others who wish to be sensitive to non-Christians by not explicitly referring to Jesus as “Christ” nor as Dominus (“Lord”) through use of the other abbreviations.

I say that monotheists need to stick together and defend the Hebrew Bible against the atheists and radical secularists who only wish to tear it (along with the faith of traditional religious people) down. Abraham is regarded as a “father” by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. Are they all supposed to believe (because a bunch of pointy-headed historians “concluded”) that Abraham (along with many other notable biblical figures) was a mere mythical or legendary figure: akin to Odysseus, Hercules, Thor, Odin, or King Arthur? Do we really want to go down that road? The whole point of him being a father and patriarch is that he actually existed.

This is what Michael Alter is left with (by logical reduction and consistent logic across the board) if he insists on the “magisterium of the head count of scholars.” Given all of the massive skepticism outlined above, dates of Jesus’ birth and death within a range of just three or four years for both are almost literally “nothing” in comparison. I’ve scarcely given it a moment’s thought and I dare say that is probably true of 99.999% of all Christians who have ever lived.

In the same manner, every devout Jew observes Passover, without knowing what date the Exodus occurred, or the dates of Moses’ birth and death. All they care about is that the Passover miracle and the glorious Exodus actually happened in history, and were wrought by the hand of God. The lack of knowledge of exact dates are neither essentially important, nor any kind of “contradiction” against or disproof of Jewish religious belief in the actuality of this person and these events.

This is why I have no plans to write a book called, The Passover [or, Abraham or Moses, etc.]: A Critical Inquiry. But if I were, hypothetically, to write such a book, then I could use precisely the same “counting the heads of scholars” method that Mr. Alter uses to critique Christianity. And that ought to give him great pause, because it also demolishes any of his own Jewish beliefs (whatever the particulars of those may be) that claim to be based on historical events.

I would strongly contend that the historical component is altogether essential to Judaism — in any of its variant forms — and can’t possibly be removed from it, anymore than it can be removed from Christianity. Judaism minus the traditionally believed history is no longer Judaism at all, just as the New Testament ceased to be itself when Thomas Jefferson (a Unitarian) ridiculously took the scissors to it and removed all the miracles. A non-miraculous Christianity is no longer Christianity at all because (above all) if Jesus’ Resurrection is removed (as Michael Alter agrees), it is deprived of its essence. The same is true of a hollowed-out “Judaism” without the historical Exodus, God’s giving of the law specifically to the ancient Hebrews (in time and history), and historical persons Abraham and Moses.

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: In “Resurrection Debate #2” Michael Alter makes an issue out of the inexact date of Jesus’ death. I retort that the Bible is indifferent and do a reductio ad absurdum of skeptical scholars and what they think of the historicity of figures from the Hebrew Bible.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry

***

2021-04-16T16:51:38-04:00

Last updated on: April 16, 2021 at 4:51 pm   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review, and has committed himself to counter-response as well: a very rare trait these days. All of this is, I think, mightily impressive.

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and eagerly enjoy the dialogue and debate. This is a rare opportunity these days and I am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

*****

You’ll soon discover that I have particular interests and am uninterested in other things. That will be true with regard to your book. I am primarily interested in demonstrating that alleged NT contradictions really aren’t so, or “defeating the defeaters”: as Protestant philosopher Alvin Plantinga likes to say. The idea is to question whether internal contradictions are present, and to refute each one that is alleged. That’s what I did so far in my 59 replies to your book: based on what I could read of it. So you already see what I will mostly be doing as I proceed.

*
It’s a “negative” sort of evidence for NT trustworthiness and internal consistency and cohesion. It doesn’t prove inspiration, but it is consistent with it; that is, inspired revelation would not and could not contain real contradictions. And it’s an objective enterprise: one of logic. Orthodox, traditional Christians like myself believe that the NT (and the OT) are ultimately “supervised” (quite different, however, from “dictated”), guided, and protected from error by God Himself, and that the results, therefore, are infallible (in the original autographs) and therefore, non-contradictory.
*
Where human authors, writing of their own accord, but inspired by God, may not have been intentionally seeking logical harmony with all other NT books (often not even knowing they existed), God saw to it that this harmony was in fact achieved. This is my presupposition, and it lies behind my view that the NT books are a coherent whole, and that cross-references from any one book are relevant to similar subject material in all the other books (one of the key premises of systematic theology, which I love).
*
Of course, this is a tenet of faith. One can hardly “prove” such a thing. Faith itself is (we say) consonant with reason and not antithetical to it at all. Reason can bolster it in quite a few ways; yet faith can never reduce to mere reason or philosophy. It is its own entity. And it is enabled by God’s grace. If “most” modern scholars reject these sorts of things, it is of little concern to me. From where I sit, they have adopted various false premises, leading to a loss of a faith they may have once had (whether Jewish or Christian), or preventing the attainment of such faith in the future. In our view, loss of faith, or never having had faith can’t help but harm their thinking processes as well.
*
In a word, they lack wisdom. I think much of liberal biblical scholarship and atheist “biblical scholarship” is outright and intrinsically dishonest. It is not approaching the Bible as it actually is, and is dedicated to forcing it into conceptions that it is not. I’m not a scholar and I can’t say that I have read 5,000 books like you or deal with this stuff on that level, but I do have some 40 years of experience debating atheists and defending the Bible and Christianity and (more broadly) theism.
*
Christianity cannot be reduced to philosophy or scholarship of the “pointy heads.” I’m not “anti-scholarship” at all; but I take a dim view of skeptical and theologically liberal scholarship (as you saw in my vigorous criticism of Fr. Raymond Brown). Catholics in particular believe that biblical scholarship from professed Catholics must seek to be in harmony with Church teachings and dogmas.
*
A lot of people don’t like that. Again it comes down to the beliefs of faith and one’s premises. Bertrand Russell maintained that St. Thomas Aquinas was not a philosopher because he was also a theologian and orthodox Catholic. For Russell, those two things were utterly incompatible. For St. Thomas (drawing largely from Aristotle) and virtually all Catholics, they are not at all. It’s two different things that are in harmony, just as science and faith / theology are also in harmony.
*
Many people view me as a fundamentally dishonest person, a sophist or special pleader, or even an outright liar because I am an apologist and defend a particular viewpoint. I respond that everyone has a viewpoint or a worldview, whether they acknowledge it or not, and they accept many axiomatic premises that cannot themselves be proven. A Catholic apologist simply has a few more ironclad premises than most, but it’s not an intrinsically dishonest enterprise.
*
This will give you an idea of how I approach these things, and where my main interest in your book lies. I will still have a lot to respond to, because you allege many contradictions. With atheists who propose many of these, the discussion often gets down to one about plausibility. I think I decisively refute a proposed contradiction, and they don’t see it at all, because they have these (arbitrary) notions that “the text shouldn’t read as it does, and should read a different way.” And of course they reject all miracles and even the honesty and integrity of the NT authors.
*
But on what basis can they say that (what the Bible writers should or shouldn’t have written if they were “honest” etc.)? It’s all arbitrary: as are all the convoluted, cynical theories they have about the NT writers being agenda-driven; special pleading sophists. Belief in biblical inspiration and internal coherence, on the other hand, is indeed a tenet of faith, but at least it leads to a consistent methodology of both respecting and analyzing the NT. It’s not inherently hostile to the NT.
*
These things that atheists constantly throw out as if they are Gospel Truths (ah, the irony!) can’t be objectively, reasonably argued, because there is nothing to base them on. You yourself wrote:  “there is no way to know what the writers were thinking when they constructed their narratives” (p. 26). Well, I think we can often have a good idea, but for sure no one can possibly “know” all these cynical theories that atheists dream up and fantasize about, regarding the construction of the NT and its purpose to deceive and manipulate: as they think. These are the true myths in play here, in my opinions; not the NT stories.
*
But most of the time, in resolving these “difficulties” the argument comes down to (from my perspective) atheist ignorance of biblical / Hebraic thinking (particularly the many non-western or non-Greek elements) and ancient near eastern culture and the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words involved, as well as not grasping what is said about the same topic in other parts of the NT and OT.
*
Lastly, though I won’t be arguing matters of philosophy of religion (e.g., whether miracles occur, etc.) much at all, you might be interested in knowing that the book along these lines that profoundly influenced me was An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, by St. John Henry Cardinal Newman: who is my “intellectual hero” and the primary intellectual influence on my conversion to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism in 1990 (development of doctrine as classically analyzed by him being the main element).
*
My Quotable Newman was published by a major Catholic publisher, and I self-published two more books of his quotations. His thinking in that book was absolutely extraordinary and anticipated subtle and profound aspects of philosophy of religion and religious and philosophical epistemology (tacit knowledge or implicit knowledge) later expounded upon by Michael Polanyi some eighty years later. It’s by far the most difficult and complex book I have ever read, but one of the most rewarding in its incredible richness and depth.
*
I’m rambling a bit, but perhaps you will find this helpful to understand my presuppositions and methodology.

