Bible Difficulties Answered

Thursday, December 31, 2065

Remembered Music
Trinity Notes

My Comments on other Blogs

Wednesday, June 4, 2025

Continuing A Conversation with Atheist "barry"

This blogpost continues a discussion that was started in the comments HERE, and Continued HERE. Then back at the original thread in the blogpost HERE. That blogpost seems to be where we keep returning to.

In response to barry:

When it comes to your objection that you don't accept Biblical infallibility and therefore it's illegitimate for me to go to other passages to help exegete a particular passage, I already mentioned in my other blogpost how boring and easy it would be for me to defend Christianity if I were to assume Biblical Errancy. If I were to assume Errancy as a Christian I could just accept Biblical passage X and reject passage Y. I could accept the passage I go to, and reject the passages that you go to. In fact, many of the passages you use in your anti-Christian spiel [or Anti-Gospel] are from books considered by some to be Deutero-Pauline. Whereas many of the passages I go to are considered, even by many skeptics, as part of the seven authentic Pauline epistles.

I don't think 1. Sola Scriptura [or Prima Scriptura during times of the on-going giving of (the highest degree type of) revelation & inscripturation like OT times or when the Apostles were alive] or 2. Biblical Inerrancy requires Christians or the Church to know with apodictic philosophical and epistemologically infallibilist certainty which Biblical canon list is correct [e.g. 66 books, 73 books, or whatnot]. Even Protestant apologists like Gavin Ortlund and James White acknowledge this. For example, White points out that Scripture was binding on the Jews during Jesus' ministry even if some Jews disagreed about the Biblical canon. The Sadducees only accepted the five books of Moses, while the Pharisees accepted the whole Tanakh. Yet, for the sake of argument and discussion with the Saducees Jesus was willing sometimes to restrict His apologetic with them using only the Torah, rather than the entire Tanakh. So, theoretically, for example, I could accept 1 Corinthians and Romans [both authentic Pauline epistles] and reject 2 Timothy and Titus [considered by many skeptics to be Deutero-Pauline, and so not truly written by Paul].

Even non-Christian scholars and skeptics grant that there was some overlapping consistency among early Christians even though they [i.e. the scholars and skeptics like atheist Richard Carrier] don't accept inerrancy, or positively deny inerrancy. So, it's not entirely inconsistent or implausible for me to appeal to other books outside of the particular passage you're fixated on at the moment at any given point in our discussion. Given that there would plausibly be some consistency between different Christian communities regarding some of the core doctrines, ethics and behavior. Even among the [the alleged] conflicting Christianities (with their differing canons) that Bart Ehrman likes to talk about [and other scholars before him, and of whom he leans on, borrows from, and on whose shoulders he stands upon]. There would be some similarities between the conflicting and clashing versions of early Christianity because of cross-pollination of ideas and practices. Analogously, even the Jewish Essenes, as much as they wanted to distance and distinguish themselves from mainstream Jews, non-Jews and Hellenization/"Greekification"/"Heathenization" in general, couldn't completely protect themselves from being influenced and "infected" by those they deemed "unbelievers" and "false believers." Another obvious reasonable cause of similarities of beliefs and practices between different Christian communities who may have isolated themselves from each other is that of a common derivation prior to splitting up. This is why the Essenes still believed in the God of Israel, or why the different Christianities usually think Jesus is the messiah. You can't always say or know that the author of one New Testament book was unaware of [or disagreed with] the doctrines, canon, or practices of the author of another New Testament book. If my shtick is to too easily accept harmony among the authors, your shtick is one of an uncharitable hermeneutic of suspicion, doubt, skepticism, and inconsistency.

As I said in my other blogpost I often [not always] defend Christianity in a worldview fashion and therefore on the assumption of inerrancy, because 1. I'm a presuppositionalist, and 2. because if I could successfully defend Christianity assuming inerrancy, which would be more constraining and therefore more difficult, then that's all the more the better for Christianity. Since, I said that the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on Biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy could be wrong, and Christianity still be true.

//No, 2nd Timothy 2:14 contains nothing in the context indicating the prohibited word-wrangling was a type that involved "insignificant issues", while the context does indeed indicate the prohibited wrangling was a wrangling about important doctrine (2 Tim. 2:11-13)//

I didn't say the verse was ONLY about insignificant issues. But that's one type of topics that can fall under sinful Christian wrangling. Also, if the issues were about important doctrine, then it would be serious enough to require being addressed. For example, heresy absolutely needs to be addressed. That cannot fall under the rubric of insignificant issues. It's a matter of orthodoxy and the core of the Christian faith itself. Those issues aren't optional to discuss, but are absolutely required to be discussed. As all 1st century Christians, Jews and ante-Christian Jews [BCE] always tackled heresies. So, it would be a category error to refer to polemics on those as wrangling or quarreling [contrary to your claim that "wrangling" as you define it applies to very important doctrine]. Though, there would obviously be other issues in between that don't either 1. rise to the level of heresy, nor 2. are completely insignificant and fall far below important issues on the scale of importance. Those [middle] things can sometimes require addressing, and other times discussing them would qualify as wrangling/quarreling. Depending on the topic or the way in which those topics are engaged and discussed.

Also, discussion, quarreling and wrangling among Christians isn't necessarily sinful per se. It's like drinking alcohol or eating food. Just because drunkenness and gluttony are sinful, doesn't mean eating and drinking wine are sinful. What makes them sinful are when they reach a point of becoming harmful. In the same way, some kinds of discussions are sinful and could be called "wrangling" [in the usual/common negative sense], and other kinds of discussions [even sometimes on the same topic] could be legitimate "quarreling" [in the unusual/uncommon positive sense]. One way you can tell if some discussion is sinful "quarreling/wrangling" is if it does harm. Not all activities are immediately known to be sinful. And some activities can pass from being legitimate to illegitimate by time, intensity or quantity [e.g. eating leading to gluttony]. So, I don't think it's wrangling when Christian Star Wars fans and Christian Star Trek fans and Christian Stargate fans debate which is the best franchise. My ranking is "Trek," then "Gate," then at a very distant 3rd, "Wars." Now, if they start "force choking" or "Vulcan neck pinching" each other, or start shooting each other with zat'nik'tels, then they need to stop for the sake of Christian peace.

//...and insist that word-wrangling within the church can often be useful and can build up the hearers.//

Yes. If it's "wrangling" in the permissible or positive sense, not the negative sense. Paul's prohibition in 2 Tim. 2:14 is about HARMFUL discussion, not beneficial discussion. When it becomes harmful, then it becomes "wrangling" and "quarreling" in the negative sense, and should be avoided or terminated. Even if the topic is an important issue like predestination. Calvinists and Arminians and Molinists need to stop discussions when they become harmful. But if they can resume in such a manner that's mutually edifying, then they can discuss the topics again.

