![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/01\/LiarPantsOnFire.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is my third post in reply to atheist physicist Aaron Adair, who wrote a book skeptical of the star of Bethlehem. He first wrote, asking me some questions, after having seen two posts of mine on the topic. I thought we could actually have a good dialogue (that rarest of rarities these days), and enjoyed it at first. But, sadly, the ostensible \u201cdialogue\u201d quickly went sour, and he has since \u2014 unwilling and apparently unable to deal point-by-point with my overall case for the star as a natural phenomenon \u2014 devoted all of his polemical energies to \u201cproving\u201d that I am the worst liar since Pinocchio and Satan himself: the \u201cfather of lies.\u201d Here are my two previous posts:<\/span><\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: Reply to Obnoxious Atheist Aaron Adair<\/a>\u00a0(Plus Further Related Exchanges with Aaron and a Few Others in an Atheist Combox)\u00a0<\/a>[1-14-21]<\/span><\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: 2nd Reply to Arrogant Aaron Adair<\/a>\u00a0[1-18-21]<\/span><\/p>\n Since then, under<\/span> his latest hit piece<\/a> he has repeated the charge several more times (his words in<\/span> blue<\/span> henceforth):<\/span><\/p>\n [W]hat Dave is saying is such-and-such persons thinks the Star was natural; but the reality is that that person explicitly said it was supernatural. What Dave is doing is misrepresenting what the commentators are actually saying, sometimes even making things up.<\/span><\/p>\n If Dave were just sticking with arguing that the Star may have been natural but misunderstood, that would be a possible position to honestly defend. Instead, he says that commentators such as Benson agree with him that it is (or could be) natural. But Benson in particular is clear what he thinks, and it\u2019s not what Dave said. That is why I\u2019m saying Dave is being disingenuous. Moreover, because I already showed him that these folks were not believers in a natural Star, but he nonetheless said they were, eliding the comments they made that would have shown it, makes Dave a liar.. . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [W]hen I know someone knows the truth, but presents the exact opposite, then I\u2019m obligated to call them a liar.<\/span><\/p>\n You get the idea . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In my previous reply on 1-18-21 above, I dealt with the premise that Arrogant Aaron is utilizing: that I am deliberately quoting out of context (rather than what I was actually doing: citing people who partially agree with me, while at the same time acknowledging that they also disagree with me on other particulars).<\/span><\/p>\n In this reply I will deal more specifically with various false accusations from Aaron, and show how he isn\u2019t even thinking logically<\/em>, besides calling me a liar over and over when the charge is unwarranted. He\u2019s obviously using the old tactic of the Big Lie (simply repeating a slander over and over) to \u201cestablish\u201d that I am a liar by nature, for the purpose of destroying my credibility. <\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s one of the most pathetic displays I\u2019ve ever seen: especially coming from a scholar, who is supposed to know far better than this. A physicist<\/em>, for heaven\u2019s sake, who shows himself unacquainted with the most elementary rules of logic? I have opined that hostility has the ability to corrupt otherwise brilliant minds\u00a0 and to make the person say silly and stupid things. Well, the charge is only as good as the evidence<\/em> presented for it.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s now get into specifics.<\/span><\/p>\n What Mr. Armstrong has done in his efforts is to marshall as many scholars as he can to support his position, in particular proving that there is reasonable debate among scholars about how to view the Star as either natural or supernatural.<\/span><\/p>\n This is the beginning of his (very cleverly) misrepresenting what I was attempting to do in<\/span> this particular article of mine<\/a>. All he concentrates on in his alleged \u201crebuttal\u201d is this aspect of \u201csupernatural vs. natural\u201d as regards the star of Bethlehem. But that wasn\u2019t my only topic. In fact, it was only applicable to three of the six questions \/ categorical sub-headings for which I cited Christian commentaries in (usually partial<\/em>) agreement with my views. Here are the three that are categorized by \u201cnatural vs. supernatural\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n I. Star of Bethlehem Was a\u00a0Natural<\/em>\u00a0Celestial Phenomenon<\/span><\/p>\n II.\u00a0Unsure<\/em>\u00a0Whether it Was Supernatural or Natural<\/span> [i.e., the possibility<\/em> of it being natural was not ruled out<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n V. Star of Bethlehem \u201cStopping\u201d as the \u201cRetrograde Motion\u201d or \u201cStationary Point\u201d of Jupiter<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here are the three categories that were logically and topically distinct f<\/em>rom the \u201csupernatural vs, natural nature of the star\u201d issue:<\/span><\/p>\n III. Star Of Bethlehem Did\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0Specifically Shine Down on the House Where Jesus Was<\/span><\/p>\n IV.