Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 63

God's "Valentine" to Us (Bible Passages on God's Love, Mercy, and Compassion)

[RSV]

Deuteronomy 7:8 but it is because the LORD loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 23:5 the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loved you.

Deuteronomy 32:9-12 For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. [10] "He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. [11] Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, [12] the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no foreign god with him.

Deuteronomy 33:3 Yea, he loved his people; all those consecrated to him were in his hand . . .

1 Kings 10:9 . . . the LORD loved Israel for ever . . .

2 Chronicles 9:8 Blessed be the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king for the LORD your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever, he has made you king over them, that you may execute justice and righteousness.

Psalm 4:3 But know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself; the LORD hears when I call to him.

Psalm 31:19-21 O how abundant is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for those who fear thee, and wrought for those who take refuge in thee, . . . [20] In the covert of thy presence thou hidest them from the plots of men; thou holdest them safe under thy shelter . . . [21] Blessed be the LORD, for he has wondrously shown his steadfast love to me

Psalm 52:8 . . . the steadfast love of God . . .

Psalm 89:33 but I will not remove from him my steadfast love, or be false to my faithfulness.

Psalm 97:10 The LORD loves those who hate evil; he preserves the lives of his saints;
he delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

Psalm 103:3-5 who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, [4] who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, [5] who satisfies you with good as long as you live so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's.

Psalm 146:8 . . . the LORD loves the righteous.

Proverbs 3:12 for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.

Isaiah 43:4 . . . you are precious in my eyes, and honored, and I love you, . . .

Isaiah 49:15-16 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. [16] Behold, I have graven you on the palms of my hands; . . .

Isaiah 51:16 . . . I have put my words in your mouth, and hid you in the shadow of my hand, . . .

Isaiah 54:10 For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on you.

Isaiah 62:4-5 . . . the LORD delights in you . . . [5] . . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Isaiah 63:7,9 I will recount the steadfast love of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD has granted us, and the great goodness to the house of Israel which he has granted them according to his mercy, according to the abundance of his steadfast love. . . . [9] . . . in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;

Isaiah 66:13 As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 31:3 I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.

Jeremiah 32:38-41 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. [39] I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. [40] I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. [41] I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

Hosea 2:19 And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy.

Hosea 3:1 . . . the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods . . .

Malachi 1:2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. . . .

Matthew 18:14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (cf. Lk 13:34)

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 14:21,23 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. . . . [23] If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

John 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

John 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from the Father.

John 17:23 . . . thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

Romans 5:8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, [39] nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Galatians 2:20 . . . the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Ephesians 2:4-6 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), [6] and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Ephesians 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.

Ephesians 5:2 . . . Christ loved us and gave himself up for us . . .

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

2 Thessalonians 2:16 . . . God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,

1 Timothy 2:3-4 . . . God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Titus 3:4-5 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, [5] he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, . . .

Hebrews 12:6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.

James 5:11 . . . the Lord is compassionate and merciful.

1 John 3:1 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God . . .

1 John 4:8-11 . . . God is love. [9] In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. [10] In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins. [11] Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

1 John 4:16 So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

1 John 4:19 We love, because he first loved us.

The Bible, Church History, and Slavery: Huge Scandal for Christianity or Thoroughly Distorted Picture from Skeptics and Atheists? [Resources Page]

Glenn Miller of the fantastic Protestant apologetics site, Christian Think Tank (I cannot recommend it highly enough), has tackled this issue head on, in his article, Does God condone slavery in the Bible? (+ part two). Don't even read it unless you are up for some tremendously in-depth research and refutation of one of the common garden-variety myths in anti-biblical and anti-Christian polemics.


Related Materials on the Same Site:


Why couldn't Israel take in the Amalekites like they did foreign survivors in Deut 20?

The Great Irruption: The Work of Christ: Redemption, Ransom (NT) [PDF]

The Great Irruption: The Work of Christ: Redemption, Ransom (OT)

What about God's cruelty against the Midianites?


Catholic Articles on Christianity and Slavery:


"Slavery and Christianity" (Catholic Encyclopedia)

"Ethical Aspect of Slavery" (Catholic Encyclopedia)

"Philemon" (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Roman Catholic Church Opposition to Slavery (Leroy J. Pletten)

Slavery and the Catholic Church (A Catholic Response)

Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery (Mark Brumley, This Rock, July/August 1999: 16-21; + second URL)

The Popes and Slavery: Setting the Record Straight (Joel S. Panzer, The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1996)

The Popes and Slavery (Joel S. Panzer, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Dec. 1996)

Review of The Popes and Slavery (Leonard A. Kennedy)

The Catholic Church and Slavery: a New Look at Augustine and the 1839 In Supremo Controversy (Albert J. Schorsch, III)

Catholic Church and Slavery (Matthew Bunson; EWTN)

Slavery, Christianity, and Islam (Robert Spencer, First Things: On the Square, 2-4-08)

Slavery (Fr. William G. Most)

Who Killed Slavery? (Dinesh D'Souza)

A Necessary Bondage? When the Church Endorsed Slavery (T. David Curp, Crisis, Vol. 23, No. 8, Sep. 2005)

Dialogue: Reflections on the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Slavery (Dave Armstrong)

A Response to John Noonan, Jr. Concerning the Development of Catholic Moral Doctrine (Usury, Marriage, Slavery, Religious freedom) (Patrick M. O'Neil)

On Slavery in the Old Testament (Luke Wadel)


Non-Catholic Christian Articles on Christianity and Slavery:


Enslaved to Presuppositions: Christians Against Slavery [fabulous collection of links to hundreds of anti-{American} slavery writings by Christians]

Does the Bible condone slavery? (GotQuestions.org)

British Abolition's Faith-Based Roots (Joseph Loconte)

'Make Good Use of Your Servitude': Some Observations on Biblical Interpretation and Slavery
(Michael Marlowe)

Does the Bible Approve of Slavery? (Come Reason Ministries)

The Bible and Slavery (resources page from The United Methodist Church)

Defending the Bible's Position on Slavery (Kyle Butt)

Slavery in the Bible (Bible Apologetics)

Slavery in the Bible (Conservapedia)

The Bible, Slavery and Morality (Bill Muehlenberg)

"Slave, Slavery" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; William Edward Raffety)

The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery (Rodney Stark, Christianity Today, 7-1-03)

Anti-Catholic Lies and Deceitful Propaganda: Did Pope St. Pius V Claim to be God? Did a Bishop Say Venerable Pope John Paul II Was God?

Pope St. Pius V (reigned 1566-1572): painting by El Greco

"The Pope and God are the same. So he has all [the] power in Heaven and earth." -- Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay.

[seen on a Facebook page tonight, but obviously gotten from somewhere else off the Internet. "The" in brackets is added from the usual "quotation" used, seen below]

Here are examples of many anti-Catholic sites using the botched citation, without checking it for accuracy (a basic, rudimentary, elementary requirement of all serious research). No one ever links to something that can be checked out online, or finds any semblance of an original source (I found a real source within ten minutes of searching). Instead, we get "Barclay," chapter so-and-so. Huh?:

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".

("Amazing Catholic Statements Regarding the Pope," Let There be Lies, er Light Ministries)

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." — Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous."

("The Mark of the Beast")

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".

("666, the Pope, Anti-Christ & Vatican – For Dummies!")

[same]

("Who is the AntiChrist: The Beast of Revelation 13")

[same]

("Words of a Beast")

[same]

("Mystery Babylon")

[same]

("The Roman Catholic Church's Shame")

[same]

("Bible Prophecy - False Doctrine")

Etc., etc. ad nauseum . . . See many more by consulting the same Google search that I did.

This is a complete distortion of what was actually written, wickedly spread by anti-Catholic sites. The actual statement comes from Pope St. Pius V's Bull Against [Queen] Elizabeth / Regnans in Excelsis (27 April 1570). It begins:

Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power.

(from the Tudorhistory.org website; the wording in Papal Encyclicals Online is identical; see also the original Latin version on the latter page)

The phrase is about God, not about the pope:

1) God, the one that reigns on high.

2) "To whom is given all power in heaven and earth" -- obviously referring to Jesus, about Whom this is stated in Scripture.

3) . . . has committed [the Church] . . .

4) " to one alone upon earth, . . . Peter's successor"

It's been quoted radically out of context and with a completely invented addition, by people with an agenda who don't care about accuracy. Another phrase in the Bull also clearly distinguishes between the pope and God:

. . . we (who by God's goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) . . .

Catholics have never believed that the pope is God. That's utterly ridiculous. It is a damnable lie spread by anti-Catholics.

* * *

Another statement made by a bishop about Pope John Paul II is being seized upon as another alleged proof that popes think they are God, and Catholics agree. It was published in Zenit (9-20-04):

Auckland Bishop Says Pope Presides From the Cross

[. . . ]

In a statement in the wake of the New Zealand prelates' five-yearly visit to Rome, Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland said of the Pope: "Although his eyes are bright and piercing, he is indubitably frail, and has not walked in public for over a year. His condition makes it an effort for him to talk, and at times even to swallow."

"It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ's cross," said Bishop Dunn, who traveled with seven other prelates to Rome.

He makes a striking statement. But the question is, what exactly does he mean? Is the bishop saying that Pope John Paul II was God (Christ)? No, of course not. Or that he was literally crucified with Jesus Christ, c. 30 AD? No; obviously not. He is using the eminently biblical imagery of "take up your cross":

Matthew 10:38 (RSV) and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Mark 8:34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

St. Paul makes several striking statements along the same lines:

Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

Romans 8:17 . . . fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

2 Corinthians 1:5-7 For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.

2 Corinthians 4:8-12 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Galatians 6:14 But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Galatians 6:17 Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks [Gk., "stigma"] of Jesus.

Philippians 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

By anti-Catholic "logic" (and a reductio ad absurdum) Paul is clearly claiming to be God, too. After all, he "suffer[s] with" Christ, he says "we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings," and "always carrying in the body the death of Jesus," and he says he has "been crucified with Christ," and " I bear on my body the marks of Jesus," and "becoming like him in his death" and "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions."

So this proves he is claiming to be God? No, of course not. All Christians are to identify with Christ in His sufferings on our behalf. This is quite biblical. And this is what was meant in the article. Period. End of story.

People need to rely on the Bible and Catholic truths, rather than anti-Catholic lies, coming from a small radical fringe of bigoted, wacko anti-Catholic Protestants.

***

Debate: The Anti-Catholic "Pope as God" Argument (vs. Paul Mansbacher)

This is an old paper that was posted on my website way back in 1 January 1999. In due course (sometime between October 2001 and February 2002), I came to think that the assertion that the pope claims to be God was so ridiculous (i.e., that no one could possibly believe such an absurd thing, or if they did, they were beyond rational discussion, anyway), that it wasn't worth spending any valuable time refuting, and removed this paper from any of my sites: but not at all because I thought my reasoning in it was erroneous.