//Second, you have mischaracterized Jesus' comment about casting pearls before swine. He didn't attach any qualifications to it. Once you identify them as swine, you have no more choice, you are NOT to cast your pearls before swine.//

Again, you're reading the Bible and understanding communication like a fundamentalist by reading it in a woodenly literal fashion. First off, it may not be an absolute prohibition, but advice, given the undesirable consequences. Even assuming it is a command, it might be a hyperbolic command [as I strongly suspect, if it were an actual command]. This is how rabbis and Jesus often talked. When Jesus forbade swearing, it's not an absolute prohibition. He's talking about frivolous and flippant swearing, even though it's phrased in an absolutistic way. The Old Testament taught the propriety of swearing and taking oaths in the name of God [Deut. 6:13; 10:20], and is probably presupposed in the 9th Commandment when it commands people not to bear false testimony. The Apostle Paul swore and advocated it or things amounting to it [Rom. 9:1; Gal. 1:20; 2 Cor. 11:10; 2 Cor. 12:19; cf. 1 Tim. 5:21; 6:11 ] . Jesus Himself, for all intents and purposes swore, in His answer to the High Priest's command "I ADJURE YOU by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" [Matt. 26:63]. Jesus' reply invoked God [hence amounting to a swear], when He said, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power ["Power" here is a metonym for God] and coming on the clouds of heaven" [Matt. 26:64]. Notice it's in the same book in which Jesus prohibited swearing [Matt. 5:33ff.]. You'll say that I'm invoking inerrancy. Not, necessarily, since, as I said above, even skeptical scholars grant that there was some consistency among the practice of early Christians with Christians, and of Christians with Jesus.

Jesus commands, "LABOUR NOT for the meat [i.e. food] which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed" [John 6:27]. Jesus phrases it as an absolute prohibition, yet virtually no one thinks Jesus is absolutistically forbidding people from working in order to earn money for food to eat. Jesus commands in Matt. 23:9-10 not to call anyone "father" or "teacher/instructor" in a seemingly absolutistic way. And yet there are teachers and fathers in the early church [fathers: 1 Cor. 4:15; Philemon 1:10 ||| teachers: 2 Tim. 1:11; 1 Tim. 2:7; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 5:12; James 3:1]. Similarly, your interpretation about Jesus commanding His followers not to give to pigs and dogs pearls and holy things is woodenly literalistic.

Remember, that Paul's letters are usually regarded as written earlier than all the canonical Gospels. The author of Matthew would have likely known that there were teachers and fathers in the church, and that some of them swore, yet the author nevertheless had Jesus say what we have in the text. So, the author of Matthew probably understood that it wasn't an absolutistic command not to swear, have fathers, or teachers. Paul called Timothy his child/son [1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 2 Tim. 1:2; 2:1]. The Gospel of Matthew was probably written by a Jewish Christian primarily to evangelize and provide an apologetic to fellow Jews. It would hardly do or be strategic to undermine the concept of rabbis/teachers among Jews whose concepts of religion was intricately intertwined with having respected teachers/rabbis. So, it's likely not an absolute command, but rather a command not to have an ecclesiastical structure where the leaders are overly respected or venerated. What evidence or argument do we have that Jesus is being literal about never giving pigs and dogs the sacred things? When Jesus Himself often interacted with people who could be seen as dogs and pigs. Jesus even continued to engage with people who were on the verge of committing the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit [or who actually committed it]. See my blogpost where I critically review Vincent Cheung's book on the topic of the "Unpardonable/Unforgivable Sin" HERE. Elijah (one of the most respected prophets to Jews) mocked and egged on the prophets of Baal to their destruction. Even "encouraging them to sin" [as you think I did you] by having them pray and call upon their god more fervently. Why would it be difficult to think early Christians would seek to imitate Elijah or Jesus in engaging hostile opponents? Of course they would.

2 Corinthians 2:14-16 ESV

[14] But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. [15] For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, [16] to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?

Here's the passage again:

Matthew 7:6 LSB

[6] “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

The trampling down may refer to the truths being lost, wasted, or destroyed. The tearing to pieces refers to figurative and/or literal attacks that harm the proclaimers of the truth. You can't literally attack me. You don't know where I live and I have no reason to believe you would physically attack me if you did. Nor does our conversation result in the lose, waste or destruction of the truth. Since our conversation is recorded and people reading it any time in the future can benefit from it. Nor is there a risk of me being spiritually harmed because I'm a fairly seasoned apologist. Whereas I would dissuade new Christians from discussing with you because they would be harmed by your attacks on the truth. So, even if Jesus' statement in Matt. 7:6 is a command, it doesn't apply to our situation between you and me. It's not like our conversation makes Christianity look bad and is publicly remembered/recorded in a way that would do damaged to Christianity. However Matt. 7:6 would apply to young and weak Christians who would potentially engage you.

//And yet it was years ago, when you first found out I claim atheism and then started strangling bible inerrancy, that you concluded I was swine.//

I never concluded or claimed you were a pig or a dog. And even if I did, that doesn't necessarily require me to stop engaging you. Only that were I to conclude you were, I would be justified and within my Christian liberties in disengaging with you. I would not be dishonoring God, hurting His cause or fellow Christians in such a case if I were to withdraw from this conversation.

//LOL How could you have thought me any better than "swine" starting years ago?//

There are plenty of people who resisted Christ vehemently for decades and eventually God saved them. No one is a lost cause from the human perspective while on earth. Since I don't know whether you are elect or non-elect. Also, people might benefit from reading our interactions. I don't just write for you, but also for myself and others in our conversation. Who knows who might read this conversation next year and eventually become saved. The Bible says:

Prov. 26:
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Verse 4 is reminiscent of Jesus' prohibition of giving to dogs and pigs. Verse 5 in conjunction with v. 4 is a classic presuppositional passage on apologetics. One can answer a fool according to his folly and show him his errors. Often by using his own arguments to expose his folly. I want to expose how what you deem "wisdom" in your own eyes is just that. Only in your own eyes. That your objections aren't actually any good.

//Third, Titus 3:9-11 explicitly tells you to avoid anybody who causes divisions, that prohibition is not qualified in a way that would authorize your interactions with me, and nothing in the context restricts this to just "Christians" who cause divisions. Unbelievers are often eqwually as capable of causing church divisions as Christians are. And yet you disobey that verse because you constantly engage me, a person you obviously view as either divisive or attempting to be divisive. Paul is even more explicit (and again without qualification) in Romans 16:17, which people are explicitly identified in v. 18 as NOT slaves of Jesus. Is this the part where you suddenly discover that unbelievers ARE slaves of Jesus...all because you need to make sure the bible doesn't condemn your ceaseless interactions with a god-hater?//

Let's look closely at Titus 3:9-11. Since this is a blogpost, we aren't limited in space like in the comments section.

Titus 3
8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.
9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

You said, " that prohibition is not qualified in a way that would authorize your interactions with me, and nothing in the context restricts this to just "Christians" who cause divisions." But of course there are. Read it in context. You skipped the previous verse (v. 8) which says:

8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, SO THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED IN GOD may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for PEOPLE.

The last word is "people." Who are the "people" Paul is talking about other than "THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED IN GOD"? The answer is, "those who have believed in God." Id Est, that is, Videlicet, namely, CHRISTIANS.

//Paul is even more explicit (and again without qualification) in Romans 16:17, which people are explicitly identified in v. 18 as NOT slaves of Jesus. Is this the part where you suddenly discover that unbelievers ARE slaves of Jesus...all because you need to make sure the bible doesn't condemn your ceaseless interactions with a god-hater?//

You're not reading it in context. Let me quote more of the context by including Romans 16:1-18.