\u00a0Unsure<\/em>\u00a0Whether the Star of Bethlehem\u00a0Specifically Shone Down on the House Where Jesus Was<\/span>\u00a0[i.e., the possibility<\/em> that it didn\u2019t specifically shine down on one house was not ruled out<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n VI. Phenomenological, Non-Literal Language of Appearances Employed in Matthew 2:9<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Arrogant Aaron appears to not grasp<\/em> this logical distinction, and so proceeds as if all I am dealing with is the question that he is obsessed about. Thus, this was his first presuppositional error in his analysis, and it leads him far astray of the truth, leading him to conclude (based on his false premise) that I am an inveterate \u201cliar.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Then he launches into another non sequitur<\/em> charge that I have already disposed of:<\/span><\/p>\n First off, it has no commentators prior to the 19th century\u2013no Augustine, no Aquinas, no Luther, none of the Church Fathers or other famous interpreters. No Kepler either. Heck, no non-English sources! So he is missing out on a huge swath of commentators. Also note that most of his sources come from the 19th century. It\u2019s almost as if there is little in the way of modern support, let alone traditional confirmation. I could have supplied many dozens of authorities in favor of my position, just like I did with St. Augustine (Against Faustus 2.5), but I\u2019d rather avoid the tedium and look instead at Dave\u2019s citations.<\/span><\/p>\n I wasn\u2019t attempting to cite commentators from the entire 2000-year history of Christianity. I have already agreed with Aaron that the overwhelming majority of commentators before the 19th century took the view that the star was supernatural. But this doesn\u2019t bother<\/em> me in the slightest, and<\/span> in another paper<\/a>, published on the same day as the one he is futilely trying to shred (that he has chosen to utterly ignore), I explained why<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s been noted that the natural explanation was of recent vintage. I have no problem granting that, but it\u2019s of little concern to me. As science has progressed, several aspects of Bible interpretation have progressed along with it, in agreement. Thus, very few educated Christians believe in a 10,000-year-old earth (as even many scientists believed before Darwin) anymore. Why? Because science has shown that it\u2019s far older. Few believe\u00a0in a universal\u00a0flood.<\/span><\/p>\n The text of the Bible \u2014 rightly understood \u2014 doesn\u2019t require that, either, in the first place (it\u2019s consistent with a local flood). But science has (in my\u00a0mind) shown that a worldwide flood was impossible. Many Christians now are theistic\u00a0evolutionists (as I am). This wouldn\u2019t have been the case before Darwin, though both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas expressed notions that were broadly similar to evolution.<\/span><\/p>\n Few \u2014 because of science \u2014 think that the sun literally stood still for Joshua. That includes\u00a0myself. I believe\u00a0it was some sort of divinely guided optical\u00a0illusion, just as I believe\u00a0that was the case in the miracle of the sun in Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Almost all Christians aren\u2019t geocentrists, anymore, either. Nor are we heliocentrists, because the sun is no more the center of the universe than is the earth. Galileo and Kepler got that wrong. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In other words, as science progresses, and Christians by and large accept its advances like everyone else, our exegesis changes as well. It\u2019s not that the Bible was wrong in any of these cases, but that our\u00a0understanding<\/i>\u00a0of it was\u00a0aided\u00a0<\/i>by the further knowledge and input of science. Therefore, we would fully\u00a0expect<\/em>\u00a0to see more naturalistic\u00a0explanations of texts that aren\u2019t immediately or exclusively\u00a0explainable as miraculous.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Arrogant Aaron continues his extraordinarily quixotic crusade \u2014 caricaturing and distorting all the way \u2014 to make me<\/em> out a supposed liar:<\/span><\/p>\n Another thing to note is that Dave has fluffed up his list. He cites the same authorities multiple times. 3 times he cites Wilkins (2009), 3 times Schaff (1890), three times Pett (2013). Others he cites twice. So his unique list of authorities is even smaller than at first glance. But that is not what\u2019s even the biggest problem.