Sure enough, however, I've discovered that people are still being taken in by this lie, spread by anti-Catholic sites (in this instance, a supposed "quotation" from Pope St. Pius V that has been widely butchered). In looking for the original quotation I noticed a host of anti-Catholic sites quoting the made-up version. I wrote about that in a second paper tonight. Because of this experience, I decided to restore this old paper to my blog.

Rather than cut-and-paste it from Internet Archive (it's very long and has a lot of color-coding), I will make links to archived versions over there (all interchangeable; if one doesn't work, just try another): (one / two / three / four / five). It's an example of how my original website used to look.

* * *

Refutation of the Historical Inaccuracies of the Anti-Catholic Foxe's Book of Martyrs

Cover of John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 1570 edition


Here is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on this famous and notorious book (fourth and final edition: 1583):

The Book of Martyrs, by John Foxe, is an account of Christian martyrs throughout Western history from the 1st century through the early 16th centuries, emphasising the sufferings of English Protestants and proto-Protestants from the 14th century through the reign of Mary I. First published in 1563 by the Protestant John Day, the book was lavishly produced and illustrated with many woodcuts and was the largest publishing project undertaken in Britain up to that time. Commonly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, one fuller title of the work is Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touching Matters of the Church. Widely owned and read by English Puritans, the book helped mould British popular opinion about the nature of Catholicism for several centuries.

[see also the article in The Catholic Encyclopedia]

I was asked if there was a Catholic treatment of this book, and set out tonight to find something (after having failed the first time I looked yesterday). This time I was successful.

William Eusebius Andrews (1773-1837) was a Catholic journalist (see his Catholic Encyclopedia bio). He wrote Review of Fox's Book of Martyrs (three volumes: 1824-1846). These can be read using Google Books (vol. 1 | vol. 2 | vol. 3). These are also able to e read at Internet Archive (vol. 1 | vol. 2).

The text (in Google Books) is a little hard to read but if you select "plain text" near the top of the screen it's a lot easier to read because it's not a photo-version, but just regular text.

Dr. James Gairdner (1828-1912) was a far-minded Anglican historian (see his obituary in The Times), who provides a more accurate account of some of these events, in books such as The English Church in the Sixteenth Century from the Accession of Henry VIII to the Death of Mary (1904) and Lollardy and the Reformation in England: an Historical Survey, Volume 1 (1908). See a listing of his works at Internet Archive.

Dr. John Lingard (1771-1851) was a Catholic priest and historian (see his Catholic Encyclopedia bio). A number of his books are also available on Google Books (and at Internet Archive). See especially his History of England, volumes 5, 6, and 7.

Of related interest are many titles by the famous Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953); see his works at Internet Archive as well.

I myself have collected a lot of material about all the martyrs of Protestant kings and queens in England (documentation of 1375 of them):

161 English and 269 Irish Catholic Martyrs During the Reign of the Tyrant Henry VIII: 1534-1544 [at the Very Least: 430 Martyrs]

312 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth ("Bloody Good Queen Bess"): 1558-1603

123 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors in the Post-Elizabethan Era: 1603-1729 (+ 66 English Martyrs of Unknown Dates / Martyr Resources)

444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors, Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, Cromwellians, Etc.: 1565-1713

St. Thomas More: Noble Heroism Amidst Treachery

Martin Luther's Reactions at the News of the Death of Zwingli, and the Martyrdoms Under Henry VIII, of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher

For further reading on the English penal laws and persecution of Catholics under Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Edward VI, James I, Charles I, Cromwell, Charles II, and William III, see:

Edward Alfred D'Alton (1860-1941), The History of Ireland.

Dom Henry Norbert Birt (1861-1919), The Elizabethan Religious Settlement; a Study of Contemporary Documents.

Francis Aidan Cardinal Gasquet (1846-1929), Henry VIII and the English Monasteries.

John Gerard, S. J. (1564-1637), The Conditions of Catholics Under James I.

Denis Murphy, S. J. (1833-1896), Cromwell in Ireland: a History of Cromwell's Irish Campaign.

G. B. O'Connor, Elizabethan Ireland, Native and English (1906).

For general material on Protestant "skeletons in the closet" (that we hear remarkably little of, for some reason), see my web page: Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance.

***

Atheist John Loftus Hits the Nail on the Head With Regard to the Nature of Theological Liberalism

Hans Küng
Truth is truth wherever it is found. Here is an atheist speaking truth and knowing about his topic from firsthand experience. An atheist understands this, and an orthodox Christian also does, but the theological liberal can't see it:

. . . I used to be a liberal for about six years before I became an agnostic for another six years before I became an atheist in 2005. I know what it is to be a liberal and to argue like a liberal. . . . Liberals offer a milquetoast version of religion that can be safely ignored for the most part, . . . (12-7-10)

I don't know what any particular liberal believes, . . . Since a liberal isn't to be identified with any set particular beliefs, he or she could always deny that what I say applies to him. I will not spend the time chasing such people down into foxholes. (11-15-07)

Yet, although he knows what liberalism is about, he is not above using it to bash orthodox Christians who actually believe in what their creeds and confessions state:

In fact, in my book I use the writings of the liberals to debunk evangelical Christianity much of the time. They simply are on the side of truth. They have better scholars. (11-14-07)

***

Debunking Christianity: Insulting and Mocking Christians & Christianity is the Norm (Including Mind-Reading & "Knowing" Interior Motivations)

A typical day at Debunking Christianity: blissfully wallowing in the mud and pulling everyone into it who dares to try to attempt rational discussion with the mud throwers.


Debunking Christianity is the website of John W. Loftus: former Christian and now atheist polemicist and author. I recently had dealings with it when I did a critique of one of Loftus' papers:

Census & Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem: Atheist John W. Loftus' Irrational & Uninformed Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts

I announced it on his site and then we heard the all-too-common rationalizations for why a person can't or won't defend his own writing when it is critiqued:

John W. Loftus: "Blood Out of a Turnip": Getting Nowhere Trying to Persuade an Active Atheist Polemicist to Defend His Own Positions Against Critique

When I made some comments in the same combox where I announced the paper, all of a sudden we saw a good old-fashioned Internet "feeding frenzy," with five safely anonymous atheists (not a single one of them gives their full name), joining in with wholesale mockery and insults and slanderous garbage, about Christians and about myself.

As always, I like to illustrate the bankruptcy of all such worthless, non-rational "discussions" online (which happen everywhere: commonly in Christian venues as well) by simply exposing them. They are their own refutations. I sure hope this isn't representative of atheism as a whole (I know many atheists personally who are very different), but I know this sort of nonsense is very common at atheist sites online. I'm sure it turns more people off to atheism than a hundred Christian apologetic arguments could or would. Atheists like this are their own worst enemies.

I won't cite absolutely everything (if you read the whole thread, be aware that it contains vulgarities and blasphemies), but only remarks that are of an absurdly sweeping, prejudicial nature: against Christianity or yours truly (the latter, indented). Color coding is as follows:

Me = black
Gandolf = blue
articulett = green
brdeadite99 = purple
renoliz = orange
Randy = red

* * * * *

I have made a lengthy reply to the post "Was Jesus Born in Bethlehem?" on my blog, entitled, "Census & Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem: Atheist John W. Loftus' Irrational & Uninformed Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts." It will also be cross-posted on my Facebook Page (over 1200 followers, so lots of potential readers there) and Twitter page.

Atheists and agnostics are welcome on my pages and are treated politely and courteously (while their arguments are vehemently opposed). (2-3-11)

I would have referred him to what modern day archaeologists are saying about there being no Nazareth at the time of alleged Jesus but generally people who are this willing to ignore the obvious contradictions and complete lack of historicity in the birth narratives are too far gone to have a discussion with.

he will be vehemently opposing any argument based on facts . . . Let us not allow facts to get in the way of our beliefs, for crying out loud.

There is one particularly foul git there known as "Doctor Doom", . . . who dismisses links from atheist sites out of hand, saying that they're "written by atheists with agendas, so you can't trust anything they say". Forget facts, they can't even face simple reality.

. . . the obligatory mocking already starting to take place. :-) (2-3-11)

I just selected the latest post, so you would see it and not overlook it. It is humorously appropriate in this combox, though, since now my reasoning is being ridiculed and that was the topic of the post! LOL

It continues to be quite fashionable in atheist circles, apparently, to mock Christians and Christianity and yuck it up, sans rational discussion of a rational rebuttal of pet atheist theories. I've always marveled at it, but I don't think these tactics are gonna go away anytime soon. Mockery and irrationalism have long since replaced rational, constructive discussion, as the normative way to communicate and "refute" positions that are disagreed with, these days.

It's the same in politics, too, as we have observed in the recent spate of attacks on political conservatives as the alleged cause of the nutcase in Arizona.

Your books certainly do not consist solely of mocking and ridicule. There must be rational argument in them, I'm sure. I'm suggesting that you might want to encourage rational, mutually respectful discussion on your blog, too. You guys might actually like it: you never know! (2-5-11)

Given the negative agenda of this site (like so many atheist ones), you guys oughtta have a "dislike" button, so you can express your personal contempt for Christians! :-)

Let it be known that I don't return this contempt for atheists. Many Christians do, which is a sad thing (and they are wrong and inconsistent to do it), but I do not. That's why I try to have rational discussions with atheists. The common reluctance to do so doesn't come from my end.

We can continue to mock and ridicule (and in some cases, "hate") each other, or we can talk and reason like intelligent adults. (2-5-11)

Well, seeing as how I've spent months debating dozens and dozens of Christians(maybe over a hundred of them at this point) and still have yet to find any intelligent arguments from even one of them, my " personal contempt", as you call it, is well warranted. I don't even know why I bother; because in the end, no matter how intelligent you thought a Christian was, it all boils down to feelings, emotions, dogma, and their brainwashed inability to let go of cherished beliefs.

If that is your opinion, then why not simply ignore Christians? This is what is perplexing about atheist behavior. Apart from the very common spectacle and folly of being angry at a God that doesn't exist, they are obsessed with Christians whom they think are dumber than a doornail, and devoid (as you say) of even one intelligent argument.

Why bother? If I had such a view, I wouldn't waste time interacting with Christians, and I wouldn't even use up any energy mocking them. Speaking for myself, I don't waste time debating flat earthers or Neo-Nazis. I don't make fun of them, either. I simply ignore them as irrelevant and beyond hope (for intelligent discussion).

But you guys don't and can't seem to do that. This very site illustrates the problem: atheism seems to have to be self-defined by opposition to something else.You can't just live your life and live and let live. You have to mock and express contempt for those who disagree with you.

I have two books that could be said to be arguments against atheism. I also have 21 that aren't, because I don't define or confine myself in terms of beliefs that I oppose. But with John Loftus, it is different. Look at his books: it's all one droning theme: how Christianity is false, why he left it, etc. Has he nothing positive and pro-active to offer?