1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,
2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.
3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,
4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well.
5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia.
6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you.
7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
8 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.
9   Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys.
10   Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus.
11   Greet my kinsman Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus.
12   Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord.
13   Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.
14   Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers who are with them.
15   Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and ALL THE SAINTS who are with them.
16   Greet one another with a holy kiss. ALL THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST GREET you.
17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

The OBVIOUS context is that of the church given that he mentions and greets many Christian members in the Church at Rome. If Paul were including non-Christians, then it would have been superfluous for Paul to say, "For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." No, rather Paul is saying that despite their claims to being Christian, in actuality they are not genuine servants of Christ BUT RATHER [notice the contrast] servants of their appetites which are their true Lords. Besides that, critiquing non-Christians immediately after that LONG greeting to Christians would be coming out of nowhere, from "left field." This again, is why I constantly am telling you that you read the Bible like a fundamentalist, by spoof-texting. There are variants to the famous saying, but as the saying goes when it comes to hermeneutics, "A text, without a context, is a pretext for a proof-text [I would say "...a pretext for a SPOOF-TEXT"]" This doesn't even require delving into the SUBTEXT [as I pointed out in my previous blogpost]. But just the plain surface Text of the passage. Before you make such dogmatic assertions on the interpretations of a passage, I recommend you read the context carefully, or you might end up seriously embarrassing yourself.

//...all because you need to make sure the bible doesn't condemn your ceaseless interactions with a god-hater?//

Yes, you are a God-hater, because despite all your intelligence, your bias blinds you to the obvious. That's what's called in theology the negative noetic effects of sin on the mind. You can't see the obvious because you don't want to see it. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

//No, 2nd Timothy 2:14 contains nothing in the context indicating the prohibited word-wrangling was a type that involved "insignificant issues", while the context does indeed indicate the prohibited wrangling was a wrangling about important doctrine (2 Tim. 2:11-13)//

I already pointed out that if it's about important doctrine, then it wouldn't be wrangling [in the negative sense]. So it would be a category error. Heresies need to be immediately and vigorously refuted. We are to contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all delivered/handed/entrusted to the saints [Jude 1:3].

//That's a useless observation since I never expressed or implied the verse was telling you to expect non-Christians to behave as Christians. The point of my argument is that an unbeliever could be reasonable, if they chose, to avoid interacting with you about biblical bullshit because the bible makes it clear that BOTH of us are sinning just as soon as the inevitable word-wrangling starts. All the other bible verses requiring apologetics efforts to be made, can be obeyed in ways that do not involve word-wrangling.//

This is related to what I said in my previous blogpost about how if your interpretation were consistently applied that that would mean a Christian would virtually be unable to interact with non-Christians. So much so that [as I said] a Christian wouldn't be able to Command or Request a non-Christian to not drink and drive because it would necessarily involve sin on the part of both the Christian and non-Christian [given your misinterpretation of Calvinism (which you apparently also impute to non-Calvinist Christians) that everything non-Christians do is "sin" per se. Rather than as being "tainted" with sin as *I* said. There's a difference.]. Yet Jesus and the early Christians used Roman coins which some Jews had qualms using because the coins could be interpreted as idols due to the image of the emperor on them [Mark 12; Matt. 22]. The use of them seemingly encouraging both Jews and Gentiles to sin in their interaction with each other. Similarly Paul himself allowed for Christians to buy meat offered to idols and so seemingly to some [like you] might be interpreted as an endorsement and incitement of unbelievers to sin [1 Cor. 8].

//Then you obviously disagree with Cheung, since you've identified me as "swine" years ago, yet you've kept up ceaselessly wrangling words with me. Your brother Cheung thus views you as equally "...as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel..." Nice going.//

Cheung is generally right here, but general truths don't apply in every particular case. Job's "comforters" often misapplied general truths to Job's particular situation. Divine calling/vocation and context [among other things] help determine what would or wouldn't be sin. It would be sinful for someone called to be a firefighter to regularly [under normal circumstances] be doing surgery if he's not also called to be a doctor. Or making sandwiches when he's not called to be a wife [j/k]. I'm not claiming to have a calling to be an "Apologist" with a capital "A," because I'm CERTAINLY NOT. But doing minor apologetics is one of my God given gifts, though I'm more of a pawn than a knight or a bishop on God's chessboard.

I obviously disagree with the subtextual implicit criticism of predestination in this line by Omar Khayyám which is obviously influenced by Islam; but I'm reminded of this quote:

'Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.

We will either be on God's side, or foils in God's providential plans for mankind. I urge you to repent and believe the gospel.

See my blogposts:

Non-Christians CAN Do Things to "Prepare" Themselves For Salvation Even On Calvinism

Counsel For Those Doubting or Doubtful of Their Election

//Neither Matthew 7:6 nor 2nd Timothy 2:14, nor any other verse, expresses or implies that "pity their lost state" creates any exceptions to those apparently absolute prohibitions.//

And yet Jesus and Paul engaged non-believers in polemics and apologetics all the time in the core books of the Christian canon. You liked citing Sye about not doing Bible studies with unbelievers, but Philip did a Bible study with the Ethiopian [Acts 8:30-31] and Paul reasoned with unbelieving Jews from the Scriptures [Acts 17:1-2ff.]. One might dispute the authenticity of 2 Timothy, but most Christian canons include in their books the Gospels, Acts and the 7 (usually) undisputed Pauline epistles. Hence the distinction between the homologoumena vs. the antilegomena [and other permutations of canons]. And in those core books Jesus and the Apostles deeply engaged unbelievers.

//And you refute that with your clear inability to successfully resist your patented need to answer a single item with 6,000 difference referneces...//

If you're referring to citations of Biblical passages, that's because I want our readers to know that I have a lot of Scripture backing up my claims. That I'm not pulling things out of thin air. If you're referring to the books I cited and other stuff not directly related to our discussion, that's because I want to evangelize both you and any potential future readers. Enduring that is one of the prices you pay for interacting with me on MY Blog. You can quit whenever you want. But maybe I and anyone reading this blog might pray for you long after the discussion has stopped.

//It's when you do more than give links to other commentaries, that you disobey Matthew 7:6.//

Nope.

// //Again, you try to harmonize 2nd Tim. 2:14 with everything else in the bible, but you are only engaging in confirmation bias.//
That's ludicrous.
-------No, you quoted Isaiah 1:18, Isaiah 55, Joel 2:12 and Ps. 145 in the effort to pretend that because these verses demand "reasoning", surely 2nd Timothy 2:14 cannot be forbidding you from "reasoning" with unbelievers. //

I started off by showing why in the context of the book ITSELF that your interpretation was false. Like I said, "That's ludicrous. I appealed to the VERY NEXT VERSE [v. 15], and then just 9 verses later [v. 24] IN THE SAME CHAPTER, as well as the next chapter [3:16], and the chapter after that [4:2]."