<\/span><\/p>\n This is laughably ridiculous. The question is: why<\/em> did I cite these folks three or two times? Quite obviously, because it had to do with agreement on different particulars<\/strong><\/em>. Remember, I had six categories I was grouping the commentators under. If they had relevance <\/em>to more than one, then I included<\/em> them in more than one. Thus, Wilkins noted that \u201cmany\u201d biblical commentators have held the view that the star was \u201ca comet, a supernova, or a conjunction of planets.\u201d Thus, I cited him under the sub-categories of supernova and comet in section I (though not under \u201cconjunction\u201d). Duh!!!<\/span><\/p>\n I also cited him under \u201cII.\u00a0Unsure<\/em>\u00a0Whether it Was Supernatural or Natural\u201d since, when a biblical commentator highlights what other<\/em> commentators think, it often (but not necessarily) means that he is not sure,\u00a0himself<\/em>\u00a0how to interpret a text. That\u2019s fine. It happens all the time and is perfectly natural. So I put him in the category of \u201cunsure.\u201d This is being totally honest<\/em> with my readers: the very opposite of this image that Arrogant Aaron pushes in vain, with all his might: that I am an utterly incompetent and deliberately dishonest<\/em> researcher; a liar<\/em> through and through.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, Schaff is cited under three distinct categories, talking about three different things (three completely different quotations from him). This explains why I cite folks multiple times. It ain\u2019t rocket science. I am supposedly under some imaginary restriction that I can\u2019t cite someone three times? But if I do it\u2019s somehow \u201cdishonest\u201d and one more example that I can\u2019t research and am a \u201cliar\u201d? Who the hell decided that<\/em>? Wow! Arrogant Aaron is really straining at gnats with\u00a0this<\/em> one. But it gets far worse. Keep reading . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at one of his modern sources, from R.T. France (1985), a conservative scholar who generally supports the historicity of the Jesus stories. France is also Mr. Armstrong\u2019s most reputable modern scholar, so we should take seriously when France says that the text doesn\u2019t specify if a precise house or the general area of Bethlehem is meant by the text of Matt 2:9.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Good! Aaron momentarily ascends to a brief foray into rational thought and fairness. He speaks truth here: a breath of fresh air amidst the stench. And this is why I cited France. He agreed with me on this particular issue. Aaron also proves here (almost despite himself) that my paper was about more than just the supernatural vs. natural star issue. This is an exegetical question. What does the text say? I had stated at the top:<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover,\u00a0he [Jonathan MS Pearce] claims that this \u201cstar\u201d specifically shone down on (to identify) the \u201chouse\u201d where Jesus was, even though the biblical text (Matthew 2:9) never\u00a0states<\/em>\u00a0this and refers (in 19 Bible versions I have found) only to a \u201cplace\u201d that can be a large regional area. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I decided to undertake a survey of many biblical commentaries to see if \u2014 here and there \u2014 perhaps one or two (needle in a haystack) might be found that\u00a0agree<\/em>\u00a0with what I am contending about the star of Bethlehem being a natural phenomenon, and not shining specifically on one house in Bethlehem<\/strong>. [bolding added presently]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So I cited R. T. France: a biblical commentator so reputable that even Aaron recognizes his scholarly stature. And this is all<\/em> I cited him form (with regard to the \u201cshining [on what<\/em>?]\u201d question). But \u2014 not getting this \u2014 Arrogant Aaron proceeds to sophistically spew out a complete non sequitur<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n However, France has a lot more to\u00a0<\/span>say<\/a>\u00a0about the Star:<\/span> [following by a citation of two paragraphs]<\/span> . . .<\/p>\n That is a lot to miss, all completely contradicting Dave\u2019s argument that France supports the idea that the Star was astronomical.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, this is equal parts laughable and ridiculous. Quite obviously to any reader with even a shred of rationality and fairness, I cited France with regard to one thing and one thing only: whether the star shone down on one house, as is the myth commonly held by many Christians and lots of atheists too, in their titanic struggle to understand what the Bible stated in the first place<\/em>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I ask Arrogant Aaron: where did I ever claim<\/em><\/strong> that France<\/span> \u201csupports the idea that the Star was astronomical\u201d? Of course, I never did. Aaron merely assumes this. And assuming<\/em> it with no evidence at all, he constructs this fairy tale that I falsely claimed he did so, and therefore, \u201clied\u201d yet again (for about my 1,928,367th time).