It's a very curious phenomenon, but there are several possible explanations, I suppose. (2-5-11)

we are somewhat miffed at the superior and arrogant attitudes that his followers adopt and have held for well over two thousand years. As for expressing mock and contempt, if our opponents could actually dredge up ONE good reason to believe in talking animals, mythical creatures, and demi-god rabbi/carpenters(without telling us that we were never True Christians(TM) . . . we might have some respect for them. . . . At least atheists don't churn out cheap, slanderous propaganda about other people's personal beliefs, . . . John Loftus wants people to see Christianity for the sham it is, no different from an ex-cultist victim who warns people about the Church of The Seventh Stone, or whatnot.

Thanks for the quintessential display of irrational atheist anger. Pathetic . . . (2-5-11)

And thank you for the quintessential display of the arrogant, condescending attitude I was talking about. How precious... :)

And you wonder why atheists come to the conclusion that some theists are "dumber than a doornail".

I think faith addles the brain so that the believer is unable to see themselves the way an outsider perceives them due to the Dunning-Kruger effect (the ignorant are too ignorant to know they are the ignorant people). The believer needs to believe that their magical beliefs make them more moral so they are everlastingly trying to prove that to themselves. Unfortunately they often lose their sense of humor in the process. Fortunately, I think lurkers who read these posts are often moved towards reason. No one wants to seem like the theist blowhard who doesn't know he's a blowhard. Mockery is probably the best tool we have against such primitive thinking. . . . former believers often find comfort and healing in laughing at their former superstitions and those that try to manipulate others with them. . . . Life is jollier when you can find glee in their buffoonery.

(I suspect no-one but David Armstrong takes David Armstrong seriously.) I think it's funny that DA came to a skeptics site to get attention and then tells others to ignore him as though responses to him are "persecution"! I don't know any skeptics that go to "woo" sites or churches goofing on believers for their silly beliefs, do you?

I think it's just very hard for the theist to accept that the atheist finds their magical beliefs as silly (and potentially dangerous) as all the magical beliefs the theists rejects. (And for the same reasons!)

You suggest atheists are angry at God , this is manipulative and very misleading and deceitful propaganda. Most Atheists are not angry at God. Yet here you are pushing this deceitful manipulative propaganda that other theist sheep around you will end up having faith in. You also make the decietful [sic] manipulative accusation that atheists are simply "obesessed" [sic] with Christians. . . These false manipulative accusations turn theist sheep against atheists, plus have the effect of blinding theist sheep . . . And yet here you are Dave today, willingly spreading the manipulative deceitful propaganda/ministry. . . Does it make you feel morally superior? with your supposed God given "objective moral" values and Church hours spent warming pews, to be here today spreading blatant lies about Atheists. . . And when it upsets people like Brdeadite a bit .Dave Armstrong suddenly crys [sic] wolf and trys [sic] to suggest..."Thanks for the quintessential display of irrational atheist anger. Pathetic . . . " . . . Daves [sic] "faithful attitude" makes him feel NEED to revert to use of even more manipulative decetful [sic] propaganda tactics again. . . . This is simply deceitful.Its a manipulation of the truth. And amounts to propaganda. . . . Dave you cannot come to places like this and use such manipulative deceitful tactics ....And not expect people to get a little angry about it. . . . I suggest to you that while Theists continue on with these blatantly manipulative deceitful practices ..It is indeed even warrented! [sic] that we sometimes do use ridicule. . . Theists display thoughtless uncaring attitudes that deceitfully misjudge people in a bigoted way . . .

Grand total:

"manipulative": 9 times
"deceitful": 9 times
"Propaganda": 5 times

. . . for theist children to throw away their wee faith cuddly rugs, learn to grow up! and face responsibilities. . . We do see that much of its been so very childish and immensely irresponsible . . .

I don't think believers in magic are qualified to have "rational discussions", are they? -- especially when such discussions might interfere with the magical things they feel saved for "believing in"? Does anyone here know of a religionists who is capable of having a "rational discussion" when it comes to their religion? I would venture that those who are capable of rational discussion are on their way to becoming non-believers if they aren't there yet. I don't find self-described Christians any more capable of having rational discussions on Christianity than self-described Scientologists having a rational discussion on Scientology. I find that former believers are much more capable of rational and insightful discussion on the subject of supernatural beliefs than those who are beholden to such beliefs.

Christians march into skeptic sites feeling all mad and claiming persecution because someone dared to find their magical beliefs as goofy as they find other myths.

Ah, it's a feeding frenzy now, huh? (2-5-11)

"What You Can Find Here at DC"

By John W. Loftus at 11/18/2010

There is plenty of discussion that takes place afterward. . . . Stay on and engage us. We aim at having respectable debates, more or less.

Um, it's totally less in this thread, dude! How can you possibly write that last sentence with a straight face? LOL I could have a better dialogue with a comatose jellyfish than what is available here (at least based on the evidence of this thread).

Christian, see if your faith can withstand our assault.

Sure, my faith can withstand the endless personal assaults of atheists. No problem there. But rational dialogue cannot survive in such a scenario. Takes two willing parties to do that.

You will grow as you do. What harm can there be in seeing if your faith can be defended?

But this contradicts what everyone here is saying: that no Christian has ever given a single intelligent argument for anything! LOL

Try it and see. Test your faith here.

More like "test your patience," to see if it matches with Job's, . . . (2-6-11)

For a lot of Theists this thing they call being polite and courteous seems to also include endless manipulation and educated sophistry. They even will use it to turn the existence of very abusive faiths . . . I dont bother much going to faithful folks blogs because i dont really expect much straight forward honesty. . . . Yes indeed Theists can sure create some wonderful harmonizations that will end up with human throwing live babies into fire. Or that Joseph Smith found some Golden plates. Ect.Ect.Ect [sic]

Thanks for some semblance of an actual reply to my arguments (even a semi-rational one in-between all the endless humorous put-downs and psychoanalyses). But of course it is Loftus' argument and he needs to defend it. (2-6-11)

. . . the truth remains theists have traditionally proved they are quite capable of dragging themselves down into the bottomless mire and muck of being caught out ! and sprung for often being deceitful and untrustworthy. . . . And yet some theists will still wonder why some people would ever dare think of theists with such ridicule and contempt.

But it really isn't healthy for society to be respectful to adults who engage in and promote magical thinking. . . . I think mockery is the best way to end the inanity of all these believers in assorted faiths imagining themselves superior to all those who believe in a different brand of magic. . . . Faith makes people self righteous and nutty!

tsk tsk-- DA's feelings are hurt because people don't agree with him and no one here is coddling him for having magical beliefs. . . . the manipulations your indoctrinators used on you, Dave, don't work here. All believers in all "woo" feel insulted by those who think their beliefs are delusional.

I continue to await Loftus's counter-response. He made an indication that there is some slight chance it may happen. That may actually be on the topic, too (as an extra bonus). As for this thread and its 1001 rabbit trails, . . . zzzzzZZZZZ. (2-6-11)

You were the one who started the rabbit trails, you bozo-face-- you posted off topic and then had a fit when John didn't answer claiming censorship!

[I threw no "fit" at any time. I simply announced my new paper on the latest thread, so Loftus would see it. Because my first post disappeared, at first I thought it was censored. But after Loftus denied it, I figured out that it was Blogger's automatic spam function (as indeed it was, as confirmed by Loftus), and so I wrote on 2-4-11: "It musta been Blogger's automatic spam function. You can go to your comments section and check the spam folder. It acts weird sometimes. I should have thought of that. My apologies."]

People who feel saved for having magical beliefs aren't really capable of rational discussion on their magical beliefs. . . . the funny thing is is this was a thread illustrating how theists are unable to see themselves the way an outsider might see them.... and then you came in and proved the point-- which made goofing on you too irresiistable. [sic] You tried to plug your creepy website and now you're trying to imply that John not responding to your wackadoodle Christian conjecture means that your wackadoodle beliefs have merit... just like a slew of other wackadoodle Christians who post here trying to plug their goofy websites that no-one is going to. You guys should bond with each other and post on each other's site about how great all your arguments are since the rational people here can't seem to make sense of you and you end up feeling like your "patience is being tried" and we feel like we are being preached at by folks we'd never look to for advice.. . . I don't appreciate the self righteous folks who do believe in such things interrupting a humorous thread to push their beliefs while insulting those who rightly find such beliefs mock-worthy. You are the one who has been rude here-- not any of the atheists. I don't know any theist that would put up with someone interrupting a humorous thread to try to push some website while insulting the readership in the process.

My experience shows me that believers in the supernatural are seldom able to have rational conversations when it comes to their supernatural beliefs-- especially if they feel "saved" or "moral" or "righteous" because of those beliefs like Muslims and Fox News viewers. To me, you guys are like children pointing at presents under a Christmas tree while claiming that it's proof that Santa is real.

As such, I feel that YOU are poorly qualified for rational discussion here or anywhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if John comes to a similar conclusion. Surely, you don't waste your time on every "woo" who comes your way; why should John? What's in it for him?

Oh ok ...All of a sudden Dave doesnt want to play ball anymore ...First he makes these claims suggesting there is no good reason for atheists to mistrust theism .We put a few possible reasons forward why it might not be so wise to "trust" theism. But Daves no longer keen to play ball. . . . That seems to be Daves plan?, continue to turn a blind eye, put the fingers in the ears and say nah naaa nah naaa ! ...im not listening . . . But now Dave suddenly chooses to feel all sleepy and discontinue with the discussion that he started ?.Why is this ?, might it be because ? Dave knows he will need to be a little honest and admit that yes indeed he was wrong !. . . I think maybe Dave is having some trouble with dwelling within continuing denial .This seems to be a very traditional type trait for many faith believers. My own family sits rotting within a Christian cult stuck in this faithful "denial mode", . . . I mean why would John Loftus even bother getting involved in another bitch-fight again , with a theist who obviously cant even see any good valid reason at all to feel need of some mistrust for theists and their theism ,somebody so stuck in faithful denial mode he wont even bother to discuss it any further. Whats the use in discussing these matters much with theists on their blogs if this is the type of brick wall one comes up againsts right from the get-go.

I just want it known that I'm an equal opportunity mocker. I mock the Scientologists, Muslims, Mormons, and Christians. I mock those who believe in fairies and those who believe in astrology and those that believe in voo-doo. I mock reincarnationists as much as I mock those who believe in Heaven, hell, or Valhalla. I mock all those who believe in the supernatural. . . . I think the Christian "persecution complex" is HI-Larious given the fact that it's atheists that are regularly actually discriminated against in America . . . I think you'll find the majority of prejudice is the US is spread by Christians to Christians -- many of whom are dishonestly and hypocritically claiming to be persecuted because people on skeptic sites don't defer to their delusions!