ONLY AFTER I addressed the immediate context, did I then cite other passages. Passages which Christians would have known and read and viewed as authoritative Scripture. That doesn't require an assumption of Biblical inerrancy or a certain knowledge of the canon. Even non-Inerrantist Christians can view Scripture as authoritative to some degree or another. Especially Scriptural books that have a long history of acceptation among "the people of the book." If you were a 1st century Jew, you might not have accepted Esther, but if you believed the canon went beyond the Torah, then in all likelihood you accepted books like Isaiah and Jeremiah and the Psalms [and possibly more]. It's not like Jewish and Gentile Christians magically started believing the Septuagint as Scripture beginning at AD/CE 33. No, Jews even before the birth of Jesus respected the Septuagint(s) as generally reliable translations of the Jewish Scriptures. Also given my point above that, "There would be some similarities between the conflicting and clashing versions of Christianity because of cross-pollination of ideas and practices." So, they would have been influenced by the ethic and practice of the OT. Not to mention Jewish traditions, practices and ethics outside of the Scriptures.

//Jesus never said...[anything]...about any New Testament or about 27 extra books being added to the Hebrew canon, yet you foolishly act as if the divine inspiration of the book of Romans is patently obvious.//

The Jews were known even prior to the dawn of Christianity as "the people of the book." As a people with a written Scriptures which formed the basis of their Covenant relationship with God [Torah] and was also formed as a result of God's interaction with His people [Nevi'im, and Ketuvim]. It only made sense to Christians that given that they inherited the Old Testament Scriptures which was based on an Old Covenant, that with the advent of the New Messianic Covenant that there would also be a corresponding New Testament Scriptures. This is basic apologetics. Do I really need to explain this to you? There's so much more I could say to elaborate on why there would be a Christian canon, but other apologetical sources explain the rationale for why Christians rightly expected and accepted a New Testament Scriptures, and why the 27 books that we have. It's not my job to spoon-feed you the basics of Christian apologetics when there are plenty of books, and even YouTube videos and websites that address these things. Things like the canon of the New Testament. Besides, the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on having these exact 27 books. There were Christians and a Christian Church in existence long before the NT canon was finalized. Even when there were books that nearly ranked as canonical but not included in the final list, like 1 Clement [et al.].

While Webster's lectures are slightly obsolete, the basics he teaches are still a good place to start. Listen to his lectureS on Scripture and the canon here:

William Webster as a place to start: Roman Catholic Tradition: It’s Roots and Evolution
https://christiantruth.com/audio-lectures/roman-catholic-tradition-lectures/

OR here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?app=desktop&list=PL0sjXTMkIiPYJhdGYDHUvs-YSth9tJSO7

The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: A Survey of the History of the Apocrypha from The Jewish Age to the Reformation by William Webster
https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction/

Sola Scriptura Defended Video Playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLshImU6jwhvyFYwH_KCsnU_XVdLAbvSF5

//...yet you foolishly act as if the divine inspiration of the book of Romans is patently obvious.//

The book of Romans is (virtually) universally accepted by Christians as canonical and inspired. By many of the early Christians too. And this is irrespective of Romans' errancy/inerrancy status. Logically speaking, something can be divinely inspired and be "authoritative" [in some sense(s)] without being inerrant. Given that Romans is one of the core books received by the Christian church in most canons, therefore it has some authority among many (most?) Christians [again, irrespective of its errancy or inerrancy].

// The Arminians are equally as confident in the blasphemous nature of Calvinism, as you are confident that libertarian freewill make a man into his own idol. Let's just say your blindly confident assertions about seriously contestable biblical issues doesn't have any effect on me, even if hearing yourself talk all big and bad makes you feel god is using you in a special way that only the members of your particular cult can "see".//

In my interactions with others I often grant there are ambiguities and uncertainties in theology and Bible exegesis. My exegesis will sometimes be mine alone, sometimes also of my fellow Calvinists [most of whom are cessationists], sometimes also of my fellow continuationists [to the exclusion of cessationists], and sometimes with all or most of my fellow Christians. My commitment is to the truth of Christianity first, and not to Calvinism. I'm even open to Calvinism being false. But I often argue for what I presently am convinced of. Who would fault me for that? Also, in our conversation I often didn't dogmatically make a stand on things, but argued for what I believe and suspect to be true. For example, I believe in inerrancy, but I didn't argue [at least in *our* conversation] for its certainty or assumed its certain/definite certainty [sic] in my arguments. When I did, it was, as I said, in a kind of hypothetical way whereby if I could show that even on Inerrantist grounds I could overcome your objections [despite my strapping one hand behind my back], how much more would that help the cause of Christianity. Moreover, I even granted that I might have the wrong canon. I even granted for the sake of argument the distinction between authentic and unauthentic Pauline epistles. Et cetera. That's a far cry from your claim about my (alleged) "...blindly confident assertions about seriously contestable biblical issues..." As I've demonstrated, you're the one who is unjustifiably dogmatic, or having "blindly confident assertions" [to use your phrase], regarding verses like Rom. 7:7; Rom. 2:12; 2 Tim. 2:14, Rom. 16:17. Your interpretations of which I refuted.

//Then you are on the level of the atheist fool who thinks the book of nature is self-attesting, and karma is gonna get worse and worse for you the more and more you suppress the truth in the name of Jesus.//

The book of nature is God's book. He wrote it. And all of history is literally, HIS-story. On atheism, there is no book. There is no General Revelation. Nature doesn't speak or reveal or convey anything on atheism. It's all "sound and fury signifying nothing." On atheism you can't justify the existence or knowledge of abstract entities. On atheism you can't even justify the assumption of the uniformity of nature or solve the problem of induction, inductive experience and inductive reasoning. Because of which you can't even have justification that the laws of physics will be the same 5 minutes from now. On atheism you don't even have minds or humans. Do I need to repeat what I said before about atheism and Eliminative Materialism, The Hard Problem of Consciousness, Mereological Nihilism, the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism [EAAN]? I could say so much more. But I'll end it there.

//And yet "stating the reason why the other person must believe in Jesus" is precisely what Calvinists and other Christians always do.//

And? We're suppose to do that as Christians. You're taking Cheung out of context. He's not against that. He was against using 1 Pet. 3:15 as a basis for doing that. He points to other passages for doing that. But he denies it in that verse.

//Aint it funny that the kind of philsophical short-cuts nobody is allowed to make when arguing on the merits, must always be allowed to presuppositionalists?//

That's what Sye-Clones do. Serious presuppositionalists, while they don't always do it, allow for non-presuppositional sub-arguments. The late Steve Hays of Triablogue fame was a presuppositionalist, but he often used arguments in ways non-presuppositionalists do. If you read his average blogpost you wouldn't get the impression he was a presuppositionalist. You'd think he was a non-presuppositionalist because of his historical and philosophical arguments. Bahnsenian presuppers often don't do that, or deny their propriety. But Framean presuppers do affirm the propriety of their use. I highly appreciate Bahnsen and his work, but I'm more of a Framean. See John Frame's books like "Apologetics to the Glory of God" which has been extensively redeveloped and expanded under the name "Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief". Read Greg Bahnsen's books too. Van Til affirmed that much of the traditional non-presuppositional arguments both philosophical and historical can be reformulated presuppositionally or be attached to presup. arguments [say, as sub-arguments].