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Once again, dear reader, please note: I had two<\/strong><\/em> general aims in this article: to show that commentators exist who thought the star was a natural<\/em> phenomenon, and also others who agreed with me that it didn\u2019t<\/em> shine down on one house.<\/span><\/p>\n And I repeat again, what I made very clear in this paper:<\/span><\/p>\n For the sake of brevity, I only cite them where they agree with me or when they claim not to\u00a0know<\/em>\u00a0what it was (neutral or agnostic position: II and IV below). I\u2019m not\u00a0denying<\/em>\u00a0at all that these commentators may also\u00a0disagree<\/em>\u00a0on the other major point or additional ones. Readers who want to see their entire comment on Matthew 2:9 can follow the links I provide.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Arrogant Adair actually showed that he accurately comprehended<\/em> the meaning of this, in the combox:<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s first see where we agree. It is true, and appropriate, to quote someone on points where they agree with you on a subject. It would be totally fair for me to quote from the McGrews in their criticism of fine tuning arguments, while we obviously disagree on theism. Similarly, if you were to quote Bart Ehrman against Jesus mythicists, while you believe much more in the historicity of the Gospels than Ehrman does, that would be completely legit.<\/span><\/p>\n But \u2014 lest he speak truth for too long a time \u2014 he has to immediately turn it into a slanderous blast against me:<\/span><\/p>\n However, you did not represent what these various authors said, not about something different, but about\u00a0the exact same thing<\/i>: the nature of the Star of Bethlehem.<\/span><\/p>\n Uh-huh. Now, how does this claim apply to how I cited R. T. France? I cited him with regard to one particular point. He actually agreed<\/em> with me. Even Aaron conceded that he agreed with me, and (as an extra bonus) that he should be taken seriously, too. What I cited from France had nothing directly to do with what his overall view<\/em> of its nature<\/em> was, since my citation only had to do with one particular way it behaved<\/strong><\/em> (which is arguably harmonious with either<\/em> view: natural or supernatural).<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, I did nothing improper or dishonest whatever here. Aaron lies about that. How ironic, huh?\u00a0Arrogant Aaron then goes back to commentator Michael J. Wilkins:<\/span><\/p>\n The same thing happens with Dave mutliply-cites Michael Wilkins, since Wilkins first brings up the numerous theories put forward about the Star. This is what a good scholar should do: bring up all of the possibilities. <\/span><\/p>\n Exactly! And this is why, of course, I cited him. He bore witness that \u201cmany\u201d scholars hold that the star was a natural phenomenon. That\u2019s precisely how he supported my case, in arguing for the notion that, well,\u00a0many<\/em> scholars hold that the star was a natural phenomenon. Any sixth-grader (maybe even a sharp student in fifth grade) could easily follow my logic. But Aaron can\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n But this is not what Mr. Armstrong does, as he completely avoids mentioning Wilkins<\/span>\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0this: [citation having to do with a supernatural interpretation of the star]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Once again, Dave\u2019s own sources say he is wrong\u2013the Star must have been supernatural so it could guide the Wise Men to a particular locale.<\/span><\/p>\n This is wearisome and tedious in the extreme. It\u2019s absolutely irrelevant (to my overall argument) whether Wilkins thinks the star was supernatural or not. I have no problem with anyone believing that. I have repeatedly stated that many equally good and reputable commentators think so, and indeed did for most of Christian history (partially for reasons I have explained: the lack of scientific knowledge).<\/span><\/p>\n I wasn\u2019t citing Wilkins for his own<\/em> opinion of the star, but only for what he bore witness to regarding other<\/em> commentators. Hence his one citation that I used three times in arguing for three different things, started out with, \u201cMany suggest that . . .\u201d I never dealt with his own particular opinion at all, since it was irrelevant to the immediate point. In fact, his witness strengthened my argument for saying many hold to a natural view, because a guy who holds to the supernaturalist view was conceding that \u201cmany\u201d who hold a different opinion also<\/em> exist.<\/span><\/p>\n It does because this is, in effect (as in both law and general dialogical rhetoric), a \u201chostile witness.\u201d In other words, if you find a guy A<\/em> who\u00a0 holds to position x<\/em>, whereas you are arguing for contrary position y<\/em>: that it is held by many scholars, and A<\/em> freely acknowledges that \u201cmany\u201d scholars hold position y<\/em>, then this is very strong evidence for the latter assertion, since A<\/em> has no inherent bias<\/em> in favor of y<\/em>; therefore can be trusted as a non-biased witness in defense of the existence of many scholarly adherents of y<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n I concede that this is a bit more advanced and subtle rhetoric and logic. Seeing that Aaron repeatedly shows that he can\u2019t grasp even simple logical aspects, I don\u2019t expect him to comprehend this at all. He will only use it as a ludicrous pretext to \u201cprove\u201d that I am (yes, you guessed it) a \u201cliar.