I even purposely stay away from sites where other "ex members" of the cult we were born in, get together to chat. . . . Anyone dare even discuss it and they throw all their dollys out the pram and start wailing whaaa!...booo hoo i want my cuddly rug! They rather not face it, so as to claim the right to continue to live in "faithful" hope ...Even if it means history keeps on repeating itself ...and as such future generations need to keep suffering faith-abuse . . .

Keep it up, folks! I've always loved farce. I wanna see how many atheist stereotypes and caricatures of self-parodies can be present in one thread. Y'all are very inventive. It's marvelously entertaining (if little else). (2-7-11)

* * *

John Loftus then posted that I am far too ignorant and stupid for him to waste his time on. I quoted that at the end of the previous paper. If I see further papers of his that I think will serve as examples of shoddy, flimsy atheist reasoning, I will refute them, whether he chooses to respond or not. My job as an apologist is to defend truth and refute error. If those defending errors (such as atheism) see no need to defend their view against critique, then it helps our cause. It would be nice to actually have a dialogue, but my first duty is to refute error, whether a person is willing to "talk" or not.

And let my self-proclaimed critics or "enemies" (as the case may be) mock and insult all they want. It never has stopped me from doing anything and it never will. We're told by Jesus to fully expect this. Generally (though not always), it means we are doing something right and hitting a nerve.

***

John W. Loftus: "Blood Out of a Turnip": Getting Nowhere Trying to Persuade an Active Atheist Polemicist to Defend His Own Positions Against Critique

This came about in my combox after I posted a critique of a paper by John W. Loftus: Census & Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem: Atheist John W. Loftus' Irrational & Uninformed Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts. Loftus' words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Dave, have you read any of my books yet? You should.

[Here they are:

Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains (2006)

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (2008)

Why I Became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments (2008)

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (with Dan Barker, 2010)

The End of Christianity (scheduled for 26 July 2011) ]

No. I'd rather see you defend what you say in your innumerable posts. You're gonna outwrite me! Very few do that! :-)

I gave you plenty to think about in this piece. You can choose to ignore it and join in on the mocking that they are now doing on your blog, or you can actually interact with a meaty, substantive critique. Maybe Christians have a valid point of objection once in a blue moon, huh? Maybe you got a few things wrong in your critique of the Bible? Is it possible?

Dave, do you agree with me that how we see any one particular issue depends on a whole lot of background knowledge?

Absolutely. I made note of that in the paper, in discussing the high importance of presuppositions.

If so, then in order for you see these things the way I do you need to understand more of the background knowledge I have that makes me see things the way I do. That can only be understood by reading my books. If you don't want to I understand.

I don't need to read a book in order to make it possible to engage in a dialogue with you on one particular topic (the Bethlehem thing). The thing that would most likely make me curious enough to read one of your books, would be to see you actually defend your opinions under scrutiny. But atheists, in my experience, have been mostly unwilling to do that.

And do you agree with me that Catholic biblical scholars are almost all liberals with regard to the infancy narratives? Debate them.

Wouldn't surprise me. Liberalism has made huge inroads into Catholic biblical scholarship, for various reasons.

You made the claims. I disputed them. You can choose to not defend your positions if you like. It'll be a matter of record here. We all have limited time. I understand that. I don't have the time or desire right now to read your book(s). You don't have the time or desire to respond to this critique.

There can be reasons other than inability or fear; I grant that. I would just like to see more dialogue take place. If not, then it is still worthwhile for me to "defeat the defeater" and show how atheist arguments fall remarkably short of their goals.

Now, if we had some understanding that if I read your book(s), then you would be willing to actually defend your views point-by-point, in a public written dialogue (to be posted unedited on my site) then I might very well be willing to do so.

I would be happy to respond point-by-point to portions of your books if you sent me the electronic text (i.e., in part). I ain't gonna type all that out! If I recall correctly, I asked you this before and you refused. I might be thinking of someone else, though.

I continue to seek amiable, constructive dialogue with atheists. It may, indeed, turn out to be an unattainable goal, but I haven't given up yet. I'm most interested in defending the Bible against all the onslaughts (in fact, I will be putting together a book soon that will be devoted to that topic).

Dave, from past exchanges with you it's not productive of my time to respond.

Your choice. I may still choose to do critiques, so if you want to leave your work undefended against them, that is up to you. You want me to read your books, but you ain't interested in a dialogue.

I'll send you my e-book, Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? for free if you like. Any atheist who asks for it can have it for free.

Dave, defend away. I know that's what you feel you must do. As for an exchange on the issues I raise in my books, I cannot promise that. I wish I could, but I can't.

All I'm saying is that you'll find in my books why I see things differently. They probably won't change your mind but people on both sides of this great divide of ours are saying they are the best out there.

Click on "John's Three Books" on my blog and read the reviews. I would think if you wish to defend your faith you would want to tackle the best out there. That's all.

Nothing personal, but if your arguments (what I've seen of them) are the "best" that atheism has to offer, that makes my day. :-)

Not that I ever thought atheism had anything to offer in the first place, mind you . . . If you're the best at defending a falsehood, that ain't much of a distinction in my book. E for effort, maybe . . .

I do appreciate your confidence. I would just like to see it expressed more concretely (rather than verbally only): with some substantive defenses against critique. Moreover, it's easy to appear to be the World's Greatest Expert when you are not interacting with criticism of your opinions. You can create your own little world and bask in the adulation of the choir . . .

Don't just take my word for it. Here's what Dr. Dale C. Allison author of Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters said:

Forget Dawkins. If you are looking for a truly substantial, well-informed criticism of the Christian religion, this is your book. Defenders of the faith will do believer and unbeliever alike a disservice if they do not rise to the challenge and wrestle with the thought-provoking arguments of Loftus and company.

Notice the highlighted words?

If you consider yourself one of the defenders of the faith then according to Allison you're doing us all a disservice if you don't rise to the challenge.

Presumably you write on your blog for the same overall purpose of presenting atheism as the truth. So what is the huge difference between reading a post of yours there and critiquing it vs. reading your books and critiquing those?

If you're not willing to defend what you write on your blog, to what purpose are the posts? Just preaching to the choir? Atheist backslapping and yucking it up about how "ridiculous" Christians are? You see yourself as the Pied Piper of Impiety or sumpin'?

If you won't defend a blog post, then why would I think you would be willing to defend any portions of your books? I already said that if you sent me a chapter or two electronically, I would critique them line-by-line and you could show where my reasoning went astray. But you haven't agreed to any of that yet. You just want me to read your books. No dialogue; no rational interaction . . .

I'm doin' you one better: I'll send you any of my books for free (e-books) and I'm willing to defend what is in them, too. Only two are really written with atheists directly in mind, though: the science volume and Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism .

Dave, I'm not the World's Greatest Expert. Sheesh. If you really want a respectful dialogue stop the misrepresentation.

That was a rhetorical exaggeration. You misunderstand the language of intellectual thrust and parry just as you do the nuances of biblical language. It's all of a piece. Do you seriously think I literally meant that you think you are the World's Greatest Expert on atheism? But you do have a rather high opinion of your own work, by your own humble admission: "people on both sides of this great divide of ours are saying they are the best out there."

And if you paid attention I'm not preaching to the choir. Christian scholars also recommend my books.

How is that a counter-point at all? So what? I'm talking about whether you will defend your positions or not. So far you have consistently refused to do so with me. Perhaps it is personal in my case, as you alluded to.

Furthermore, in my books and on my blog I most emphatically do interact with the opposition.

Then why the reluctance to do so presently?

Stop your whining. I can only do what I can do and you are not on my "to do" list.

Didn't take long for the fangs to come out, did it, John?

If you want to debate someone then debate your own Catholic biblical scholars on this particular issue.

Clever but fundamentally silly deflection . . .

Your views are out of step with biblical scholarship.

Liberal scholarship, not all biblical scholarship . . . and the latter is not confined to Catholics.

It's not an atheist issue here. Liberals all say the same things.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for confirming what I have said about liberals for many years. But why would the fact that you parrot liberals somehow make it no longer an atheist issue? I disagree with both of you. I have explained why. You want no part of an intelligent interaction along those lines. You might have to (horrors!) admit you actually made a mistake in your anti-biblical reasoning, and your choir and fan club over on your blog would be very disappointed and disenchanted to see that, since you guys ridicule and mock Christians as imbeciles and ignoramuses on a daily basis.

It's called being a scholar and you are not one.

Never said I was, but nice touch. It you think it scores a rhetorical victory to note the obvious and the thing that I always take great pains to state myself, then be my guest. I fail to see why any serious thinker would be impressed with that.

The fact that I am not a scholar, nor as educated as you, seems to me, would be a good reason for you to blow my arguments out of the water, as the inept ramblings of an alleged "pretender," but instead it is a pretext for your condescending refusals to interact, because I'm not worth your time. But you expect me to have plenty of time to read your book(s), since they are supposedly the "best" out there on atheism. We went through this schtick in our last runaround.

I have Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens in my library. If I want to read the "best" of a bad lot, I'll read those, not yours. At least not till you're willing to defend your opinions in an honest dialogue . . .

Loftus made another reply on his blog, on 7 February 2001:

For everyone's information there are a few reasons why I don't bother with Dave Armstrong. We have a history. Do a search for his name here and you'll see it back in 2007 I think. He comes across as someone who wants a civil discussion but when you disagree his fangs come out. Discussing something with him is like getting in a pigs trough and wallowing in the mire with him.

Like a few other wannabe apologists he will always have the last word. Because of that he will proclaim victory, hey, the person who has the last word is right, right?

He's ignorant and unworthy of my time:

[makes a link to the post: "On Being Ignorant of One's Ignorance and Unaware of Being Unskilled" (6-4-10), which includes the following comments:

So I'll continually be bothered daily at DC by ignorant people who are unaware of their ignorance, especially Christians. That's the nature of this beast. Worse off, they don't trust me to tell them what they should understand. . . . For now I'm challenging people to consider whether they are ignorant/unskilled and unaware of it. Most Christians who comment here are. I would say this about them as a former professor of philosophy, apologetics, ethics, and the Bible. . . . But I do know this: I know a hell of a lot more than most people about Christianity. I am not ignorant when it comes to Christianity. I might be wrong, but I'm not ignorant, at least not as ignorant as most of the Christians who comment here. ]

Besides from this [sic] I got nothing bad to say about him.

More of the usual elitist condescension, in other words . . .

Neo-Geo Double Standards and Exaggerations on Magisterial Documents (Guest Post by David Palm)

[cross-posted from the original on David Palm's blog]


Jane: I don't know what we did, but it must've been something dreadful.

Michael: He sent the police after us and the army and everything.

Jane: Michael, don't exaggerate.




One thing I have noticed in reading neo-geocentrist material is that so far, to a man, they materially exaggerate the nature and authority of the magisterial documents generated in the Galileo incident and, as a corollary, consistently downplay the nature and authority of the documents that have emanated from the Holy See since that time.