"I would therefore engage in historical apologetics.....But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer's philosophy of fact." - Van Til [The Defense of the Faith p. 199]

//If spiritually alive people can so unjustly hijack a bible verse, you are STUPID to expect god to do anything better with a spiritually dead unbeliever, even if god renders him spiritually alive. //

That's like saying if Dr. McCoy's cancer patient whom he cured can't immediately run a marathon but can only walk 10 miles, that therefore Dr. McCoy can't help another cancer patient. That's illogical. Nowhere does the Bible teach instantaneous and complete sanctification of mind, beliefs, and actions upon conversion, or even in this life. On the contrary, it denies it. Sanctification is progressive in this life and progresses at different speeds in different areas of people and their lives, and among different individuals. All according to God's different providential plans for each one. For example, God used Arminians like John Wesley mightily. If he were a Calvinist, he might have been less effective at doing what God called him to do as an evangelist. God placed him in the time [18th century], the location [England], and with the theology he had [Arminianism] to fulfill his niche in Redemptive History. Sinless Perfection NOT Possible This Side of Death [1 John 1:8-10; Eccl. 7:20; Prov. 20:9; Jam. 3:2; Rom. 7:15-25; Phil. 3:12-14; Gal. 5:16-17].

You're a smart guy. Probably much smarter than me when it comes to natural gifts and abilities. But despite all that, I was able [in my humble opinion] to systematically dismantle your arguments and (presumably) core aspects of your atheological apologetics which you believed and employed for years when engaging with Christians. How was I able to do this? Because it's easier to defend the truth than errors. It would frighten me to have lived under such deception for so many years as you have.

John 12:47-48 ESV

[47] If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. [48] The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

2 Corinthians 5:10 ESV

[10] For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

//If Paul thinks spiritually alive people can be ruined by word-wrangling, he most assuredly think spiritual dead people can only derive something worse from word-wrangling.//

You might think both of us were word-wrangling. I don't think I was word-wrangling. But I do think you were. Apologetics provides opportunities to plant the seeds of the Gospel. It's up to God to cause growth [1 Cor. 3:6-7].

I sincerely thank you for interacting with me. I enjoyed it. It was intellectually stimulating. I do hope good things for you and your future. I would like to interact with you again sometime in the future. But not any time soon. I have other things I need to do for the foreseeable future.

Feel free to leave some concluding comments in the comments section below. I may or may not respond to them.

Sunday, May 18, 2025

A Continuation of a Discussion on Whether Numbers 31:18 Authorizes the Rape of Prepubescent Girls

This blogpost continues a discussion that was started in the comments section in my blogpost Here:
https://bibledifficultiesanswered.blogspot.com/2016/09/my-other-blogs.html?showComment=1747241319326#c3486146842969015873

The following is my continued response.

Frankly, I'm now bored with our conversation because you're not willing to argue for the likely probability of your interpretation. Because of that, it poses little threat to Christianity. So, I've lost much of my motivation to continue this conversation. If it posed a serious threat to Christianity, then out of my love for God and zeal to defend His glory, I would have retained much of my motivation to continue the discussion. The only thing left motivating me is mercy on you, who, from my perspective, is on his way to hell for his rebellion against God and His revelation in the Bible. But even then, it's ultimately not my job to convert anyone. That's the work of the Holy Spirit. It would probably do more good for me to just privately pray for you. I have other obligations to God, others and myself in my Biblical hierarchy of loves and duties [what Christians have called the ordo amoris]. Whereas, it seems pitiful to me that you, as [presumably] an atheist, are willing to waste the remainder of your limited time on Earth arguing for something you yourself don't think is probably true. Or if you think/suspect it's true, you aren't willing to argue for it. This is partly why I linked to Craig's lecture. Here it is again for you or anyone else who may read this blogpost:

The Absurdity of Life Without God by William Lane Craig:
https://youtu.be/XmHQPOB_TNY

You seem to to equivocate on the term "reasonable." Sometimes you seem to use it to refer to something that's a live possibility but not probable, other times [for all practical purposes] as a bare logical possibility. For example in your statement:

//Once again, seeing in Numbers 31:18 a divine authorization for sex within adult-child marriages, does not "contradict" anything in the context (i.e., anything which Mosaic Law instilled into the Hebrews to whom Moses was specifically speaking in that verse).//

With the latter approach of bare logical possibility, then it's "reasonable" Moses could have had a third and fourth nipple. This would be why he had something like a speech impediment [if it wasn't an accent]. His embarrassing upbringing as a "quad-nipper" prevented him from psychologically maturing normally. Which affected his development of speech. And (to paraphrase you) nothing in the Biblical text or context contradicts this hypothesis and interpretation of Moses' impediment. In fact, we know that extra nipples, while rare, occur in nature from time to time. Positing something without evidence or without some justification [say, worldview or consistency considerations, &c.], is useless and arbitrary. When I myself (rarely) do it, I have [at least] worldview considerations for doing so.

One could argue that just as some Semitic cultures raped prepubescent girls [with or without divine authorization], so why couldn't the Israelites have done so? Why couldn't the Israelite God authorize it as other pagan deities authorized it? Why couldn't the Israelites have fabricated a divine command authorizing it, just as pagans did in their religions? And those things could be posited without a shred of evidence that the Israelites' pagan neighbors did rape girls. At least someone who argued in that fashion ought to provide some evidence suggesting their neighbors did and present a reasonable case that the Israelites were similar enough to them [say, due to causal connection, or cross-pollination of cultures, etc.] that it's likely the Israelites also raped girls. But you haven't even attempted that as far as I can recall. Though, you may have asserted it earlier without evidence. If you don't offer evidences and arguments that argue for and make your position(s) likely, then they are useless for all intents and purposes.

I assume inerrancy in most of my arguments for a number of reasons. For example, to make it harder for myself. If I can show that an inerrantist approach is consistent with all the facts, then that's a positive for Christianity. Also, how much more then would Christianity be plausibly true if inerrancy were false, and yet it was able to stand up to and withstand criticisms against an inerrantist position. It's a more difficult position to defend. I'm willing to lay my cards down and risk something. Using "reasonableness" [especially as a cloak for bare logical possibility] to protect my beliefs [or unbelief if I were a non-Christian] when I'm not committed to a worldview seems cowardly. When I use "reasonableness" its with a commitment to Christianity and its worldview. When you, or someone like you, uses it, he can take refuge in many different non-Christian positions and/or worldviews and shift from one to the other as it suits him/her.

For example, in a given situation such an atheist or non-Christian [be she, agnostic, theist, polytheist, Muslim, Mormon, etc.] will grant that a historical Jesus existed if it supports her agenda of undermining Christianity, but then in another situation find refuge in saying there is no good argument for a historical Jesus [or Moses, or an Israelite occupation of Palestine in the 13th century BCE, or what have you]. Or maybe space aliens explains X, Y, and Z pieces of data. Or maybe Zeus did it, rather than Yahweh. At times you've granted for the sake of argument a piece of Biblical data as if it's true, but then in another context, when it suits you and your position, point out that you don't believe in inerrancy. If you can pick and choose, why can't I?