\u201d It\u2019s truly sad and pathetic. Blissfully ignorant of such logical considerations, Arrogant Aaron continues his relentless slanderous assault:<\/span><\/p>\n The pattern continues when Dave looks to the People\u2019s New Testament<\/em> (1891). He only quotes a fraction of what it says about Matt 2:9,<\/span>\u00a0leaving out<\/a>\u00a0this: [comments asserting his belief in a supernatural star]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s the same logical and rhetorical scenario as in the cases of France and Wilkins, explained above. I never denied that any of these people held to a supernaturalist view. It\u2019s irrelevant to my argumentation. As with France, this source was cited with regard to one thing, and one thing alone: \u201cWhether the Star of Bethlehem\u00a0Specifically Shone Down on the House Where Jesus Was.\u201d The source showed that it was unsure about this aspect, that Jonathan MS Pearce seems to be so sure about: \u201cEither [shining] over Bethlehem, or over the house where the young child was sheltered.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Again, this is a logically distinct question from the supernaturalist one. A supernatural light can shine on an object (like the angels shone on the shepherds on the first Christmas night), and (as I have argued), a natural light (here I think it was Jupiter) could be said to shine on a larger area (Bethlehem).\u00a0 In any event, there is no lying; there is partial agreement, and that\u2019s all I have ever claimed<\/em> for all<\/em> these citations.<\/span><\/p>\n Arrogant Aaron then repeats the same fallacy a fourth time, by noting that the Bible Study New Testament<\/em> takes a supernatural view. I only cited it with regard to what the star shone down on: a totally separate question. He contends that it was (by strong implication) a \u201clie\u201d for me not to mention the former thing. I say it\u2019s a non sequitur<\/em> (i.e., totally irrelevant to the question at hand). Apparently, Aaron thinks that if one doesn\u2019t bother to mention any and every irrelevant aspect, in studying one particular issue, then it\u2019s (can you guess?) a \u201clie\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n He would only have a case along these lines if I implied that these people I cited agree with me all down the line, or were all in favor of a natural star interpretation. But of course I never did<\/em> that. I specifically noted that they disagreed with me, too, but that I was citing them only in cases of agreement:<\/span><\/p>\n For the sake of brevity, I only cite them where they agree with me or when they claim not to\u00a0know<\/em>\u00a0what it was (neutral or agnostic position: II and IV below). I\u2019m not\u00a0denying<\/em>\u00a0at all that these commentators may also\u00a0disagree<\/em>\u00a0on the other major point or additional ones. Readers who want to see their entire comment on Matthew 2:9 can follow the links I provide.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Can you see a pattern yet? Dave continuously avoids showing what else these commentaries say. That is a classic quote mine, and it is a disingenuous method of citation. It actively hides what the quoter doesn\u2019t want you to know. However, so far, these are lies of omission.<\/span><\/p>\n The poor man just doesn\u2019t get<\/em> it. I recommend that he take an introductory course in logic (I took one in college; still have the textbook in my library). It would seem likely that he has<\/em> done so, with his Ph.D. in physics. If so, he has forgotten what he learned there, or else (as I have argued), his logic goes out the window when he is ferociously hostile to a position. All of a sudden, he loses his capacity to argue in a sensible and rational fashion. That\u2019s my own theory as to his shoddy thinking throughout our exchanges. He is too hostile (to Christianity and to me personally) to be rational. And so he has laid himself bare, to be eviscerated by a much more objective and logical counter-argument.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But even in the midst of Arrogant Aaron\u2019s relentless illogic he manages to make a good point once<\/em> in a while. And I am always willing to acknowledge truths and facts, no matter how illogical (or insulting) is the person who made it. Truth is truth, after all, and even an unplugged clock is right twice a day (for a minute each time). I already informed him that I partially grant his point about various definitions of \u201cmeteor\u201d in the 19th century. I added the following to my paper on commentaries and the star:<\/span><\/p>\n [Note: Alastair McBeath, in his article,<\/span>\u00a0\u201cMeteor Beliefs Project: \u2018meteor\u2019 and related terms in English usage\u201d<\/a>\u00a0