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. presents a good summary that supports what I have already laid out elsewhere:

In the case of Rome's 17th-century insistence on geocentrism, we have a teaching which: (a) was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones; (b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office; (c) was endorsed by the papacy for only 141 years (1616-1757); (d) was never greeted with the emphatic and morally unanimous endorsement of the world's Bishops, only a respectful acquiescence; and (e) never in any case affected the concrete lives and destinies of any more than a handful of professional scientists such as Galileo. (Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est)

Father makes some important points. I would emphasize with him that the documents with which we are dealing are uniformly disciplinary—he is correct that the Catholic Church has never issued any doctrinal decree affirming, geocentrism. And he is right that there is no document specifically on geocentrism "promulgated directly and personally by any Pope". But that is not how the matter is presented by the neo-geocentrists. They consistently exaggerate the authority of the relevant documents.

I first noticed this when dialoguing with one "Cassini" (a pseudonym) on the Catholic Answers Forum. I noticed that he consistently referred to the 1616 decree from the Congregation of the Index and the 1633 decree from the Congregation of the Holy Office as "papal decrees". This is an error of fact, plain and simple. I said in my reply to him:

the 1616 and 1633 decrees concerning Galileo were not "papal decrees". Period. They were issued by Roman congregations. A papal decree and a decree from a Roman congregation are two different things. No amount of cajoling can make one into the other. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the 1633 decree "did not receive the pope's signature".

In fact, neither decree was actually signed by the Pope. I will return to this point in a moment. For now it is sufficient to note that these are not papal decrees. But they are consistently presented by neo-geocentrists as if they are. In an extended discussion on Dave Armstrong's blog, "johnmartin" (also a pseudonym) spoke of the 1616 and 1633 decrees as "Papal statements". And neo-geocentrist Mark Wyatt edited the Wikipedia article on "Modern Geocentrism" to say this: "three popes have made official declarations against Galileo and Copernicus' writings (as well as other heliocentric writings) and in support of the geocentrist viewpoint" (Wikipedia, "Modern Geocentrism", 21 Oct 2005).

But the prize for the most egregious exaggeration has to go to Bob Sungenis, who recently wrote: "all the popes prior to the last 100 years were directly preaching against heliocentrism." Really now? Every Pope, from St. Peter to St. Pius X was "directly preaching against heliocentrism"? An interesting assertion, but total nonsense. It is distinctly reminiscent of Sungenis' false claim on his other fixation—the Jews—that, "all popes prior to the [sic] Vatican II have made very strong statements against fraternizing with the Jewish religion" (documented here and here, section 8.) Sungenis' nonsensical exaggeration that "all the popes prior to the last 100 years were directly preaching against heliocentrism" strikes a stark contrast with Fr. Harrison's factual statement that "Rome's 17th-century insistence on geocentrism . . . was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope".

Father Harrison's statement is a fact, but there is one seventeenth-century papal document that has at least some connection to the geocentrism controversy. It is a papal bull called Speculatores Domus Israel promulgated by Alexander VII. It is true that in some sense it touches upon the geocentrism controversy. But even here we find the neo-geocentrists materially misrepresenting the content and the authority of the document.

First, the facts. In 1664, Pope Alexander VII undertook to republish the Index of Forbidden Books. The Index at that time contained hundreds of works, spanning dozens of different topics. Along with the republication of the Index, Pope Alexander also attached the various decrees that had been promulgated by his predecessors in conjunction with various works being placed on the Index ("the aforesaid earlier classifications and annotations (wherever these exist) will be cited, along with the decrees by which the books were originally censured.") His stated reason for doing so was "quo rei ab initio gestae series innotescat," or, following Fr. Brian Harrison's translation, "In this way the case history of each censured book will be made known" (GWW2, p. 225).

The salient point to consider is that this papal bull was not about Copernicanism. It was about which books were to be placed on the Index. This fact is obscured by the way neo-geocentrists cite this bull. Yes, amongst the many decrees that were included were those connected with the various prohibitions of heliocentric works. But it does not place any special weight on heliocentrism, nor does it explicitly cite the text of any of the prior decrees, whether on heliocentrism or any other topic. It lends no additional weight to any of the decrees attached to it—rather, as Alexander VII states himself, his purpose was to establish "the case history of each censured book".

But what do neo-geocentrists do with this papal bull? First, they emphasize that this was truly a papal action, which is true as far as it goes. Some Vatican documents are reviewed by the Pope and ordered to be published by him, but they only carry the authority of the curial dicastery that actually wrote the document and do not carry the authority of a papal document or act. Such documents are referred to as having been approved "in forma communi." Other documents are reviewed by the Pope and approved by him in a special way such that they are officially made "his own" and therefore acquire the full authority of a formal papal act. Such documents are referred to as having been approved "in forma specifica." When a Pope wants to elevate the weight and authority of a document from "in forma communi" to "in forma specifica" all he must do is to sign it with the Latin phrase "in forma specifica approbavit." (Consecrated Phrases: a Latin Theological Dictionary, p. 62)

But while it is true that Speculatores Domus Israel represents a papal action put forward in forma specifica (with papal authority), we need to ask, for what purpose was that authority invoked? To promulgate a doctrinal decree on heliocentrism? No. It was invoked to promulgate a disciplinary document.

Now neo-geocentrists will on the one hand admit the importance of this distinction. Speaking of Alexander VII's bull, one neo-geo plays up its importance by appealing to its approval in forma specifica:

In this way, the pope's decree against books teaching heliocentrism was in the forma specifica venue, one of the highest magisterial vehicles for the dissemination of papal authority. (GWW, vol. 2, p. 224).

Interestingly, in his response to me, this same individual took a dramatically different tack when the distinction between in forma communi and in forma specifica was to his disadvantage. In that case, he soft-pedaled the fact that the 1616 and 1633 decrees of the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office were both approved only in forma communi, not in forma specifica ("Response to David Palm on the Galileo Issue", p. 10). While this double standard is telling enough, his assertion elsewhere that the authority of another document promulgated by this same Pope somehow bleeds over to elevate the authority of Speculatores Domus Israel is downright silly:

What is significant about the genre of Alexander VII's decree is not only its forma specifica venue but also how popes following him regarded Alexander's previous decrees. For example, in Pius IX's dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception in 1854, he cites as supporting documentation the writings of Alexander VII more than any other pope. In reference to Alexander VII's apostolic constitution, Sollicitudo Omnium Esslesiarum [sic] of December 8, 1661, Pius IX says Alexander VII "authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church" (GWW, vol. 2, p. 226.)

So, according to his argument, Alexander VII issued an apostolic constitution, a document bearing the Church's highest authority. This apostolic constitution was on a topic entirely unrelated to Copernicanism. But it was cited by a later Pope. And this somehow automatically elevates the authority of all of Alexander VII's decrees, even one manifestly issued in a form bearing a lesser authority and on a disciplinary topic at that. Anyone who knows anything about ecclesiastical documents will see that this is utter nonsense.

Second, the neo-geocentrists play up various strongly-worded phrases in the document. Thus Pope Alexander states that he "approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience..." (Wikipedia, Alexander VII). Certainly this is a strongly-worded phrase. But to what is it directed? Is it directed to establishing anti-heliocentrism as a binding doctrine of the Church? No, it is directed to the republication of the Index of Forbidden Books. Catholics are indeed expected to respect and obey the Pope, even in a disciplinary matter such as the Index of Forbidden Books. But again this does not make any particular thing on the Index a matter of binding doctrine. The Index itself was duly modified several times—including the removal of the various Copernican works—and was eventually done away with altogether. Clearly, then, these are matters of discipline and not of doctrine, even though certainly Catholics are expected to abide by the disciplinary injunctions of the Pope.

But the most egregious abuse of this papal document is when the neo-geocentrists misrepresent it as if its main topic was Copernicanism. For example, Mark Wyatt stated in his edit of the Wikipedia article on Modern Geocentrism: "Alexander VII, in a Papal Bull declared that 'the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture' and the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be "repugnant to Scripture and to its true and Catholic interpretation" (Wikipedia, "Modern Geocentrism", 25 Oct 2005.) This gives the impression that the central topic of the bull was the condemnation of Copernicanism. But this is simply false. The subject of the bull was the republication of the Index of Forbidden Books. Many decrees, not just those dealing with Copernicanism, were attached to this publication in order that a complete history may be established. And—this is important—in no case was the text of any of them cited in the bull. It is highly misleading to state, as Wyatt did, that Alexander VII's bull "declared" anything with respect to Copernicanism. It is false to present Speculatores Domus Israel as if its subject was Copernicanism.

The obvious proof that Speculatores Domus Israel was a disciplinary document is that the contents of the Index were duly modified several times and eventually the Index was done away with altogether.

So, to summarize, the Congregation of the Index, which issued the public 1616 decree, had as its competence which works should and should not be included on the Index of Forbidden Books. At that time it was ruled that works presenting the Pythagorean theory as a thesis rather than a hypothesis should not be read by Catholics and therefore a number of works that did so were put on the Index. It was therefore a disciplinary decree and not irreformable.

The Index of Forbidden Books was duly and authoritatively updated several times, including the deletion of all of the works concerning Copernicanism from the Index. This, then, covers not only the 1616 decree but also Pope Alexander VII's republication of the Index, prefaced by the papal bull Speculatores Domus Israel.

The 1633 decree of the Holy Office, which was also approved in forma communi, concerned the person of Galileo and his breach of the 1616 decree by continuing to publish books and teach the Copernican hypothesis as a thesis. This too was a disciplinary action against him. Yes, it was publicly announced, as the geocentrists have pointed out. But the Catholic Encyclopedia rightly states:

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. (Galileo)

The seventeenth-century Popes knew perfectly well how to promulgate doctrinal decrees binding on the whole Church. But they consistently refrained from doing so with regard to geocentrism.

(The neo-geocentrists constantly insist that only another formal, canonical trial can reverse the 1633 decree. They assert that "Canon Law" says so, while never actually citing Canon Law to that effect. They cite various private conversations or correspondences to try and establish this assertion, but never anything official or magisterial. Readers should always be aware of this lack of supporting evidence when evaluating such claims.)

I propose that the Church officially reversed the disciplinary actions of the seventeenth century as follows:

16 August 1820 The Congregation of the Holy Office, with the pope's approval, decrees that Catholic astronomer Joseph Settele can be allowed to treat the earth's motion as an established fact. . . .

11 September 1822 The Congregation of the Holy Office decides to allow in general the publication of books treating of the earth's motion in accordance with modern astronomy. . . .

25 September 1822 Pope Pius VII ratifies this decision. . . . (from Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, p. 307)

Thus the Holy Office—the same Roman congregation that was involved in 1633—reexamined the issue and gave permission throughout the Church to present non-Pythagorean views of the solar system as theses rather than just as hypotheses, a reversal of the discipline expressed in the 1616/1633/1664 decrees. Note well that this is not simply a matter of removing books from the Index. This was an act of the Holy Office giving positive permission for Catholics to teach non-Pythagorean views of the solar system. This really is, then, the reform and reversal of the earlier ruling.