If I were to approach the text as a Christian errantist [sic], it would be so much easier and boring. I could easily dismiss and hand wave away ALL ostensible problematic passages like Num. 31:18 by saying the passage is an error of one sort or another. I too could pick and choose which to view as generally reliable and which are cases of errors in the text. I could literally chalk up every difficulty in that way to preserve/protect my errantist Christian beliefs. Just as you can wave off anything you dislike in the text, or in my arguments, by appealing to errancy. Such apologetical "defenses" on my part resorting to errancy would be mostly trivial and worthless.

You complain that I approach the text as an inerrantist, yet don't realize that if I were to approach it as an errantist, that then, the result would be that your criticisms would become moot and pointless. So, then why are your arguing with me? It's an absurd waste of time. Why would I bother offering useless, unimportant and uninteresting defenses like that? Most people want to know about what's likely and/or probable. So I recommend you stop complaining about my assuming inerrancy in my arguments. I'm trying to be consistent, but as the skeptic I understand [though I don't approve of it] IF you want to keep the freedom to be as inconsistent as is useful to you.

//Second, it doesn't matter how Paul uses "Law" elsewhere, I'm only interested in the nuance he intended in Romans 7:7. By directly quoting one of the 10 commandments in the verse, there is a contextual argument that he meant he would not have known coveting was a sin unless there was an EXPLICIT command in the physical Torah directly prohibiting it. That's not rendered unreasonable merely because Paul used "Law" in different senses in different contexts. How he meant "law" in specifically Romans 7:7 is all that matters. I reject biblical inerrancy, so I don't really care whether he stated otherwise elsewhere.//

That's not reading Paul charitably. Also, nowhere does Paul say in Rom. 7:7 that the ONLY place in the Old Testament he could have known or learned that coveting was a sin was from the 10th Commandment or other explicit OT commandments. You're eisegetically reading that INTO the text. The word "law" is mentioned 3 times in Rom. 7:7 and only the 3rd times is it necessary to interpret it as referring to the 10th Commandment. In fact, it's almost certain that the first time "law" is used in 7:7 it refers to more than merely the 10th Commandment. The second occurrence of "law" in 7:7 is also IMO likely not [at least, definitely not necessarily] limited to the 10th Commandment. Then the 3rd use of "law" does refer to the 10th Commandment. It's just as reasonable [to use your term] that Paul cites the 10th Commandment to give just one example [of many] of how one can derive from the entire Law [whether the Torah, or all of the Tanakh], and from even none explicit commands, why coveting is a sin. The burden of proof is on you to show that Paul is saying ONLY from the 10th Commandment could Paul have learned that coveting is a sin, since he only cites the 10th Commandment. With your approach of wooden interpretation, it's not just an example, but the only possible example and source for learning that precept. Then you also have to prove to me which version of the 10th Commandment Paul was referring to, whether it's the version in Exo. 20 or the one in Deut. 5.

But you'll object that it doesn't matter, we can pick either one. But your who argument hinges on a woodenly literal reading of Paul in 7:7 whereby his exact words should be interpreted in a way that sets aside ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. You're excluding the rest of the Law from Paul's example, and other non-explicit commands for moral instruction. So, to be consistent, you should narrow down which version of the 10th Commandment he's referring to so that you can exclude the one he's not referring to. So, until you can definitely tell me which version he meant, then your argument hangs in the air and doesn't land. Ridiculous, right? Well, that's where your uncharitable approach lands you. And all that Contrary to the UNIVERSAL Second Temple Jewish approach ALL Jews in his day used (and for many generations prior to the 1st century Jews used) in interpreting their own Scriptures whereby one can learn moral instruction from more than just the explicitly prescriptive and proscriptive commandments of the Law [cf. the two Talmuds; some of the contents preseving traditions ante-dating the 1st century]. AS WELL AS Contrary to Paul's own teaching elsewhere in the same book and in the rest of the 7 undisputed Pauline epistles. And Contrary to all my arguments about Natural Law, General Revelation, and teleology, et cetera. And finally, Contrary to all the other places in the OT that teaches coveting is wrong either explicitly or implicitly, didactic, or narrative, or parabolic, etc. [plausible examples include: Micah 2:2; Eccl. 4:4; Exo. 18:21; Pro. 15:27; Ps. 10:3; Ps. 73; Joshua 7; 1 Kings 21]. It stretches credulity beyond all limits that Paul is being an outlier in 7:7 compared to all Jews past and contemporaneous, as well as an outlier to himself [!].

Therefore, your following claim fails when it asserts:
//He wouldn't know coveting was a sin unless the Law expressly forbade it. He would not have known adultery was a sin unless the Law explicitly forbade it. Thus, he would not have known that sex within adult-child marriages was a sin, except the Law had expressly forbade it.//

That's an overly simplistic, naive and fundamentalistic [sic] way to interpret the Bible outside of its historical context. Ironic, huh? ;-) Especially given your usual targets.

//Jesus never expressed or implied that his followers must aspire to biblical inerrancy, and yet by using bible inerrancy to guide your interpretations, you are acting as if bible inerrancy is literally the key to proper theological knowledge.//

I would disagree that Jesus never expressed or implied that His followers must aspire to Biblical Inerrancy [e.g. John 10:35b; John 17:17; Matt. 22:29-32; passim]. But that's a different topic not germane to the subject at hand. William Lane Craig himself doesn't think inerrancy is a necesary doctrine to believe to be saved. Yet, he argues in his books for Biblical Inerrancy. For example, his book on the historical Adam required him to deal [even struggle] with Jesus' teaching and views on the reliability of Scripture and how to comport that with the scientific evidence.

//Fourth, you laughably complain that the sex act with a prepuescent girl would cause injury and pain, thus we know the act is wrong. But a) it is your god that created the hymen, and thus must have wanted the vast majority of women to experience pain during first intercourse;//

Pain is not by itself evil or to be avoided at all times and at all cost. I was clearly referring to life long needless suffering from an unnatural condition that could have been prevented. Gosh, Numbers 22 implies it's wrong to needlessly abuse your animal as Balaam did his donkey [cf. Prov. 12:10; Deut. 25:4]. This is even BEFORE the events of Num. 31:18 [i.e. ten chapters earlier]. Don't you think that if it's wrong to abuse your donkey, then maybe it's also wrong to abuse little girls? Do you think it's too far a leap for the Jews of that time to come to similar moral conclusions? I'm obviously not against all infliction of or enduring of pain, because I believe the Bible's teaching about the propriety of spanking children, about fasting, and delayed gratification, etc.

// b) if Copan and Flannagan are correct, Moses and Joshua did not wholesale slaughter the Canaanites, but mostly only "dispossessed" them, or shooed them out of the desired territory, when in fact the outskirts of the promised land was barren territory (Ex. 15:22).//

I don't know what your point is here.

//Your god has exactly ZERO moral objections to inflicting slow sustained misery upon children. //

Where do you get that?

// There are contextual indicators that he is talking about actual Torah...//

If they [the gentiles] have Torah, then how can they be "without law"? That's contradictory.