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: In the first of a series of dialogues (“Resurrection Debate”) with Jewish author Michael Alter, I lay out my fundamental premises with regard to biblical inspiration and alleged “contradictions.”

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, biblical theology, New Testament, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry

***

2021-04-10T19:19:44-04:00

Last updated on: April 10, 2021 at 7:19 pm   By

Dr. David Madison is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University.  I have replied to his videos or articles 45 times as of this writing. Thus far, I haven’t heard one peep back from him  (from 8-1-19 to 4-10-21). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. All I’ve seen is expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison and from his buddy, the atheist author, polemicist, and extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the ultra-insulting Debunking Christianity blog. Dr. Madison made his cramped, insulated mentality clear in a comment from 9-6-19:

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

Only preaching to the choir from Dr. Madison! One can’t be too careful in avoiding any criticism or challenge. John “you are an idiot!” Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, so that he and Dr. Madison could avoid replying to yours truly, or even see notices of my substantive replies (er, sorry, rants, rather). He wrote in part:

Some angry Catholic apologist has been tagging our posts with his angry long-winded responses. . . . If any respectful person has a counter-argument or some counter-evidence then bring it. State your case in as few words as possible and then engage our commenters in a discussion. . . . I talked with David Madison who has been the target of these links and he’s in agreement with this decision. He’s planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.

Needless to say, I still await these long-promised replies to any of my critiques from good ol’ Dr. Madison. His words will be in blue.

Presently, I am replying to his article, “Bible Blunders & Bad Theology, Part 6″ (11-27-20).

*****

Question Two: How Would Anyone Acquire Knowledge of a Miraculous Conception?

“Well, God told the authors, didn’t he?” This works for those who believe the Bible is God’s inspired word. But they react with proper skepticism when other religions claim the same thing for the Qur’an and Book of Mormon—which they don’t accept for a moment. Historians know very well that “God told them” doesn’t work; it’s faith-bias out of control, claiming far more than can be objectively known. John Loftus pointed this out in his Christmas day post in 2016: 

How might anonymous gospel writers, 90 plus years later, objectively know Jesus was born of a virgin? Who told them? The Holy Spirit? Why is it God speaks to individuals in private, subjective, unevidenced whispers? Those claims are a penny a dozen.

You may fervently believe within your heart, but there are no data by which virgin birth can be confirmed; it is a feature of ancient folklore. . . . 

How many Catholics have paused their adoration of Mary long enough to ask: How do theologians know what was happening in the womb of a first century Galilean teenager? . . . 

This theology thrives among those who never ask—who have been taught not to ask—How do you know all this? All this is fueled by theological imagination, and a fair amount of craftiness too, that is, digging for texts that can be construed to support flights of fantasy. Why do people take it seriously? 

I doubt that theology can be grounded in reality; objective evidence for god(s) has never been found. . . . superstitious folklore that gods use virgins to beget human children.  

Wow. Really? Is Dr. Madison truly this fantastically clueless and, well, stupid? Just a moment’s thought (no more) will provide any sentient being with an IQ higher than a rusty nail enough time to figure this one out. It’s not rocket science, but it is science of a rather obvious, straightforward type: the science of biology and specifically reproduction, to be exact.

How would anyone know that they were the carriers of a baby who was not conceived by man, but by God? Here’s how it works (perhaps Dr. Madison — i.e., if he ever read any opposing opinions ever — and his equally zealous buddy John Loftus will have to read this three times to grasp it):

1) Mary is visited by an angel (the Annunciation: recorded in Luke 1:26-38).

2) This angel (Gabriel) informs her that “you will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Lk 1:31).

3) Mary asks the logical and reasonable question: “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” (Lk 1:34). She was a farm girl. She knew how babies came about in both animals and human beings.

4) The angel explained to her that she would bear the Messiah and the Son of God / God the Son (Lk 1:32-33, 35) by means of a miraculous virgin birth: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Lk 1:35).

Now, how could anyone possibly find out about such a miracle? Well, we can by listening to Mary’s own testimony about it, which got to Luke either directly, or through oral tradition.

How can we possibly verify such a miracle? How can we “know”? After all, Dr. Madison in his infinite wisdom, has informed us that “there are no data by which virgin birth can be confirmed” and that it’s mere “folklore” and is simply “imagination” and “craftiness” and “flights of fantasy.” Why (Dr. Madison passionately inquires), would anyone “take it seriously”? It’s not “grounded in reality.”

Now, we all realize that we’re dealing with an atheist (and apostate) who rejects all biblical texts as inaccurate and untrustworthy: especially if they express a supernatural event that the atheist redefines out of existence before even fairly examining it. But that’s rather beside the point. Here, as in all his innumerable bashings of the Bible and Christianity, Dr. Madison is making the point that it is internally incoherent, and ought not be believed by any rational and “scientific” person.

He’s not asking the question: “why should we believe the account of Luke 1 as historical?” He’s asking a much more philosophically fundamental question and an epistemological one: how could such a thing as a virgin birth be known at all, by anyone? That’s why he frames it as “how would anyone acquire” such knowledge? In other words, how it is possible even in a theoretical or hypothetical sense, to know this and to pass it on to another chronicler like Luke? He thinks the entire thing (believe it or not believe it) is impossible and absurd from A to Z: totally ridiculous and nothing but. And so he taunts us Christians to explain this event that to him is utterly inexplicable.

With that runaround introduction, let’s get back to the second question: How can we possibly verify such a miracle? Well, again, it’s very simple:

1) In due course, it will be physically evident that she is indeed pregnant, and in nine months she delivers the baby Jesus.

2) She knows for a fact that she has not been intimate with a man at any time before Jesus was born, nor (most Christians through history have believed) at any time in her life.

3) Therefore, she has rather compelling proof that a miracle did indeed occur. She was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not a man, precisely as the angel told her.

She not only “knows” this for sure, but she knows it with a certainly perhaps as compelling as that for any miracle ever, since babies can only come about by one natural process, which did not occur in her case. 

So how can we “know”? How can anyone “confirm” or “take” the virgin birth “seriously”? I just explained it. It happened to a human being, and the most reasonable explanation is to accept that what the angel told Mary was absolutely true: since the obvious miracle has to be explained somehow.

Once Jesus was born and lived His life, performed many extraordinary miracles, claimed in many ways to be God in the flesh, and ultimately rose from the dead, even visited His followers after His death, then it was also confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt that He was God.

The entire process is verifiable and empirical at all stages: the virgin birth is a physical event that’s proven by a pregnancy occurring without intercourse. Jesus proves Who He is by performing verifiable miracles (a lame man walks, a blind man sees, a demon-possessed man is liberated; dead people are raised; Jesus Himself rises from the dead. He meets with His disciples after death and shows that He has a resurrected body, by eating fish and having Thomas feel the wound in His side. 500 people see Him after death. They go out and transform the world with His gospel message of salvation: many of them dying for their faith.

What more does one need? Nothing except faith. The atheist lacks that and immediately shrugs off all such evidence (usually with accompanying smirks and mockery). There are many possible causes for why they might do so: but none of them derive from a fair, objective examination of Christian claims, or a rational, logical analysis. We see how utterly irrational and laughable this objection was.

***

Photo credit: The Annunciation (1644), by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Atheist anti-theist sophist Dr. Madison asks how Jesus’ virgin birth could possibly be “confirmed”? How can anyone “know” it happened? Very simple: listen to Mary’s own report. This ain’t rocket science. But it is biological science.