In addition, as I have already pointed out, the Church also laid out general principles on which such questions may be addressed. Pope Leo XIII stated in the papal encyclical Providentissimus Deus 18-19 that the Holy Spirit did not put any such information about the physical nature of the universe in sacred Scripture. This was reiterated by his successor Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu 3. And this is bolstered by John Paul II in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Science in which he echoes his predecessors by stating that, "the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world" (here). As neo-geocentrist advocate "Cassini" has candidly admitted, "The only interpretation of note in the history of the Church that the encyclical [Providentissimus Deus] could be referring to was the fixed sun/moving earth heresy [sic]" (link). Neo-geocentrists have yet to propose any reasonable alternative issue that Leo XIII (echoed by Pius XII) was addressing.

Thus it is the official papal doctrinal teaching that the matter of geocentrism is not a matter of faith and morals and that Catholics are free to hold various views on cosmology.

But even if this were a matter of faith and morals the decrees of Roman congregations—especially those confirmed only in forma communi—are not infallible or irreformable. By definition "not infallible" means liable to err. As Ludwig Ott states:

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error. (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 10; emphasis mine).

Numerous Catholic scholars and scientists of great erudition and fidelity to the teaching of the Church have concluded that, indeed, the 1616 and 1633 decrees of the Roman congregations do rest on an error. Indeed, a Roman Pontiff has explicitly admitted that there was an error. Pope John Paul II said publicly that, "The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture" and that "the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable . . . the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele" (here).

It is clear that the Church considers this matter to have been officially dealt with and that Catholics have freedom to embrace the view of cosmology that they believe best fits the scientific evidence.

And my personal advice to the neo-geos — Don't exaggerate.

Census & Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem: Atheist John W. Loftus' Irrational & Uninformed Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts

Atheist and former Christian John W. Loftus runs the Debunking Christianity website. I hung around there quite a bit a few years ago. Many attempted interactions with him and his positions can be found on my Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism web page.

In recent months I have been particularly interested in submitting refutations of claims that the Bible is internally contradictory. Loftus' post, "Was Jesus Born in Bethlehem?" (originally 12-16-06 and charmingly re-posted on Christmas Eve, 2010) offers one such golden opportunity. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Consider the other problems inherent with the story:

Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, if Luke is taken literally, according to E. P. Sanders [The Historical Figure of Jesus (Penguin Press, 1993, pp. 84-91)].

Right. Let me see if I understand this correctly: the text in Luke (2:4, 15) states that He was born there, but somehow, if we take the account "literally," He actually wasn't, according to the Wise Men of our time. I wonder, then: if a text makes an assertion, but the very assertion supposedly proves the thing is false, then how do we know when something is true? The text has to deliberately not assert it; then we know it is true? That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? About as much sense as a hole in the head . . .

Loftus, following Sanders' eisegetical methodology, arbitrarily charges interpolation or text alteration when he finds anything in the Bible difficult to reconcile with anything else. This is the game that Bible skeptics have been playing for two thousand years now. Hence, Sanders writes in his book (music to Loftus' atheist ears):

The two gospels [Matthew and Luke] have completely different and irreconcilable ways of moving Jesus and his family from one place to the other . . . It is not possible for both these stories to be accurate. It is improbable that either is. . . .

People resort to such alterations of the text in order to save it: the text must be true, and if we revise it we can still claim that it is true. Revision, however, overthrows the principle.

(pp. 85-86; hardcover edition available at amazon)

This is classic "higher critical" mentality (going back in this case to famous "higher critics" David Strauss [in an 1839 work] and Ernest Renan [1863]): if there is any "problem" in interpreting the biblical text, then immediately we resort to cynical and ungrounded speculation about unsavory motivations of the writers and their desire to modify texts regardless of the actual facts of any given matter. This, of course, cannot be proved. It's all sheer speculation. It all has to do with how one approaches the issue from the outset: with openness and at least attempted objectivity, or with hostility and a sort of paternalistic cynicism. Loftus openly admits in the combox (12-23-06) that his hostile presuppositions and premises determine virtually everything:

I state how I see things. That's all I can do. For me it's all about seeing things differently. It's not about more and more knowledge. It's about viewing what we know in a different light. . . . For me it's not about more and more knowledge. It never has been. It's about seeing the knowledge we already have in a different light. So I shed light on how I see things. That's all I can do. You'll either see it, or you won't. . . . No one sees things differently in bits and pieces. It's an all or nothing happening. But before you can see the whole, I must share how I see things on a wide variety of the bits and pieces. So just add this bit and piece to the other bits and pieces I've shared here (that make no sense to you whatsoever), but at some point, if I keep on doing this, and if it'll happen at all, you will catch a glimpse of how I see the total set of things. I don't know what you know, and you don't know what I know. But how we view that which we know is the difference that makes all the difference.

It's all in the interpretation and the premises one has, and these can suddenly change. As Loftus correctly puts it: "It's an all or nothing happening." I've been arguing this for years, myself: particularly in a recent paper: Dialogue With an Atheist About Miracles and the Influence of First Premises on One's Methodology and Openness to Evidences and Proofs (vs. "DagoodS"), so it is gratifying to see an atheist so eloquently verify my critique (and theory) of how atheism somehow comes about in a Christian mind.

What husband would take a nine-month pregnant woman on such a trek from Nazareth at that time when only heads of households were obligated to register for a census when the census would've been stretched out over a period of weeks or even months?

Obviously, there must have been some necessity or compulsion for Mary to also be present. But that makes no sense to Loftus: he would rather impugn the character of the Gospel writers, by having them drum up an account with a nearly-due pregnant wife subject to grueling discomforts, that he, in his infinite atheist wisdom, can immediately figure out is implausible. Thus, recourse to desperate fictional accounts seems far more likely to Loftus than the first scenario.

Luke 2:3 refers to Joseph being "enrolled with Mary, his betrothed." Perhaps the impending marriage was an additional factor requiring her to also be there. The New Bible Dictionary (1962 ed., "Census," p. 203) observed:

It is . . . widely agreed . . . that it could have involved the return of each householder to his domicile of origin, as Lk. ii. 3 states.

But if he did, why did he not take better precautions for the birth? Why not take Mary to her relative Elizabeth's home just a few miles away from Bethlehem for the birth of her baby?

Probably because the baby chose to arrive at the time He did, when they were going to register for the census! I guess Loftus isn't familiar with the process of childbirth. I've witnessed all four of my children being born. One time we made an entire trip some 12 miles away to the hospital, only to be turned away, as it was too early. There is no need to be cynical about this aspect of the story. Babies are born when the "time is right," and often we have no idea when that will be.

According to Luke's own genealogy (3:23-38) David had lived 42 generations earlier. Why should everyone have had to register for a census in the town of one of his ancestors forty-two generations earlier? There would be millions of ancestors by that time, and the whole empire would have been uprooted. Why 42 generations and not 35, or 16? If it was just required of the lineage of King David to register for the census, what was Augustus thinking when he ordered it? He had a King, Herod. "Under no circumstances could the reason for Joseph's journey be, as Luke says, that he was 'of the house and lineage of David,' because that was of no interest to the Romans in this context." [Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things, (p.10)].

Lineage and past history were very important to Jews. Being from the lineage of David was obviously a point of pride for a Jew. Distance in time was as irrelevant then as it is to Jews even now (even atheist Jews: I've talked to at least one), who celebrate Passover: commemorating an event that is now well over 3000 years ago. Hannukah celebrates an event that happened in approximately 165 B.C.: over 2000 years ago.

The time from David to Mary and Joseph was a mere 1000 or so years. I fail to see the validity of this lightweight objection. It was probably determined, anyway, by whatever the Roman law entailed: registration in ancestral lands. It may have been a matter of voluntary Jewish (or local Roman) custom, or a sort of combination of both things. Hence, the liberal Catholic scholar Raymond Brown suggested:

One cannot rule out the possibility that, since Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jewish tribal and ancestral relationships.

(The Birth of the Messiah: New York: Doubleday, 549)

According to Jewish census customs (assuming for the sake of argument, that Roman Palestine took them into account), ancestral home was highly important, and both the husband and wife would travel: especially in this instance, since Mary was also of the lineage of David).

Conservapedia: "Luke and the Census" offers similar plausible scenarios:

A final set of objections has nothing to do with the date of the census, or the translation of the passage in question, but instead aims to launch a flurry of speculative attacks at the details provided by Luke. Perhaps the most common is the objection that a census would not have required travel. Adding to the difficulty is a misunderstanding of Luke's text, whereby it is believed that Saint Luke is describing a decree that required the taxed to return to their ancestral townships.

This formed the backbone of the set of criticisms leveled by E. P. Sanders, who stated that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel. Moreover, he added that such a decree would require people to keep track of millions of ancestors; tens of thousands of descendants of David would all be arriving at Bethlehem, his birthplace, at the same time; and Herod, whose dynasty was unrelated to the Davidic line, would hardly have wished to call attention to royal ancestry that had a greater claim to legitimacy.

[Footnote 28: E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin, 1993, p86; see also Bart Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, p103.]

The simple fact is that Luke does not, in any place, state that the census required people to travel to the home of their ancestors. Instead, Luke says simply that "all went to their own towns". When Luke mentions return to one's ancestral town, he is speaking only of Joseph.

[Footnote 29: Mark D. Smith 'Of Jesus and Quirinius', in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), p. 289.]

In other words, people were required to travel to their township, but only this. Joseph chose to journey to his ancestral town, and to be registered there, rather than to his town of residence.

Mark D. Smith gave two reasons why Joseph would have made such a choice. As historian S. L. Wallace and others observed, some censuses gave up to a 50% tax reduction if one registered in a metropolis.

[Footnote 30: S. L. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Princeton University Studies in Papyrology 2; Princeton University Press, 1938); cf. N. Lewis, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), p. 170; Derrett, Further Light on the Nativity of the Nativity p. 90-94.]

Because Bethlehem, Joseph's ancestral home, was close to Jerusalem, he could qualify for the reduction.

[Footnote 31: Smith, ibid., p. 297]

This incidentally answers another objection; namely, why Joseph would have brought the very pregnant Mary along - he could have been motivated to register his firstborn son so that Jesus would qualify for the reduction when he came of age.

[Footnote 32: Smith, ibid., p. 297]

Census records from Egypt record an unusual number of houses listed as having no resident, and this may be evidence for the practice of registering in a metropolis (if one could make such a claim) rather than a town of residence.

[Footnote 33: Brook W. R. Pearson, 'The Lukan Census, Revisited', in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999), p. 276.]