//(2:12, "without the law" cannot mean "without a conscience", but only without the physical Torah. Same in 2:14. The Jews rely on the "law", v. 17. They are not relying on a generalized moral conscience, but on actual Torah. //

I must not be understanding what you mean here, or the point you're getting at, because from what I can tell, I agree with it. From my perspective, the Jews had a publicly available and referrable revelation in the Torah and/or all the Tanakh. The gentiles didn't. Yet, despite not having access to the Tanakh, they displayed a knowledge of moral law precisely because there is a God given conscience which informs them [imperfectly, and imperfectly interpreted in their sinfulness] about the basics of morality. Hence, when it's time for God to judge them in the afterlife, they will be judged by their conscience which they did (inescapably) have, and not judged by the written Tanakh which they didn't have.

//Paul then mentions stealing, adultery and idolatry in vv. 21-22). Thus, 2:15 is not a catch-all that prohibits other possible acts that the "Law" doesn't get around to actually prohibiting.//

You're begging the question, and assuming the very thing you have yet to prove. That Paul was saying in 7:7 you can only learn moral instruction from explicit prescriptions and proscriptions in the Torah and/or the whole Tanakh. That I can learn to drive stick shift from my father doesn't necessitate that I can ONLY learn to drive stick shift from my father, or that I can't learn it from my older brother or uncle. That's logically fallacious.

If you don't have anything better to demonstrate that Num. 31:18 probably and likely authorizes prepubescent rape, then I don't see why there's a need to continue our conversation. You're content that it's "reasonable" from your perspective to think so, and I'm content to think that it's pointless to cite it if it doesn't pose a serious threat to Christianity. I'm also content in believing that most [or all] of your arguments failed to prove your points. You believe the interpretive option you presented is reasonable, while not rising to the level of probability to the point that you should risk arguing for it. On that basis, one might as well worry as much about whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons. It's "reasonable" either way.

Monday, April 7, 2025

Deliberate Formal Contradictions in the Bible for Rhetorical Purposes

Formal contradictions according to the letter, need not be actual contradictions given the intended meaning. There are times when the Bible has formal contradictions, which aren't really contradictions when one factors in the intended meaning and context.

Below is a list of some of the Deliberate Formal Contradictions in the Gospel of John. It's an excerpt from chapter 7 of Peter J. Williams' excellent book, Can We Trust the Gospels?

However, my brief journey into this subject will focus on how the Gospel of John contains many deliberate formal contradictions within itself and with other literature (such as the First Letter of John, which shows the same authorial style). Here are some examples.

1. God loves the world versus do not love the world

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 3:16)

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15)

2. People believed when they saw Jesus’s signs versus they did not believe

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. (John 2:23)

Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him. (John 12:37)

3. They know Jesus and where he comes from versus they do not

So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, You know me, and you know where I come from.( John 7:28)

Jesus answered, Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.( John 8:14)

They said to him therefore, Where is your Father?Jesus answered, You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.( John 8:19)

4. If Jesus bears witness of himself, his testimony is not true, versus the opposite

If I bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true. (John 5:31, my trans.)

So the Pharisees said to him, You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.Jesus answered, Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.(John 8:13–14)

5. Jesus judges no one versus he has much to judge

You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. (John 8:15)

Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. (John 8:16)
I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him. (John 8:26)

6. Jesus did not come into the world to judge it versus he came to judge

If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. (John 12:47)

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (John 3:17)

Jesus said, For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.( John 9:39)

I hope that after reading the list above and studying the subtle way the Gospel of John is written, you will agree that these formal contradictions are deliberate. They are part of the author’s way of making us reflect more deeply on the multiple meanings of the words involved. 1 This sample prepares us to consider a quotation by skeptic Bart Ehrman from a book in which he explains what he thinks are the clearest contradictions within the Gospels:

One of my favorite apparent discrepancies—I read John for years without realizing how strange this one is—comes in Jesus’ Farewell Discourse,the last address that Jesus delivers to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13 to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In John 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, Lord, where are you going?A few verses later Thomas says, Lord, we do not know where you are going(John 14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going? ’( John 16:5). Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect.

Wednesday, April 2, 2025

Sign Or No Sign For Jesus' Generation?

Here's a classic alleged Bible contradiction and a solution.

The Gospel of Mark say no sign will be given.

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

While the Gospel of Matthew and Luke say there will be a sign.

Matthew 12:39-40 ESV
[39] But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. [40] For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 16:4 ESV
[4] An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.
Luke 11:29-30 ESV
[29] When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. [30] For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.

Which is it? Notice that Matthew has Jesus addressing the issue of a sign on two different occasions in two different chapters. So apparently Jesus addressed the issue on multiple occasions and in different contexts. Often prompted by His hearers who specifically asked for a sign.

But what kind of sign were they looking for? If Jesus really did miracles by healing the sick and doing things like multiplying bread, then wouldn't those things be considered signs? I would say "yes," and sufficient so that those who saw it ought to have eventually recognized Jesus as the Messiah [cf. Matt. 11:2-6, passim]. But they were not the kind of signs the people meant or wanted. They were asking for an undeniable public national miracle sign in the vein or manner of Moses with the Ten Plagues or the parting the Red/Reed Sea or delivering Israel from Egypt [or in the case of Jesus' audience, deliverance from the oppression of Rome]. One that would satisfy their sinful desire and craving for sensationalistic entertainment rather than what ought to lead them into a serious consideration of God's requirements and demands on their lives for true repentance, faith and righteous.

The answer to the apparent contradiction is that there would be no undeniable public national sign like they wanted would be given [the kind like parting the Red/Reed Sea or the Ten Plagues]. But rather a private sign would be given which only those whose hearts were open would be able to recognize and believe [Acts 10:41]. Namely, the resurrection of Jesus. So, both would be true. A sign both would and would not be given. Because they are of different kinds and purposes.

In one sense the resurrection of Jesus was the greatest miracle of all. Yet, not openly seen [Act 10:41], so not apparently great to human eyes that don't believe or understand its cosmic significance. While the parting of the Red/Reed Sea seems [is apparently] greater than the alleged resurrection of an itinerant Jewish rabbi from an insignificancant and looked down upon town of Nazareth. Yet in reality the parting of the waters pales into insignificance compared to the greater spiritual deliverance purchased by the sufferings, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God. A deliverance that would redeem all of creation, and would eventually bring about the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Also, the two types of signs had different purposes. The parting of the Sea was intended to be rationally coercive so that the state of one's heart had nothing to do with recognizing it. Whereas the sign of Jesus' resurrection is one that requires an "open heart" to see and recognize it ["open heart" understood either in an Arminian, Molinist, Calvinist (et al.) way. I'm a Calvinist, BTW].

Think of how in the film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial only the kids could see E.T. The obvious intended allegory is that only the pure [or purer] in heart could see E.T. (at least for a while). While the adults, with less purer hearts, couldn't. Though eventually the adults were forced to acknowledge E.T.'s existence. Something similar is going on with Jesus Christ in Redemptive History. This is why Jesus often said things like "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Or "to him who has more will be given, and he will have an abundance. But to him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away." [paraphrase].

I asked Facebook's Meta AI this question: Was the story of the film ET inspired by the story of Jesus?