***

Tags: alleged biblical contradictions, anti-Christian bigotry, anti-theism, anti-theists, Atheism, atheist exegesis, atheist hermeneutics, atheists, Bible “contradictions”, contradictions in the Bible, critiques of Christianity, David Madison, Debunking Christianity, Madison Malarkey, virgin birth, Mariology, Annunciation, Blessed Virgin Mary, John Loftus 

***

2021-04-10T16:11:04-04:00

Last updated on: April 10, 2021 at 4:11 pm   By

Mark 16:17-18 and the Various Sign Miracles

Dr. David Madison is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University.  I have replied to his videos or articles 44 times as of this writing. Thus far, I haven’t heard one peep back from him  (from 8-1-19 to 4-9-21). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. All I’ve seen is expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison and from his buddy, the atheist author, polemicist, and extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the ultra-insulting Debunking Christianity blog. Dr. Madison made his cramped, insulated mentality clear in a comment from 9-6-19:

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

Only preaching to the choir from Dr. Madison! One can’t be too careful in avoiding any criticism or challenge. John “you are an idiot!” Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, so that he and Dr. Madison could avoid replying to yours truly, or even see notices of my substantive replies (er, sorry, rants, rather). He wrote in part:

Some angry Catholic apologist has been tagging our posts with his angry long-winded responses. . . . If any respectful person has a counter-argument or some counter-evidence then bring it. State your case in as few words as possible and then engage our commenters in a discussion. . . . I talked with David Madison who has been the target of these links and he’s in agreement with this decision. He’s planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.

Needless to say, I still await these long-promised replies to any of my critiques from good ol’ Dr. Madison. His words will be in blue.

Presently, I am replying to his article, “Remarkable Resistance to Rational Inquiry” (2-19-21).

*****

Many of the faithful . . . sense that religion has claimed too much. They know that the famous promise of the risen Jesus in Mark 16 just isn’t true, i.e., that baptized Christians—using Jesus’ name—will be able to “…cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (vv. 17-18)

These verses quality as Bible silliness (not really excused because they’re in the fake ending of Mark) and are disconfirmed by Christians in their daily lives. But there are still great expectations of God the Great Healer, with little more than faith to go on.

The only silly and dumbfounded person here is Dr. Madison: who should know much better than to make such a clueless argument. As so often, this involves non-literal genre of the Bible: a not uncommon occurrence. For example, hyperbole (exaggeration) is often used by Jesus. But in this instance it’s proverbial language: general statements that are often true, but which admit of many exceptions. In other words, this is not some hyper-literal statement that any and every Christian will be able to do any of these things anytime, at will.

No; rather, it’s a proverbial statement that among Christians as a whole, one will be able to observe all of these phenomena: demons being cast out (mostly the domain of the exorcist today), speaking in new tongues, not being hurt by poisonous snakes or poison in a drink, and healing the sick by touch.  We can easily show in several ways that this saying was not meant literally; that is, wasn’t intended to describe universal application.

I’ve already educated Dr. Madison three times (one / two / three) with regard to the true biblical teaching on healing, which is not universal or on command. I dealt with the topic of healing in the Bible early on in my apologetics apostolate (1982). But he never learns anything because he refuses to engage any criticism, let alone to be corrected; so he repeats the same hogwash over and over (apparently thinking his argument improves by repeating lies). He even buys the same tripe that some of the silliest, most gullible, and scripturally ignorant Christians (that he despises) accept. How ironic, huh? The “smart” atheist who believes the same ridiculous and unbiblical thing that fundamentalist ignoramuses do (i.e., that God supposedly heals all the time, upon command, as if He were a genie in a bottle) . . .

The way Jesus phrases it shows that He is talking generally about the collective of Christians: “these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will . . .” (Mk 16:17, RSV).

It’s like saying, “these things will accompany those who play basketball in the NBA: slam dunks, 55% three-point-shooting, triple-doubles, 20 rebounds a game, scoring of 50 points a game, and averages of 10 or more assists per game.”

We can see examples of individual Christians doing these things in the Bible. Speaking in tongues occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4-12) and on other occasions of new believers receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:45-46; 19:6). St. Paul talks about “gifts of healing . . . the working of miracles . . . various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor 12:9-10) but specifically states that not everyone has every gift: “All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (12:11).

He nails down this point of diversity and not unanimity of every gift by comparing the spiritual gifts and the Church itself to different parts of the body (12:12-27). Then he reiterates the notion of different gifts for different Christians: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? [30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” (12:29-30). This is a literal explanation of what Jesus expressed in a proverbial fashion. St. Paul is described as not being hurt by a snake:

Acts 28:3, 5-6 Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, when a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand. . . . [5] He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. [6] They waited, expecting him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead; but when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

Acts 8:7 states: “For unclean spirits came out of many who were possessed . . .” References to healing can be found in Acts 5:16 and 8:7.  The first says “all” were healed; the second says “many.” So it’s not true that all are supposed to be healed all the time. See my healing paper above for much more along those lines. Acts 28:8 refers specifically to Paul healing a man by laying his hands on him.

***

Photo credit: St. Paul, shipwrecked on Malta, is attacked by a snake which he shakes off into a fire; it does not harm him and the onlookers take him for a god. Etching after J. Thornhill. This file comes from Wellcome Images, a website operated by Wellcome Trust, a global charitable foundation based in the United Kingdom. Refer to Wellcome blog post (archive). [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: Atheist Dr. David Madison appears to take everything in the Bible literally: leading him to the same silly conclusions as uneducated fundamentalists. I explain biblical proverbial language, so he (and many atheists like him) can get up to speed.

*

Tags: alleged biblical contradictions, anti-Christian bigotry, anti-theism, anti-theists, atheism, atheist exegesis,  atheist hermeneutics, atheists, Bible “contradictions”,  contradictions in the Bible, critiques of Christianity, David Madison, Debunking Christianity, Madison Malarkey, biblical proverbial language

***

2023-01-16T18:23:05-04:00

Last updated on: January 16, 2023 at 6:23 pm   By

I am responding to many portions of the article, “New Testament Contradictions” by Paul Carlson (The Secular Web, 1995). His words will be in blue. The numbers in red are my own (for numbering the alleged “contradictions” that I reply to).

*****

Editor’s note: As with all lists of alleged biblical contradictions, there will be disagreement in at least some specific cases as to whether a given “contradiction” is a genuine contradiction. It is therefore up to the reader to decide for him/herself whether to accept that a listed “contradiction” is, in fact, a genuine contradiction.

I agree that sometimes reasonable folks can disagree about the presence of a contradiction in some complex cases. But reasonable folks ought also never bring up an alleged “contradiction” that is clearly not a contradiction by any stretch of the imagination, according to the well-established rules of logic. Many such faux– / pseudo-“contradictions” are present in any atheist “laundry list” of proposed biblical contradictions that I have ever seen, including this present one. Shame on those who promulgate them. It’s weak, shoddy thinking, period.

1) I. THE BIRTH OF JESUS

A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH

Matthew and Luke disagree

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary’s, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph’s genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century.

See:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Contradictory” Genealogies of Christ? [7-27-17]

Are the Two Genealogies of Christ Contradictory? [National Catholic Register, 1-5-19]

2) Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

Arguments from “expectation” or plausibility are not, strictly speaking, the same as establishing a logical contradiction. This is the argument from silence, too, which is always weak in and of itself. Two Gospels mentioning it is more than enough. The other two didn’t. But who cares? Why must all four mention any particular thing? They all have to do with Jesus and His life. That is what anyone should “expect” to see in them. Details and absences and inclusions can differ in innumerable ways.

3) The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus’ birth, he says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

J. Warner Wallace answers:

We need to be very careful about drawing conclusions from silence. Paul may not have mentioned the virgin conception simply because it was widely understood or assumed. Paul may also have been silent because it was not the focus or purpose of his letters (which are often devoted to issues related to the Church). Remember that Paul was a contemporary of Luke (who was one of the two authors who wrote extensively about the conception of Jesus). Paul appears to be very familiar with Luke’s’ gospel (he quotes Luke in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). (“Why Didn’t Paul Mention The Virgin Conception?”, Cold-Case Christianity, 12-14-18)

As to the two Pauline passages mentioned, see this same excellent article for a reply.

4) Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph’s genealogy?

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph’s genealogy.

a. Tamar – disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).

b. Rahab – was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).

c. Ruth – at her mother-in-law Naomi’s request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).

d. Bathsheba – became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5). . . . 

That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, “The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four “loose women” in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?”

Taylor Halverson replies:

Because of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Mary was an unusual mother. Found to be pregnant before she was married, she could have easily been outcast, thrown into slavery, or executed. She could have lived her life with terrible accusations thrown against her, and according to some ancient traditions, many people did think she was nothing more than an immoral harlot. And if so, such ancient critics reasoned, how could God ever do any good through someone so fallen, so morally compromised?