The second reason given by Smith is that Joseph may have owned property in his ancestral home, Bethlehem, and thus would need to register there. This property could have been as simple as farmland or a threshing floor, and need not imply any sort of wealth on Joseph's part.

[Footnote 34: Smith, ibid., 289-90]

Against this, it has been argued that Joseph and Mary would not have needed to stay in an "inn", as Luke records, if they had property in Bethlehem. The obvious weakness of this argument is that the property need not have constituted a suitable dwelling place, or a structure at all.

Radically questioning the text and/or the historicity of what is recorded there (leading to the foregone conclusion of questioning Jesus' birth in Bethlehem) is obviously, then, not the only explanation any thinking person can give. But Loftus presents it that way; precisely because his skeptical game has no concern whatever for Christian explanations of the "difficulties" that atheists and other Bible skeptics love (almost more than anything) to toss abouit and chuckle over.

Loftus himself inadvertently concurs with one theory presented above (Joseph owning something in Bethlehem):

The fact is, even if there was a worldwide Roman census that included Galilee at this specific time, there is evidence that Census takers taxed people based upon the land they owned, so they traveled to where people lived.

If in fact Joseph owned some land in Bethlehem, then that was a different location from his current residence. Therefore, rather than making a censor travel to two places for one person, it stands to reason that the person with multiple properties would travel to at least one of them, especially if property directly tied into the census, as explained above (just like today: I use a business expense of home deduction, which ties property into income tax).

According to Robin Lane Fox, "Luke's story is historically impossible and internally incoherent."

That's sheer nonsense. There is no impossibility in it at all. That is an extraordinarily silly claim for anyone to make: to try to assert a negative proposition like that.

But he says, "Luke's errors and contradictions are easily explained.

That presupposes that they are there in the first place (which skeptics always do, rather than make any serious attempt to explain ostensible "difficulties").

Early Christian tradition did not remember, or perhaps ever know, exactly where and when Jesus had been born. People were much more interested in his death and consequences." "After the crucifixion and the belief in the resurrection, people wondered all the more deeply about Jesus' birthplace. Bethlehem, home of King David, was a natural choice for the new messiah. There was even a prophecy in support of the claim which the 'little town' has maintained so profitably to this day." So, "a higher truth was served by an impossible fiction." [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible(Knopf, 1992), p. 31-32]. "Luke's real source for the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was almost certainly the conviction that Jesus fulfilled a hope that someday a descendant of David would arise to save Israel," because the Messiah was supposed to come from there (Micah 5:2). [E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 87.)].

How quaint and (un)imaginative. Note what has happened here. This is the very essence of irrational special pleading. The text came about because of wishful thinking and the desire of the writers to cynically, deceitfully align with Old Testament messianic prophecy. But how does one possibly prove such an outlandish accusation? There is no hard evidence (let alone indisputable, ironclad) for such a thing! Our choice is to believe that:

1) The NT writers believed Jesus was born in Bethlehem because in fact He was born there, and they had evidence to substantiate the fact.

2) The NT writers knew that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem because they had no evidence to substantiate the fact, but they "wrote it in" anyway because of the need for Jesus as Messiah to fulfill OT prophecy that named the town (Micah 5:2).

3) The NT writers mistakenly but sincerely believed Jesus was born in Bethlehem and reported this as fact, even though they had no hard proof of it.

Now, how would one go about proving the second or third scenarios? If in fact the NT writers were lying through their teeth and didn't believe their own words, how in the world would one establish that? If indeed Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as a point of actual fact (thinking purely theoretically for a moment), and if indeed the NT writers knew He was born there, and reported it, then there would be no deception, and this would in fact be a fulfillment of OT prophecy (i.e., for the person who believes in faith that Jesus is the Messiah, based on many considerations).

It all comes down to what is deemed to be fact and non-factual or of dubious historicity (from the historiographical perspective). But we can't simply pull skeptical ideas out of a hat and assert them as if there is good reason to state such scenarios of alleged deliberate lying.

I can just as well fault skeptics who argue in such a way (that I think is circular special pleading) because they don't believe in prophecy in the first place. Loftus obviously does not and cannot, since there is no God to give the revelation that is prophecy. If the thing is impossible, then obviously an alleged "fulfillment" of it is a sham as well.

So (given that hostile premise) it is thought that the Gospel writers were simply playing games by naming Bethlehem because of Micah 5:2: wholly apart from real knowledge of the event. But all they had to do was ask Jesus about it, or His parents. They were there. They knew what happened. They can't change or manufacture their own lineage, which is why they were in Bethlehem in the first place. Even Jesus can't change the fact of who His earthly parents were, as a point of fact.

It gets rather silly. As an analogy, to illustrate the foolishness of such "argumentation," take the famous case (for baseball fans) of Babe Ruth calling his home run in the 1932 World Series. The fact is that he hit a home run in that game, and eyewitnesses swear to the fact that he "called the shot." Now, let's go ahead 2000 years from now and imagine how a skeptic would "reason". The choices are again as follows:

1) The sportswriters believed Babe Ruth called and then hit the home run because in fact he did do both, and they had eyewitness evidence to substantiate the fact.

2) The sportswriters knew that Babe Ruth didn't call and then hit the home run because they knew it didn't actually happen, but they "wrote it in" anyway because of the need to create the myth of Babe Ruth as the greatest baseball player ever: larger than life.

3) The sportswriters mistakenly but sincerely believed that Babe Ruth called and then hit the home run and reported this as fact, even though they had no hard proof of it.

Now, would someone 2000 years later be acting reasonably in believing #1? Yes. Could they reasonably take position #2? Yes, provided they produced some documented evidence for the assertion. They could also believe #3, but would need evidence for that, too. But the problem is that biblical critics don't require (let alone use or produce) any hard evidence to start questioning anything in the Bible. With their mentality, they could simply deny that Babe Ruth called the home run. Or they could deny that he actually hit it. Why believe 50,000 spectators in the park and the box scores? They could all have been made up for the purpose of myth-making. If 500 eyewitnesses in the Bible can make up a Resurrection appearance, why can't 50,000 make up a legend of Ruth predicting his homer?

So that is how they would reason, if they were subject to the irrationalism of Loftus and a pitiable multitude biblical skeptics who think, clone-like, just like him. But the fact remains that the home run was hit, and that (by most accounts) it was called. That is the fact. And Jesus' birth in Bethlehem can just as easily and conceivably also be a fact. He had to be born somewhere. Why should the Bible lie about it? To fulfill prophecy, so we are told, but that reasoning is ultimately circular: merely assuming without argument or evidence what it needs to prove.

In many other places we read that the people of his time called him "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 26:70-72; Mark 1:23-25; Mark 10:46-48; Luke 4:34; Luke 18:37; Luke 24:20; John 1:45; John 18:6-8; John 19:19; Acts 2:22; Acts 6:14; Acts 10:38; Acts 22:9; Acts 26:9), so scholars conclude it's more likely that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth. They think this because the NT writers quoted OT verses from Psalms and the prophets out of context to point to Jesus. The NT writers were intent on making Jesus' birth, life, nature and mission to fit anything in the Old Testament that could be construed to speak of him, as proof he was who they claimed him to be.

This is delicious. I think it utterly backfires as an argument. Why and how it does is almost so obvious that one could miss it. We have just been told that it is intelligent to believe that the NT writers made up Jesus' birth in Bethlehem because they were deliberately making it fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2, even though they knew it was untrue or didn't know where Jesus was born. Hold that thought.

Now we are told that the title Jesus of Nazareth somehow suggests that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem because He was raised in Nazareth. That clearly doesn't follow. My father lived in the Detroit area for over sixty years. But he was born in Canada: about sixteen miles over the border. One can easily be associated with a town without having been born there. So that in itself is a gratuitously false premise.

But the massive biblical use of Jesus of Nazareth actually works against Loftus' argument, because if the writers of the New Testament "were intent on making Jesus' birth, life, nature and mission to fit anything in the Old Testament that could be construed to speak of him," why in the world would this title be featured, since the messianic prophecy about birth was about Bethlehem? The skeptic can't have it both ways. If the writers were trying to lie and make out that Bethlehem was the place then why was it mentioned so few times, while Nazareth was mentioned many times? It makes no sense. The skeptical scenario doesn't have the ring of truth.

The mention of Nazareth is taken at face value (so it is concluded that Jesus not only lived, but was born there), while the occurrences of "Bethlehem" are scorned simply because of the connection to Micah 5:2. Nazareth is not even mentioned in the Old Testament at all! So if they were trying to lie, this would be one of the last choices of location to use. Matthew 2:23 ties "Nazarene" to the prophets, but these prophecies were not in the Old Testament. They were either from an extrabiblical source or oral tradition. Therefore, if the goal was to find Old Testament references, "Nazareth" is an inscrutable choice, whereas Bethlehem was indisputably mentioned there and connected to the Messiah.

But any Christian today who uses the Bible to argue for their views without taking into consideration the context of the passages in question, would be laughed at even in their own academic circles!

Yes, and when atheists do this all day long and incessantly in their endless rants against the Bible, those of us who actually study and revere the Bible think very little of their efforts, too. But it's very time-consuming to tediously show how they distort things. That's why there are full-time apologists like myself, who can take the time to do the necessary work to show the fallacies and lay bare the cynical folly and irrationality of these efforts.

Matthew's account of Jesus' birth fares no better. Robin Lane Fox: "Bethlehem was not Jesus' birthplace but was imported from Hebrew prophecies about the future Messiah; the Star had similar origins (Numbers 24:17). Matthew's story is a construction from well-known messianic prophecies (Bethlehem; the Star), and the Wise Men (Magi) have been added as another legend." "Where the truth had been lost, stories filled the gap, and the desire to know fabricated its own tradition."

More circular reasoning and unsubstantiated nonsense, as explained above.

There are even discrepancies between the Gospels themselves:

"Luke told a tale of angels and shepherds, bringing some of the humblest people in society to Bethlehem with news of Jesus' future. Instead of shepherds, Matthew brought Wise Men, following a star in the East and bringing gifts…In one version, there are simple shepherds, the other, learned Wise Men: the contrast sets our imaginations free, and perhaps like the Wise Men we too should return by 'another way." [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Knopf, 1992), pp.35- 36].

How is this a "discrepancy"? One mentions one thing; the other mentions another. Neither says they were the only people there. So what? But the wise men actually came two years later, according to most Bible-believing scholarship (based on the evidence of Matthew 2:16), so it is talking about two different occasions anyway: all the more reason to deny the absurd charge of contradiction.

Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth from where they traveled to Bethlehem for the Roman census (Luke 1:26; 2:4). After Jesus was born, Joseph took his family from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for up to 40 days (Luke 2:22), and from there straight back to Nazareth (Luke 2:39). But Matthew says Jesus was born in a "house" where Joseph's family lived in Bethlehem. And after the birth of Jesus they lived there for up to two years (Matt 2:16)! After the Magi leave them, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt and stay there until Herod died (Matt. 2:15). After Herod died, Joseph was told in a dream to return to the land of Israel, and he headed for his home in Bethlehem of Judea. But since he was afraid to go there, he settled in Nazareth (Matt. 2:21-23), for the first time!

The fabulous Protestant apologist Glenn Miller, who specializes in debunking all of these endlessly alleged "Bible difficulties" took on these charges in his post, "Contradictions in the Infancy stories?" He observed:

First, let's look at the statement of [atheist Christopher] Hitchens that Luke and Matthew "flatly contradict one another on the Flight to Egypt". Now, to verify this claim it is necessary first to take the two statements by each author and look at them side by side. Then, we can look into more detail about the two statements to see if they are in fact 'contradictory without a doubt'. [cites Matthew passage] . . .

Compare that with Luke's statement about the Flight to Egypt:--oops, there is no statement by Luke on the Flight to Egypt. In fact, he doesn't mention it one way or the other. He doesn't support the historicity of the Flight, nor does he disparage it.

OK, that was easy. There cannot be statements that 'flatly contradict' (note the '-dict' part of the word… means 'something SAID') one another on subject X if there is only one statement about X!

But we all know what the atheist-fellow means: the accounts flatly contradict one another if you make the silence in Luke (about the Magi/Flight) mean more than silence, and if you insert the word 'immediately' into the silence in Matthew about WHEN the warning to Joseph came… If 'silence about event X' means 'denial of event X' or 'immediately' (smile), then maybe they are correct. But this is a BIG, BIG step—from silence to denial (especially in historical accounts!)—and even if it is true, it is certainly not obvious, explicit, or a case of 'flatly contradicting'. Silence can mean many things other than 'denial' (e.g., lack of interest, irrelevance to the argument--even ignorance of the fact itself is not 'denial'!). To read 'immediacy' into a silence is just as bad.

But you should all see by now what I mean, too: in the absence of EXPLICIT contradiction, one has to interpret the text in such a way as to CREATE a contradiction. There is no contradiction in what the text 'presents'--at a surface level--but one has to re-create the historical scene "behind" the text, in such a way as to GENERATE a contradiction. In other words, we take textual statements and 'visualize' or 're-create in our minds', if you will, the historical sequence BEHIND those texts. Our author has taken the gospel narratives and 're-created' the historical scene as one in which the sequences are out-of-synch. But the text itself does not make that explicit at all, and the same textual data can be used to 're-create' in-synch sequences as well (at least two plausible ones, as we will note toward the end of this discussion).

[all emphases and capitals and coloring his own]

Miller summarizes the two accounts and draws conclusions from them (I added a few words -- in brackets --, where he used abbreviations):

Note a couple of things from Luke:

Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth

(No mention of pregnancy-crisis)

They travel to Bethlehem

Jesus is born in Bethlehem

Shepherds visit Jesus in Bethlehem

Joseph/Mary/Jesus make a trip to Jerusalem for various Jewish rituals

(No mention of Magi/Flight)

Sometime after the various rituals, they return to their own city of Nazareth.

When we compare this list with Matthew, here's what we see:

Joseph and Mary are introduced without reference to [Bethlehem] or [Nazareth].

Pregnancy-crisis.

Jesus is born in Bethlehem

(No mention of Shepherds)

(No mention of family trip to Jerusalem for obligatory Jewish rituals)

Visit of Magi

Flight to Egypt

Family settles in Nazareth

But notice that Luke does NOT indicate a short trip from Nazareth to Jerusalem (for ritual purposes) at all. Neither [Matthew] nor [Luke] have such a trip in their respective narrative, so the blog-visitor's statement (at least the 'specifically' part) is inaccurate.

But also notice that both authors are only reporting some of the events—they share the key elements (i.e., Jesus born in royal city of Bethlehem, Jesus ends up in a despised town of Nazareth), and they each select a subset of the history for their particular point (e.g., Luke has the ritual-trip to emphasize the law-biding character of the family and the acceptance of Jesus by godly Jews; Matthew has the Flight/Secret-Return story to emphasize the early rejection of—or indifference to-- Jesus by the Jewish leadership)

With the various omissions of each, it is hard to really construct 'overlapping periods' in which to situate anything but the barest of events. The centerpiece birth in Bethlehem anchors everything, and the story 'ends' at [Nazareth] in both. Thus, it would take more explicit textual data to make this into a problem…

What emerges from this first-glance look at the objections, is that much is being made from the omissions and silences in the text. To be sure, one COULD CHOOSE to interpret these silences/omissions in such a way as to construe these problems, but how would one defend such choices? Developing arguments from silence is notoriously dangerous, and rarely is certain enough to carry the conclusion single-handedly! . . .

Biographical writing is notoriously selective—hence the assumption of 'full account' will be wrong almost all the time (especially in antiquity). And whereas the birth-in-Bethlehem and the homesteading-in-Nazareth would fit the 'so central… automatically included' criteria, it would be not be obvious that ANY of the other details would be so central (e.g., the pregnancy-crisis, visits by Magi, flight to Egypt, slaughter of innocents, visits of shepherds, etc could easily be considered subservient to each author's narrative purpose).

The article continues on in extreme detail, for anyone who is interested in delving into this textual issue in the utmost depth: examined in this case by someone who believes in biblical inspiration and the integrity of the biblical text -- which is also a bias and premise, but far more acceptable in doing biblical interpretation than the constant hostility of the atheist or other kind of biblical skeptics.

He examines, in turn, arguments from silence, several Bible commentaries and their takes, "the conventional and/or preferred ways of delivering historical narrative" in the literary methods of the ancient world (a factor vastly unknown or ignored by atheist and theologically liberal "exegesis"), -- particularly the techniques of "telescoping" and "thematic order," which was "fairly standard practice in the ancient world." He then provides hard evidence of these practices from:

1) a monument of ancient Assyria,
2) Josephus,
3) Thucydides,
4) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and
5) Jason of Cyrene and the Roman Jurists.

Then he discusses "Epitome" -- which "was a genre of writing which was specifically a condensation of another's work(s), or a group of authors' works on a specific theme." He notes the ancient preference for thematic rather than chronological order and shows how the Bible writers were of the same mind in that respect. Miller writes (his bolding and color):

What this means is that it will be very, very difficult to find a 'chronological contradiction' anywhere in the gospel narratives, since the gospel authors are not even trying to maintain strict chronological sequence—it just was not that important to writers of that period. They arranged their material in the interests of clarity of logical or thematic presentation, instead of chronological.

And this condensation, omission, and telescoping is pervasive in all of biblical literature.

He proceeds to document massive examples of these techniques being used in the New Testament, and a few from the Old Testament. He then argues (quite brilliantly) that because these techniques were widely understood at the time, the first skeptics of Christianity in the pagan world did not use these issues as a point of attack. He gives extensive examples of Celsus, and shows that he did not argue in such a fashion. He then analyzes Porphyry and shows how he looked for contradictions, but ones of "contradiction between teachings, not about chronology." He summarizes:

Remember, my thesis here is not that ancient authors didn't find any chronological contradictions to attack, but rather that they did not argue the existence of contradictions from telescoped, condensed, high-omission-count, summarized passages. . . .

See, this is my point: modern attacks/assertions of objectors/believers alike are just often off-the-mark, given the ancient literary world. The conventions we see in OUR passages here are such that nobody should be 'exorcising extraneous detail' out of them, because they were not written for that purpose.

Note that this applies to ANY/ALL 'chronological contradiction' issues, not just our Infancy Story case. Many objections against the NT will simply be off the mark for this reason alone.

He examines arguments of Macarius Magnes, Hierocles, and Julian, whose critical work reveals the same lack of modern techniques of atheists and liberals who no longer understand how ancient near eastern literature operated. He sees some exception in Julian, but then gives a theory to explain the difference (his different upbringing and lack of understanding in certain areas and his frequent lack of scruples and principle in argument). He then summarizes a self-consistent chronology of the infancy narratives:

The 'traditional' sequence given in the back of many bibles, then, involves placing the Magi/Flight sequence 'inside' Luke 2.39. As can be seen in the 'conservative' commentators we cited above, one can visualize those events in a "telescopic gap" in Luke's account (who has already telescoped 3 trips to Jerusalem into 2). The sequence then becomes:

(1) after the last trip to Jerusalem, the holy family returns to Bethlehem [Joseph perhaps supposing that the Son of David should grow up there];

(2) the proclamation by Simeon and Anna probably reaches Herod's ears and sensitizes him to the prophetic time frame;

(3) Magi arrive at Jerusalem and travel on to Bethlehem, and then depart;

(4) warning to Joseph/Flight to Egypt;

(5) Slaughter of the Innocents--with the 'two years and under' clause indicating the lack of precision in the timing, but also that the Magi visited sometime AFTER the first several months of Jesus' life;

(6) death of Herod; and finally

(7) return of the holy family from Egypt to Galilee. This easily fits the scant data we have in the gospels.

Then he provides a capsule summary of all the massive argumentation he just did (thus showing the huge fallacies and ignorance of the atheist attacks on Scripture on these grounds):

The initial objections are based too heavily on assumptions, omissions and alleged implications in the presenting texts, and cannot stand as currently stated.Arguments from silence in historical narratives require (at least) that the author was attempting to give a full account and that the details omitted were absolutely central to the story line (as used by the author for his/her narrative aims).Conservative bible commentators are not 'embarrassed' by the silences of Mt/Luke, and many offer plausible reconstructions of narrative intent (which explain the omissions' roles in the 'surface' of the text).The literary world (even today) knows of the telescoping and summarization techniques, and the ancient literary world both prescribed (Lucian) and widely used (many authors) these.The implication of this for us is that we need to read ancient narratives more through thematic than chronological eyes—in cases of abridgment and telescoping.The NT writers—as members of the class of 'ancient writers'—used this technique heavily, too. [And so did the writers of the Hebrew Bible.]The first major anti-Christian writers in history never seem to deny this principle—they never attack such usage as 'where contradictions lie'. There are little-to-no attacks on chronology, and those that do appear do not conform to the pattern under study.The most famous cases in the NT of telescoping are not 'taken to task' by any of the classically-trained ancient objectors, including Porphyry.The single case of the emperor Julian—even though it is not fully in our pattern-- can be understood as due to his abnormal (and imbalanced) education.

Fantastic! This reveals, as brilliantly as I've ever seen, the profundity of the ignorance of so many critics of the Bible, with regard to ancient literary techniques and understandings. In addition to not understanding the basics of logic (what a true contradiction is), they fall prey to not comprehending these very important and relevant factors as well.

Consider the Date of the Nativity and the so-called Roman Census:

Richard Carrier deals with all of the above problems in a discussion of the date of the Nativity here.

Glenn Miller again provides his usual excellent refutations of skeptical drivel, in his paper, On an objection about Luke, Quirinius, and Herods.