This is where the four women of Matthew’s genealogy answer the critics: Tamar (daughter-in-law to Judah), Rachab (the Jericho prostitute), Ruth (the non-Israelite Moabite), and Bathsheba (the woman unlawfully taken by David). Not only are each of these women ancestresses to Jesus, but each of them came from unusual, unexpected circumstances or were involved in what appears to be sexually improper situations. (“Why Are Four Women Mentioned in the Genealogy of Matthew 1?”, 1-10-19)

5) To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual.

Not really. Bible scholar Dr. Funlola Olojede comments:

In an essay entitled Observations on women in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9, [1] Ben Zvi (2006:174-184) already noted that the genealogical section of the book of Chronicles refers to more than fifty different women, whether named or unnamed. [2] The study classifies the women into two categories based on their roles. The first category includes women involved “in lineage roles often associated with female members of an ancient household”. These include the roles of mother-wife (e.g., the daughter of Machir who married Hezron and gave birth to Segub in 1 Chron 2:1); mother-concubine (e.g., Ephah, Caleb’s concubine and the mother of his sons in 1 Chron 2:46); mother-divorcee (e.g., 1 Chron 8:8-11); daughter-in-law-mother (e.g., 1 Chron 2:4), and identity as daughter or sister (e.g., 1 Chron 3:2, 5; 4:18).

The second group consists of “women in roles that were commonly assigned to mature males in the society” (Ben Zvi 2006:184-186). These include women who were heads of families (e.g., Zeruiah and Abigail in 1 Chron 2:16-17), and women who built cities (the only instance in this category was Sheerah). (“Chronicler’s women – a holistic appraisal”, Acta Theologica, January 2013)

6) B. THE ANGEL’S MESSAGE

In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary’s child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David’s throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her.

It’s simply two different messages, to two people for two different reasons. There is no “requirement” that they be exactly the same.

7) If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus’ family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind.

This is untrue. As I have pointed out, the family was trying to rescue Jesus from the people claiming that he had lost his mind. See:

Mark 3:21-22 (RSV, as throughout) And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, “He is beside himself.” [22] And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” (cf. Jn 10:20-21)

For further reading, see:

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

Dialogue on Whether Jesus’ Kinfolk Were “Unbelievers” (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [5-28-20]

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

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

Jason Engwer and a Supposedly Sinful Mary (Doubting Jesus’ Sanity? / Inconsiderate (?) Young Jesus in the Temple / “Woman” and the Wedding at Cana) [11-16-20]

8) And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.

Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”

The context is Jesus visiting His hometown of Nazareth, where He was mistreated and disbelieved. Jesus is not merely talking about Himself, nor is it either a complaint or pique at not being honored. Rather, he was offering a proverbial observation, with a long sad history of fulfillment in Jewish history (which now included His own rejection):

Matthew 23:34-35 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, [35] that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (cf. Lk 11:49-51)

Acts 7:51-52 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. [52] Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,” [St. Stephen speaking, just before he himself was martyred] (cf. 1 Kgs 18:13; Neh 9:26)

Hebrews 11:36-38 Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment. [37] They were stoned, they were sawn in two [thought to be the fate of the prophet Isaiah], they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated — [38] of whom the world was not worthy — wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

He taught (or predicted) the same thing to His own disciples: generalizing about all Christians:

Matthew 10:21 Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; (cf. Mk 13:12)

Matthew 10:36 and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.

Luke 12:52-53 for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; [53] they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

9) C. THE DATE

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod’s death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is “this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor …” In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod’s death.

See:

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

“The Lukan Census” (Glenn Miller, A Christian Thinktank, Sep. 2014)

“Miller vs Carrier on the Lukan Census” (J. P. Holding, Tekton Apologetics)

“Some Neglected Evidence Relevant To The Census Of Luke 2” (+ Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4 / Part 5 / Part 6) (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 12-12-07)

“Is Luke’s Census Historical?” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 8-19-10)

10) D. THE PLACE

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew’s poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).

For the reply, see the last-mentioned paper of mine and also:

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

“Do the ‘Infancy Narratives’ of Matthew and Luke Contradict Each Other?” (Tim Staples, Catholic Answers Magazine, 11-21-14)

“Do the Infancy Narratives Contradict?” (Steven O’Keefe,  ACTS Apologist Blog, 11-21-14)

“Are the Infancy Narratives Historically Reliable?” (Joe Heschmeyer, Shameless Popery, 11-17-11)

“How the accounts of Jesus’ childhood fit together: 6 things to know and share” (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 2-20-14)

“Why Are The Infancy Narratives So Different?” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 11-19-06)

“The Nativity Stories Harmonized” (J. P. Holding, Tekton Apologetics)

“Miller vs Carrier on the Lukan Census” (J. P. Holding, Tekton Apologetics)

“Jesus’ Birthplace (Part 1): Early Interest And Potential Sources” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 12-15-06)

“Sources For The Infancy Narratives” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 11-12-06)

“Were The Infancy Narratives Meant To Convey History?” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 11-11-06)

“Agreement Between Matthew And Luke About Jesus’ Childhood” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 11-30-13)

“Jesus’ Childhood Outside The Infancy Narratives” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 12-9-13)

“Evidence For The Bethlehem Birthplace” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 12-5-12)

11) E. THE PROPHECIES

Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies. These prophecies include:

1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a “young woman” will give birth, not a “virgin” which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

See:

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

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

12) 2. The “slaughter of the innocents” (Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a pure invention on Matthew’s part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod’s crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod’s greatest crime by far. It simply didn’t happen.

See:

“The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical or Not?” (J. P. Holding, Tekton Apologetics)

“Is The Slaughter Of The Innocents Historical?” (Jason Engwer, Trialblogue, 8-18-10)

“Herod’s Slaughter of the Children / The Return from Egypt” (Glenn Miller, A Christian Thinktank)

13) The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

Carlson doesn’t understand frequent dual application of prophecies in Scripture.

14) 3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

Dual application of prophecies in Scripture again . . . If an atheist or other sort of skeptic doesn’t grasp this aspect of the Bible, they will continue to make the same dumbfounded mistake over and over.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus’ birth and the family’s arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

See the many related articles under #10 above.

15)  Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, “on them he sat.”

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, “mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated “and” in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of “even” (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus’ life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew’s gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in “future contexts,” any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!

See:

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #10: Chapter 11 (Two Donkeys? / Fig Tree / Moneychangers) [8-20-19]

16) A. WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST KNOW ABOUT JESUS AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

John’s first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers’ wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy (Luke 1:44). Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, and “the Son of God” (John 1:29,36). Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive. John’s definite knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke 7:18-23 in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?”

See:

Seidensticker Folly #27: Confusion Re John the Baptist [10-9-18]

17) B. WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus’ baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 “to fulfill all righteousness.”

Catholic writer Kirsten Andersen explains:

Since Jesus didn’t have any sins that needed forgiving (original or otherwise), was already fully himself and fully God’s son and had no need of salvation, baptism would seem redundant . . .

So what’s the deal? Why did Jesus insist on receiving baptism from John, even though John himself flat-out objected, arguing that it was Jesus who should baptize him?

The easy answer is that Jesus was simply setting the example for his followers. “WWJD” bracelets may be out-of-fashion and clichéd, but they do express the rather profound truth that as long as we keep our eyes on Jesus, and do what he showed us how to do in both word and deed, salvation can be ours. . . .

[T]he baptism Jesus received from John wasn’t the same sacrament we celebrate today. How could it have been? Jesus had not yet established his Church, so the sacraments didn’t exist yet. The “baptisms” John performed were actually ritual washings (mikveh/pl. mikvaot) given to converting and reverting Jews, symbolizing the death of one’s old, sinful self, and rebirth as a ritually clean Jew.

Mikvaot were commonly performed to cleanse Jews of any sins and ritual impurities before presenting themselves at the temple, . . . (“If Jesus Was Sinless, Why Did He Need to Be Baptized?,” Aleteia, 1-8-16)

For more on this question, see the appropriate section in:

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #2: Chapter 1 (Why Did Mark Omit Jesus’ Baptism? / Why Was Jesus Baptized? / “Suffering Servant” & Messiah in Isaiah / Spiritual “Kingdom of God” / Archaeological Support) [8-14-19]

18) Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, are also an embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19)

Right. We’re all embarrassed to death. [sarcasm] but I certainly am embarrassed about how ridiculous atheists arguments about “contradictions” are. I would know, having dealt with them hundreds of times by now. Let’s take a look at this nonsense:

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (cf. Lk 18:19)

This was merely a rhetorical retort by Jesus: employing socratic method, as He often did. It has no implication that He Himself was sinful. Besides, He’s saying that God is uniquely good (knowing that this person didn’t think or believe that He was God), while massively asserting many other times that He Himself is God: and this includes many instances in the synoptic Gospels, too. Jesus states in John 8:46: “Which of you convicts me of sin?”

19) Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke’s account of Jesus’ baptism occurs after the account of John’s imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).

He does no such thing.

Luke 3:21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, [22] and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

Exact, literal chronology was viewed very differently by the Jews than it is by Greek-dominated western thought. So the order here means little. I deal with this issue at length in #79 of my paper, Refuting 59 of Michael Alter’s Resurrection “Contradictions” [3-12-21] and in these two articles:

Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time: + Refutation of a Clueless Atheist “Biblical Contradiction” [5-11-17]

The Genesis Creation Accounts and Hebrew Time [National Catholic Register, 7-2-17]

Luke is clearly reflecting other accounts of Jesus’ baptism by referring to the Holy Spirit symbolized as a dove, and God the Father saying He was pleased. Yet Carlson ludicrously claims: “Luke . . . tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus.” Will this folly ever end? It is humorous to observe but also sad and tragic, because many people are taken in by this sort of ignorant nonsense and even lose their faith over it.

20) C. WHY DIDN’T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A FOLLOWER OF JESUS?

If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn’t he become a disciple of Jesus? And why didn’t all, or even most, of John’s disciples become Jesus’ disciples? 

John did indeed become Jesus’ follower:

John 3:28-30 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. [29] He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. [30] He must increase, but I must decrease.”

Matthew 3:11 I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (cf. Mk 1:7-8)

John’s role was as a prototype of Elijah: the one who came before Christ:

Dialogue w Agnostic on Elijah and John the Baptist [9-24-06]

The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus’ baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down. They could not ignore it because John’s followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus’ baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God. The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus.

Most of John’s disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries.

There could be such a thing as devotees of John, just as their are various orders in the Catholic Church. But it would be understood that it was a brand of Christianity, and that Jesus was Lord and Messiah, and John the forerunner who announced him, but was much lesser than him (as he himself said), and the last prophet in the Old Testament sense. No problem.

21) III. THE LAST SUPPER

A. WHEN – BEFORE OR DURING PASSOVER?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John’s gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

See an article by Fr. William P. Saunders on the Catholic Straight Answers site, and Jimmy Akin: “Was the Last Supper a Passover Meal?”

22) C. JUDAS ISCARIOT

It is very unclear in the gospels just what Judas Iscariot’s betrayal consisted of, probably because there was absolutely no need for a betrayal. Jesus could have been arrested any number of times without the general populace knowing about it. It would have been simple to keep tabs on his whereabouts. The religious authorities did not need a betrayal – only the gospel writers needed a betrayal, so that a few more “prophecies” could be fulfilled. The whole episode is pure fiction – and, as might be expected, it is riddled with contradictions.

Of course there is no way to prove any of this nonsense. If there were, surely atheists like Carlson would make their arguments along those lines, but they usually don’t. They merely assert fanciful scenarios out of their own over-abundant imaginations. As I’ve noted many times, bald assertion is not argument. It assumes what it’s trying to prove (which is circular reasoning).

23) 1. The prophecy

Matthew says that Judas’ payment and death were prophesied by Jeremiah, and then he quotes Zechariah 11:12-13 as proof!

See:

Seidensticker Folly #53: Matthew Cited the Wrong Prophet? [9-11-20]

24) 2. Thirty pieces of silver

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests “weighed out thirty pieces of silver” to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no “pieces of silver” used as currency in Jesus’ time – they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.

Really? The Roman denarius was, according to the Wikipedia article it was “the standard Roman silver coin from its introduction in the Second Punic War c. 211 BC[1] to the reign of Gordian III (AD 238–244), . . .” It was in use in Israel. The same article states:

In the New Testament, the gospels refer to the denarius as a day’s wage for a common laborer (Matthew 20:2,[21] John 12:5).[22] . . . The denarius is also mentioned in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The Render unto Caesar passage in Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17 uses the word (δηνάριον) to describe the coin held up by Jesus, translated in the King James Bible as “tribute penny“. It is commonly thought to be a denarius with the head of Tiberius.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (“Coins”) adds:

The coins of Tyre and Sidon, both silver and copper, must have circulated largely in Palestine on account of the intimate commercial relations between the Jews and Phoenicians (for examples, see under MONEY). After the advent of the Romans the local coinage was restricted chiefly to the series of copper coins, such as the mites mentioned in the New Testament, the silver denarii being struck mostly at Rome, but circulating wherever the Romans went.

But Bible commentators appear to usually hold that silver shekels were being referred to:

15. covenanted with him] Rather, weighed out for him; either literally or= “paid him.”

thirty pieces of silver] i. e. thirty silver shekels. St Matthew alone names the sum, which= 120 denarii. The shekel is sometimes reckoned at three shillings, but for the real equivalent in English money see note on Matthew 26:7. Thirty shekels was the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32); a fact which gives force to our Lord’s words, Matthew 20:28, “The Son of man came … to minister (to be a slave), and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Matthew refers to Zechariah 11:12. These pieces were shekels of the sanctuary, of standard weight, and therefore heavier than the ordinary shekel. See on Matthew 17:24. Reckoning the Jerusalem shekel at seventy-two cents, the sum would be twenty-one dollars and sixty cents. (Vincent’s Word Studies)

So there definitely were silver coins in ancient Israel during Jesus’ time. They may have been in the minority of all coinage, but all we need is to show that they existed, for this biblical assertion to be historical. And the above documentation certainly does that. To claim that “they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before” is an unwarranted falsehood.

25) b. In Jesus’ time, minted coins were used – currency was not “weighed out.”

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah’s time but not in Jesus’ time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match “prophecies” he finds in the Old Testament.

Coined money was in use, but the shekels may have been weighed out in antique fashion by men careful to do an iniquitous thing in the most orthodox way. Or there may have been no weighing in the case, but only the use of an ancient form of speech after the practice had become obsolete . . . (Expositor’s Greek Testament)

As to the latter practice, we do that today in English in many ways. The article, “12 Old Words That Survived by Getting Fossilized in Idioms” (Arika Okrent, Mental Floss.com, 11-4-15; updated 7-5-19) provides four examples:

EKE

If we see eke at all these days, it’s when we “eke out” a living, but it comes from an old verb meaning to add, supplement, or grow. It’s the same word that gave us eke-name for “additional name,” which later, through misanalysis of “an eke-name” became nickname. . . .

ROUGHSHOD

Nowadays we see this word in the expression “to run/ride roughshod” over somebody or something, meaning to tyrannize or treat harshly. It came about as a way to describe the 17th century version of snow tires. A “rough-shod” horse had its shoes attached with protruding nail heads in order to get a better grip on slippery roads. It was great for keeping the horse on its feet, but not so great for anyone the horse might step on. . . .

FRO

The fro in “to and fro” is a fossilized remnant of a Northern English or Scottish way of pronouncing from. It was also part of other expressions that didn’t stick around, like “fro and till,” “to do fro” (to remove), and “of or fro” (for or against). . . .

LURCH

When you leave someone “in the lurch,” you leave them in a jam, in a difficult position. But while getting left in the lurch may leave you staggering around and feeling off-balance, the lurch in this expression has a different origin than the staggery one. The balance-related lurch comes from nautical vocabulary, while the lurch you get left in comes from an old French backgammon-style game called lourche. Lurch became a general term for the situation of beating your opponent by a huge score. By extension, it came to stand for the state of getting the better of someone or cheating them.

Likewise, with the payment to Judas, it may be a case where for centuries coinage based on weight of silver, gold, or copper was weighed out, so that in order to ascertain or measure an exact amount, the coins were weighed. This saying of “weighing out” would then have remained after coins had a definite numerical amount, and was simply synonymous with “counting” except that the older method was still referred to by habit.

26) 3. Who bought the Field of Blood?

a. In Matthew 27:7 the chief priests buy the field.

b. In Acts 1:18 Judas buys the field.

E. W. Bullinger adequately explained seeming but not actual contradiction this in his Companion Bible.

27) 4. How did Judas die?

a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.

b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

See:

Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked (vs. Dave Van Allen and Dr. Jim Arvo) [9-27-07]

28) c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to “the twelve” after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Protestant apologist Eric Lyons provides the rebuttal:

Numerous alleged Bible discrepancies arise because skeptics frequently interpret figurative language in a literal fashion. They treat God’s Word as if it were a dissertation on the Pythagorean theorem rather than a book written using ordinary language. . . . The simple solution to this numbering “problem” is that “the twelve” to which Paul referred was not a literal number, but the designation of an office. This term is used merely “to point out the society of the apostles, who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number, and a number which was afterward filled up” (Clarke, 1996). Gordon Fee stated that Paul’s use of the term “twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5 “is a clear indication that in the early going this was a title given to the special group of twelve whom Jesus called to ‘be with him’ (Mark 3:14).

This figurative use of numbers is just as common in English vernacular as it was in the ancient languages. In certain collegiate sports, one can refer to the Big Ten conference, which consists of 14 teams, or the Atlantic Ten conference, which is also made up of 14 teams. At one time, these conferences only had ten teams, but when they exceeded that number, they kept their original conference “names.” Their names are a designation for a particular conference, not a literal number.

In 1884, the term “two-by-four” was coined to refer to a piece of lumber two-by-four inches. Interestingly, a two-by-four still is called a two-by-four, even though today it is trimmed to slightly smaller dimensions (1 5/8 by 3 5/8). Again, the numbers are more of a designation than a literal number.

Biblical use of “the twelve” as a designation for the original disciples is strongly indicated in many Gospel passages. Jesus Himself did this: “Did I not choose you, the twelve . . .?” (Jn 6:70). He didn’t say, “did I not choose you twelve men.” By saying, “the twelve” in the way He did, it’s proven that it was a [not always literal] title for the group. Hence, John refers to “Thomas, one of the twelve” after Judas departed, and before he was replaced by Matthias (Jn 20:24). Paul simply continues the same practice. It was also used because “twelve” was an important number in biblical thinking (40 and 70 are two other such numbers). For a plain and undeniable example of this, see Revelation 21:12, 14, 21.

29) 5. How did the Field of Blood get its name?

a. Matthew says because it was purchased with blood money (Matthew 27:6-8).

b. Acts says because of the bloody mess caused by Judas’ bursting open (Acts 1:18-19).

It’s not one field, but two being referred to, as E. W. Bullinger explained, adding:

In addition to all the above, the two pieces of land were respectively called “agros of blood” (Matthew 27:8) and “chorion of blood” (Acts 1:19) for different reasons. Indeed, the “agros of blood” that the chief priests bought was called like this because it was bought with the “price of blood” (Matthew 27:7, 9) i.e. with the thirty pieces of silver paid for the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, the “chorion of blood” that Judas bought was called like this because Judas committed suicide there (Acts 1:19).

30) 1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?

a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).

b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24). . . . 

d. John mentions only the high priest – no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus.

John reports that Jesus was first questioned by Annas: “the father-in-law of Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year” (Jn 18:13), who “questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching ” (Jn 18:19). “Annas then sent him bound to Ca’iaphas the high priest” (18:24). Then “they [implied: the Sanhedrin] led Jesus from the house of Ca’iaphas to the praetorium [where Pilate was]” (18:28). And “They answered him, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over” (18:30). Note that Caiaphas was present at the judgment and “monkey trial” of the Sanhedrin, as indicated by Matthew 26:57, 62, Mark (not named, but mentioned as the “high priest”: 14:53-54, 60, 63, 66), and Luke (“high priest”: 22:54).

So it’s all the same overall story, told by four storytellers, with the expected differences in detail and emphases that we would expect in any four different accounts of the same incident. Matthew and John refer directly to Caiphas the high priest as being involved (Matthew mentions also the assembly, whereas John doesn’t (directly), but still indicates their presence by the two uses of “they” in describing the Jewish leaders leading Jesus to Pilate. Mark and Luke don’t name him, but note that the “high priest” was involved, which is no contradiction.

31) b. Pilate’s “custom” of releasing a prisoner at Passover.

This is pure invention – the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival. Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesus’ death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews.

According to The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, c. 1984, Vol. 8, page 773f: “The custom referred to of releasing a prisoner at the Passover Feast is unknown outside the Gospels. It was, however, a Roman custom and could well have been a custom in Palestine. An example of a Roman official releasing a prisoner on the demands of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59ff. There the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, says to Phibion, the accused: ‘Thou has been worthy of scourging, but I will give thee to the people’.” (“Release Barabbas! Did the Gospel Writers Make That Up”, Sam Harris, The John Ankerberg Show, 8-9-00)

32) Who put the robe on Jesus?

a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.

b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

See:

“Bible Contradiction? Who put the robe on Jesus?” (The Domain for Truth, 2-16-17)

33) Crucified between two robbers

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.

The following crimes entailed this penalty: piracy, highway robbery, assassination, forgery, false testimony, mutiny, high treason, rebellion (see Pauly-Wissowa, “Real-Encyc.” s.v. “Crux”; Josephus, “B. J.” v. 11, § 1). Soldiers that deserted to the enemy and slaves who denounced their masters (“delatio domini”)were also punished by death on the cross. (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, “Crucifixion”)

The crucifixion of robbers by the Romans is also verified with many ancient sources on pages 46-50 of the book, Crucifixion, by Martin Hengel, Fortress Press, 1977. But Carlson gives us no documentation. He simply asserts demonstrable falsehood. Atheists often do this, apparently thinking it is impressive. It ain’t.

34) Peter and Mary near the cross

When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross, they run afoul of another historical fact – the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was allowed near (least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person).

[C]rucifixion as a public means of execution served as an emphatic warning to onlookers. A quote ascribed to Quintillian explains that “when we [Romans] crucify criminals the most frequented roads are chosen, where the greatest number of people can look and be seized by this fear. For every punishment has less to do with the offense than with the example” (Decl., 274) (in The Governor and the King: Irony, Hidden Transcripts, and Negotiating Empire in the Fourth Gospel, by Arthur M. Wright, Jr., Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2019, see the quotation at Google Books)

Many movies about Jesus show Mary His mother and others including the apostle John right at the foot of the cross. If the tradition is to believed, where they actually stood was at least half a football field in distance away. I myself stood at the traditional spot in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 2o14. The Bible doesn’t indicate exactly how close the lookers were. Luke 23:35 says they “stood by, watching.” Matthew 27:55 states: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar . . .” Mark 15:40 similarly describes it as “There were also women looking on from afar . . . John 19:25 uses the language of “standing by the cross of Jesus.” Once again, an alleges atheist biblical “contradiction” falls flat or sheer lack of substance, plausibility, and coherence.

35) The opened tombs

According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.

Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening – historians of that time certainly know nothing of it – neither do the other gospel writers.

See:

Seidensticker Folly #45: “Zombies” & Clueless Atheists (Atheist Neil Carter Joins in on the Silliness and Tomfoolery as Well) [8-29-20]

36-38) Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.”

b. According to Mark 16:1, “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.”

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, “the women who had come with him out of Galilee.” Among these women were “Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James.” Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.

Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

a. According to Mark 16:8, “they said nothing to anyone.”

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they “ran to report it to His disciples.”

c. According to Luke 24:9, “they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest.”

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

See:

Pearce’s Potshots #13: Resurrection “Contradictions” (?) [2-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #14: Resurrection “Contradictions” #2 [2-4-21]

Dialogue w Atheist on Post-Resurrection “Contradictions” [1-26-11]

Seidensticker Folly #18: Resurrection “Contradictions”? [9-17-18]

Seidensticker Folly #57: Male Witnesses of the Dead Jesus [9-14-20]

Refuting 59 of Michael Alter’s Resurrection “Contradictions” [3-12-21]

39) THE ASCENSION

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus’ ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus’ ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.

See:

Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18]

40) NO SIGNS, ONE SIGN, OR MANY SIGNS?

At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

1. In Mark 8:12 Jesus says that “no sign shall be given to this generation.” . . . 

3. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning (or first) of the signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the “second sign” (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus “because they were seeing the signs He was performing” (John 6:2).

This exhibits rank ignorance of Scripture (very common among anti-theist atheists). 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 above. 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) 2. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be given – the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction – he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

This is an old and stupid saw of atheist anti-Christian polemics, which exhibits an ignorance of ancient Near Eastern Semitic culture and certain expressions and the reckoning of time. I thoroughly refute it here:

“Three Days and Nights” in the Tomb: Contradiction? [10-31-06]

42) SON OF DAVID?

Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages which have Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1 to argue that the Messiah does not need to be a son of David (Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44).

1. This contradicts many Old Testament passages that indicate that the Messiah will be a descendant of David. It also contradicts official church doctrine.

2. In Acts 2:30-36 Peter, in what is regarded as the first Christian sermon, quotes Psalm 110:1 in arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, a descendant of David.

The Messiah (Jesus) was indeed the Son of David, which is why He accepted this title for Himself, and never rebuked or denied it (Mt 9:27; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9; Mk 10:47-48; Lk 18:38-39), and why St. Peter repeated this truth.

The falsehood involved here is thinking that the three passages first listed contradict this understanding. They do not, because they record a certain kind of socratic rhetoric that Jesus frequently used; not intended as a denial at all. The Bible commentaries cited below explain this, so as to get atheists woefully ignorant of biblical teaching and exegesis (and Hebrew literary figures of speech and rhetorical argumentation) up to speed:

“The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lord’s ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiah’s pedigree, arising from Psalms 110 : What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? — Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David — This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psalm 89:35-36; and Isaiah 11:1.” He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord — If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? “The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God’s right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ’s enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.” And no man was able to answer him a word — None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions — “The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.” — Macknight. (Benson Commentary)

He had silenced his opponents, and opened profundities in Scripture hitherto unfathomed; he would now raise them to a higher theology; he would place before them a truth concerning the nature of the Messiah, which, if they received it, would lead them to accept him. It was as it were a last hope. He and the Pharisees had some common ground, which was wanting in the case of the Sadducees and Herodians (comp Acts 23:6); he would use this to support a last appeal. . . . He desires to win acceptance of his claims by the unanswerable argument of the Scripture which they revered; let them consider the exact meaning of a text often quoted, let them weigh each word with reverent care, and they would see that the predicted Messiah was not merely Son of David according to earthly descent, but was Jehovah himself; and that when he claimed to be Son of God, when he asserted, “I and my Father are one,” he was vindicating for himself only what the prophet had affirmed of the nature of the Christ. (Pulpit Commentary)

From the universally recognized title of the Messiah as the Son of David, which by His question He elicits from them, He takes occasion to shew them, who understood this title in a mere worldly political sense, the difficulty arising from David’s own reverence for this his Son: the solution lying in the incarnate Godhead of the Christ, of which they were ignorant. (Henry Alford’s Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary)

43) THE FIG TREE

After Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem a sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21).

1. Since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree.

2. Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered.

a. In Matthew, the tree withers at once and the disciples comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20).

b. In Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).

Apologist Kyle Butt offers a plausible explanation:

One prominent question naturally arises from a straightforward reading of the text. Why would Jesus curse a fig tree that did not have figs on it, especially since the text says that “it was not the season for figs”? In response to this puzzling question, skeptical minds have let themselves run wild with accusations regarding the passage. . . .

When Jesus approached the fig tree, the text indicates that the tree had plenty of leaves. R.K. Harrison, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, explains that various kinds of figs grew in Palestine during the first century. One very important aspect of fig growth has to do with the relationship between the leaf and the fruit. Harrison notes that the tiny figs, known to the Arabs as taksh, “appear simultaneously in the leaf axils” (1982, 2:302) This taksh is edible and “is often gathered for sale in the markets” (2:302). Furthermore, the text notes: “When the young leaves are appearing in spring, every fertile fig will have some taksh on it…. But if a tree with leaves has no fruit, it will be barren for the entire season” (2:301-302).

Thus, when Jesus approached the leafy fig tree, He had every reason to suspect that something edible would be on it. However, after inspecting the tree, Mark records that “He found nothing but leaves.” No taksh were budding as they should have been if the tree was going to produce edible figs that year. The tree appeared to be fruitful, but it only had outward signs of bearing fruit (leaves) and in truth offered nothing of value to weary travelers. . . .

[I]n a general sense, Jesus often insisted that trees which do not bear good fruit will be cut down (Matthew 7:19; Luke 13:6-9). The fig tree did not bear fruit, was useless, and deserved to be destroyed: the spiritual application being that any human who does not bear fruit for God will also be destroyed for his or her failure to produce.

Jesus did not throw a temper tantrum and curse the fig tree even though it was incapable of producing fruit. He cursed the tree because it should have been growing fruit since it had the outward signs of productivity. Jesus’ calculated timing underscored the spiritual truth that barren spiritual trees eventually run out of time. As for personal application, we should all diligently strive to ensure that we are not the barren fig tree.

44) THE GREAT COMMISSION

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.

First of all, this is another bald assertion that a particular passage was added later to the Bible. No proof, no evidence; just the assertion, which, of course, carries no force or weight whatsoever.

Secondly, trinitarianism is massively present in the New Testament, both in terms of Jesus’ own claim to be God in the flesh (and New Testament agreement), and also the trinitarian teaching that the Holy Spirit is God, as well as, of course, God the Father.

The Didache was a very early Christian document (as early as 70 AD), and it states:

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (7:1)

That’s hardly “two hundred years” later “before this baptismal formula came into use”: as Carlson ignorantly proclaims.

45) In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38).

They were baptized in Jesus’ name (as well as in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit). The same book of Acts did not deny trinitarianism at all, since it provided the best single passages that proves  the deity of the Holy Spirit:

Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? [4] . . . You have not lied to men but to God.” . . .

Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit; at the same time he lied to God; therefore the Holy Spirit and God are synonymous: one and the same. Just five verses before Acts 2:38 cited above, Luke provides an explicitly trinitarian utterance:

Acts 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.

He did the same again, later in the book:

Acts 20:28 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.

Commentaries provide a fuller explanation of the main question at hand:

The question presents itself, Why is the baptism here, and elsewhere in the Acts (Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5), “in the name of Jesus Christ,” while in Matthew 28:19, the Apostles are commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Various explanations have been given. It has been said that baptism in the Name of any one of the Persons of the Trinity, involves the Name of the other Two. It has even been assumed that St. Luke meant the fuller formula when he used the shorter one. But a more satisfactory solution is, perhaps, found in seeing in the words of Matthew 28:19 (see Note there) the formula for the baptism of those who, as Gentiles. had been “without God in the world, not knowing the Father;” while for converts from Judaism, or those who had before been proselytes to Judaism, it was enough that there should be the distinctive profession of their faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, added on to their previous belief in the Father and the Holy Spirit. In proportion as the main work of the Church of Christ lay among the Gentiles, it was natural that the fuller form should become dominant, and finally be used exclusively. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard further elaborates:

Why is the Church saying that we can baptize with the Trinitarian formula when all the baptisms mentioned in the Bible are done “in the name of Jesus”? Here are few ways to meet this challenge.

First, a self-professed Christian can’t reject the validity of the Trinitarian formula because Jesus commands the apostles to use it when they baptize: “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” (Matt. 28:19). Those who pose the challenge, therefore, at least have to acknowledge that the Trinitarian formula is valid since it comes from the lips of the Master himself.

Second, when compared to Jesus’ instruction to use the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19, the passages found in the book of Acts don’t seem to refer to the actual formula that must be used in administering the sacrament.

Notice how in Matthew 28:19 Jesus is privately addressing only the eleven (Matt. 28:16), whom he is sending toperform baptisms. In context, it makes sense that Jesus would be telling them exactly how to do it.

Contrast this with, for example, Peter’s injunction in Acts 2. That takes place in a public setting and is given to those who would receive baptism—not to those who would be performing it. It would not seem to be as vitally important for those receiving the sacrament to know the precise formula as for those performing it, right?

Moreover, Peter’s injunction is not premeditated. Instead, he is quickly enumerating what must be done to be saved in response to those present who, upon hearing his preaching, were “cut to the heart” and asked him, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (v.37). It’s unreasonable to think that Peter would be giving precise instructions as to the words that must be used in baptism when he’s merely saying, “You want to be saved? Okay, here are the things you need to do—repent and get baptized.”

Jesus’s command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is also distinct from Peter’s command for Cornelius to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). As on the day of Pentecost, Luke records what Peter says to those who would receive baptism, not those who would administer it.

Also, Luke does not record what Peter said specifically. He merely narrates in summary form: “And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” It doesn’t seem that Luke intends to say that the words “in the name of Jesus” were Peter’s instructions for the actual words to be used in administering baptism. (“Baptize in the Name of … Who?”, Catholic Answers, 11-29-18)

46) This contradicts Jesus’ earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul’s version) to the gentiles.

Again, this exhibits a profound ignorance and cluelessness as regards actual biblical teaching. I have disposed of this bogus objection at least four times (aren’t links wonderful and so convenient?):

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #7: Ch. 7 (Gentiles) [8-19-19]

Vs. Atheist David Madison #39: Jesus the Xenophobic Bigot? (And did Jesus minister exclusively to Jews and not Gentiles at all: an alleged Gospel inconsistency)? [12-12-19]

Did Jesus Minister Exclusively to Jews and not Gentiles? [7-2-20]

Did Jesus Heal and Preach to Only Jews? No! [National Catholic Register, 7-19-20]

47) ENOCH IN THE BOOK OF JUDE

Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of “Enoch” from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God. The Book of Enoch was used in the early church until at least the third century – Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However, as church doctrine began to solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a short period of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch. A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia in 1768. Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get rid of Enoch – not only does it contain fantastic imagery (some of which was borrowed by the Book of Revelation), but it also contradicts church doctrine on several points (and, since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also contradicts itself).

The fallacy here is to think that because the Bible cites something, it, too, must be the “Word of God.” This simply isn’t true, since the Bible cites several non-canonical works or aspects of various traditions without implying that they are canonical. St. Paul, for example, in speaking to the philosophical Athenians (Acts 17:22-28), cited  the Greek poet Aratus: (c. 315-240 B. C.) and philosopher-poet Epimenides (6th c. B. C.) – both referring to Zeus. So St. Paul used two Greek pagan poet-philosophers, talking about a false god (Zeus) and “Christianized” their thoughts: applying them to the true God. He also cited the Greek dramatist  Menander (c.342-291 B.C.) at 1 Corinthians 15:33: “bad company ruins good morals”.

For more along these lines, see David Palm, “Oral Tradition in the New Testament” (This Rock, May 1995) and “Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible” (Wikipedia).

48) THE APOSTLE PAUL’S CONVERSION

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. All of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul’s fellow travelers.

1. Acts 9:7 says they “stood speechless, hearing the voice…”

2. Acts 22:9 says they “did not hear the voice…”

3. Acts 26:14 says “when we had all fallen to the ground…”

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American Standard, for example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase quoted above as “did not understand the voice…” However, the Greek word “akouo” is translated 373 times in the New Testament as “hear,” “hears,” “hearing” or “heard” and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as “understand.” In fact, it is the same word that is translated as “hearing” in Acts 9:7, quoted above. The word “understand” occurs 52 times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word “akouo.”

This is an example of Bible translators sacrificing intellectual honesty in an attempt to reconcile conflicting passages in the New Testament.

Several people have made adequate and sufficient refutations of this charge: Erik Manning, J. P. Holding, Bill Pratt, and Jimmy Akin.

49) JESUS CALLS THE DISCIPLES

1. In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.

2. In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter’s boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow Jesus.

3. In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.

Apologist Eric Lyons has made a direct reply to Paul Carlson concerning this groundless charge.

50) SHOULD THE TWELVE DISCIPLES TAKE STAFFS?

When Jesus summons the twelve disciples to send them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, he lists the things the disciples should not take with them.

1. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take.

2. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception – the disciples may take a staff.

At least this appears at first glance to be a real contradiction (unlike virtually all atheist proposed ones I’ve ever seen: and I’ve dealt with several hundred). So it deserves a serious treatment. Protestant apologists Eric Lyons and Brad Harrub (on a site that specializes in alleged biblical contradictions) grant the difficulty of interpreting these passages harmoniously in writing that they were “Perhaps the most difficult alleged Bible contradiction that we have been asked to ‘tackle’ . . . A cursory reading of the above passages admittedly is somewhat confusing.” Then they proceed to explain the apparent discrepancies:

The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. In Matthew, the word “provide” (NKJV) is an English translation of the Greek word ktesthe. According to Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon, the root word comes from ktaomai, which means to “procure for oneself, acquire, get” (1979, p. 455). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb “acquire” in Matthew 10:9 (“Do not acquire….”), instead of “provide” or “take.” In Matthew, Jesus is saying: “Do not acquire anything in addition to what you already have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are.” As Mark indicated, the apostles were to “take” (airo) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in God’s providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more.

They continue by tackling the additional information from Luke:

As is obvious from a comparison of the verses in Matthew and Luke, they are recording the same truth—that the apostles were not to spend valuable time gathering extra staffs—only they are using different words to do so.

“Provide (Greek ktaomi) neither gold nor silver…nor staffs” (Matthew 10:9-10, emp. added).

“Take (Greek airo) nothing for the journey, neither staffs” (Luke 9:3, emp. added).

Luke did not use ktaomi in his account because he nearly always used ktaomi in a different sense than Matthew did. In Matthew’s account, the word ktaomai is used to mean “provide” or “acquire,” whereas in the books of Luke and Acts, Luke used this word to mean “purchase, buy, or earn.” Notice the following examples of how Luke used this word.

“I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get” (ktaomai) [Luke 18:12, emp. added, NAS]

“Now this man purchased (ktaomai) a field with the wages of iniquity (Acts 1:18, emp. added).

“Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased (ktaomai) with money!” (Acts 8:20, emp. added).

The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained (ktaomai) this citizenship” (Acts 22:28, emp. added).

*
[Luke 21:19 is the only place one could argue where Luke may have used ktaomai to mean something other than “purchase, buy, or earn,” but even here there is a transactional notion in it (Miller, 1997)].When Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), used the word ktaomai, he meant something different than when Matthew, the tax collector, used the same word. Whereas Luke used ktaomai to refer to purchasing or buying something, Matthew used the Greek verb agorazo (cf. Matthew 14:15; 25:9-10; 27:6-7). Matthew used ktaomai only in the sense of acquiring something (not purchasing something). As such, it would make absolutely no sense for Luke to use ktaomai in his account of Jesus sending out the apostles (9:3). If he did, then he would have Jesus forbidding the apostles to “purchase” or “buy” money [“Buy nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money….”]. Thus, Luke used the more general Greek verb (airo) in order to convey the same idea that Matthew did when using the Greek verb ktaomai.
*

Just as ktaomai did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew, the Greek word airo (translated “take” in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) often did not mean the same for Luke and Mark (see Miller, 1997). [Understanding this simple fact eliminates the “contradiction” completely, for unless the skeptic can be certain that Mark and Luke were using the word in the same sense, he cannot prove that the accounts contradict each other.] Mark consistently used airo in other passages throughout his gospel to mean simply “take” or “pick up and carry” (2:9; 6:29; 11:23; 13:16). That Luke (in 9:3) did not mean the same sense of airo as Mark did (in 6:8) is suggested by the fact that in Luke 19:21-22 he used this same verb to mean “acquire.” [see also the visual chart in the article that is very helpful]

Now, the anti-theist atheists (who love bringing up things like this) typically respond with “well, see how hard you had to work to solve the contradiction?! It shouldn’t have to be that hard!” We agree that it shouldn’t be so hard, if one understood Greek in the first place. But for those of us who don’t know Greek, it appears contradictory, because the difference hinges upon different Greek words and even different meanings of the same Greek words (in context): just as English words usually have several definitions.

Therefore, it takes a considerable bit of explaining to clarify for the non-Greek speaker. Once that key difference is understood, the so-called “contradiction” is shown to not be one at all, because the writers are using different Greek words and meaning different things. And there are many alleged “biblical contradictions” that are resolved in this same fashion.

51) THE SECOND COMING

1. During the disciples’ lifetime

There are several passages in the gospels where Jesus says he will return in the disciples’ lifetime (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.).

The same expectation held during the period the apostle Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 Paul says that the time is so short that believers should drastically change the way that they live. But Paul had a problem – some believers had died, so what would happen to them when Jesus returned?

Paul’s answer in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that Paul expected that at least some of those he was writing to would be alive when Jesus returned – “we who are alive, and remain…” The same passage also indicates that Paul believed that those believers who had died remained “asleep in Jesus” until he returned. However, as the delay in Jesus’ return grew longer, the location of Jesus’ kingdom shifted from earth to heaven and we later find Paul indicating that when believers die they will immediately “depart and be with Christ” (Philippians 1:23).

It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he believed he would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite obvious that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back.

See:

Seidensticker Folly #58: Jesus Erred on Time of 2nd Coming? (with David Palm) [10-7-20]

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: darksouls1 (10-10-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: I tackle and refute all 51 supposed Bible “contradictions” suggested by anti-theist atheist Paul Carlson in his pathetic hit-piece, “New Testament Contradictions” (The Secular Web, 1995).

***

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Music & The Spoken Word Marks 5,000th Episode
The Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, and "Inimitability"
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #1: "Apocrypha" 1: Propheticity
A blast from this blog's past
Braden Molhoek on Free Will
Angel Studios, Wonder Project Announce ‘Young Washington’
view all Family blogs