Meta AI's answer:

While the story of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) is not a direct retelling of the story of Jesus, there are some interesting parallels and similarities that have been noted by film analysts and scholars:

# Parallels between E.T. and Jesus:
1. *The Outsider*: Both E.T. and Jesus are outsiders who come to Earth (or a specific community) with a message of love and redemption.
2. *The Miracle Worker*: E.T. performs miraculous feats, such as healing Elliott's injured finger and reviving dead plants. Similarly, Jesus performs miracles, like healing the sick and raising the dead.
3. *The Pursuit and Persecution*: Both E.T. and Jesus are pursued by authorities who seek to harm or capture them. In E.T.'s case, it's the government scientists, while Jesus is pursued by the Roman authorities and Jewish leaders.
4. *The Sacrificial Love*: E.T. sacrifices himself to save Elliott, demonstrating a selfless love. Jesus, of course, sacrifices himself on the cross to redeem humanity.
5. *The Resurrection*: E.T. is revived and returns to life, much like Jesus' resurrection.

# Director Steven Spielberg's intentions:
While Spielberg hasn't explicitly stated that E.T. is a Jesus allegory, he has mentioned that he drew inspiration from his own childhood experiences and emotions, as well as classic fairy tales and myths.

Spielberg has also said that he aimed to create a story that would evoke a sense of wonder, magic, and redemption, which are all themes that are present in the story of Jesus.

# Conclusion:
While the story of E.T. is not a direct retelling of the story of Jesus, there are certainly some interesting parallels and similarities between the two. These parallels might be seen as a nod to the universal themes of love, sacrifice, and redemption that are present in many stories, including the story of Jesus.

Here's what Meta AI's answer to the apparentcontradiction:

This apparent contradiction has been debated by scholars and theologians. Here's a possible reconciliation:

*Understanding the context*:

- Mark 8:11-13: Jesus is responding to the Pharisees' request for a sign from heaven. Jesus refuses, saying no sign will be given to that generation.
- Matthew 12:38-42, 16:1-4, and Luke 11:29-32: Jesus is also responding to the Pharisees' request for a sign. However, in these accounts, Jesus mentions the "sign of Jonah" as the only sign that will be given.

*Reconciling the accounts*:

1. *Different emphases*: Mark focuses on Jesus' refusal to provide a sign, emphasizing the Pharisees' unbelief. Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, highlight the significance of the "sign of Jonah," which points to Jesus' resurrection.
2. *The "sign of Jonah" as an exception*: Jesus might be implying that the "sign of Jonah" is not a sign in the classical sense, but rather a prophetic foreshadowing of His resurrection. In this sense, the "sign of Jonah" is not a contradiction to Mark's account, but rather an additional clarification.
3. *Audience and purpose*: The accounts might be addressing different audiences or serving distinct purposes. Mark's Gospel tends to focus on Jesus' actions and teachings, while Matthew's Gospel emphasizes Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

*Conclusion*:

While the accounts may seem contradictory at first glance, they can be reconciled by considering the different contexts, emphases, and purposes of each Gospel. The "sign of Jonah" is not necessarily a contradiction to Mark's account, but rather a complementary aspect of Jesus' teaching.

Wednesday, March 5, 2025

Did God Command Or Did the People Initiate?

Numbers chapter 13 says God commanded Moses to send spies to spy out the land of Canaan. While Deuteronomy 1:22 says the Israelites asked Moses to commission sending spies to spy out the Promised Land. How can one resolve the apparent contradiction? I asked Facebook's Meta AI about the issue and it independently came to the same conclusion I did.

It wrote:

This apparent contradiction has been debated by scholars and theologians for centuries. However, it's not necessarily a contradiction, but rather a difference in perspective or emphasis between the two accounts.

In Deuteronomy 1:22, Moses recounts the events leading up to the spies being sent, and he says that the people came to him and asked him to send spies to scout out the land. This account focuses on the people's initiative and their request to Moses.

In Numbers 13, the account focuses on God's instruction to Moses. According to this account, God tells Moses to send spies to explore the land, and Moses obeys God's command.

One way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to consider that both accounts are true, but they're describing the same event from different perspectives. It's possible that the people did come to Moses and request that he send spies, and that God then confirmed this plan through His instruction to Moses.

Another way to look at it is that Deuteronomy 1:22 is providing a more nuanced understanding of the events leading up to the spies being sent. Moses may be highlighting the people's role in initiating the request, while Numbers 13 focuses on God's sovereignty and instruction.

Ultimately, the apparent contradiction can be resolved by recognizing that both accounts are complementary, rather than contradictory. They provide a more complete understanding of the events surrounding the sending of the spies, and they highlight the complex interplay between human initiative and divine guidance.

Sunday, August 20, 2023

A Quick Rebuttal to Rabbi Tovia Singer's Objections to the Translation of Ps. 40:6 in Heb. 10:5

The following blogpost responds to a video by rabbi Tovia Singer here: https://youtu.be/QsjWC555geI

Like most of rabbi Tovia Singer's videos, there's nothing really new or shocking about his video. He talks about things which he himself admits [including in this video itself] Christian scholars already know about.

I don't have time to do an exhaustive rebuttal. Also, I'm only an amateur apologist. Nevertheless, here are some hastily written comments on the video.

- Singer is wrong in claiming that Sola Scriptura doesn't get us to the concept that Jesus retroactively atoned for the sins of David. Hebrews 10:1-10 clearly teaches the Old Testament sacrificial system did not ACTUALLY take away sin. Yet, the OT teaches atonement is necessary. The obvious inference is that Jesus' death was the real and final atonement for sins (the anti-type of the types in the OT). Compare Rom. 3:24-26.

- Or maybe by "Sola Scriptura" Singer is referring only to evidence limited to the Tanakh. Well, there are plenty of passages that predict a future New Covenant (Jer. 31-33; Ezek. 11:19ff.; 36:26ff.) that the LORD would one day provide the ultimate sacrifice (Gen. 22:14). That the Messiah would provide such atonement by His death (Isa. 53). That the Messiah would be both divine and human can be seen by the Danielic Son of Man being described in Dan. 7:13ff. as both "one like a son of man" (i.e. human or human-like) and yet rides the clouds like a deity. That the final future sacrifice would be of a divine and human figure can be seen when the Angel of Yahweh (the pre-incarnate Christ in a divine Christophany in human form) went up with the flame of a sacrifice in Judges 13:20ff.

Judg. 13:20    And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.
21    The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.
22    And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."
23    But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these."

There are many more evidences Christian can present from the Hebrew of the Tanakh. Of course, there are Jewish objections and Christians have answers and responses. The above was just a sampling and quick survey of the evidences. Back to responding to the video.

- Singer says it's un-Jewish to think that the death of the righteous could atone for sins. Yet, there's a long history of such speculation, even assertion, among Jews. Both past and present. See this article by Tony Costa.

"The Concept of Atoning Death in the New Testament: Pagan or Jewish?" by Tony Costa
https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CostaT03.pdf
OR
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rxHgpGWc8ObRJJNVZpv59nyVZQFo1Bkk/view?usp=sharing

Regarding the difference between Ps. 40:6 and Heb. 10:5 see the following freely online commentaries HERE:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/10-5.htm

I'll make a few observations. First off, some of the apparent "abuses" of the NT's use of the OT can be explained through the Jewish hermeneutical approach called Pardes/PaRDeS. Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains and applies Pardes in the 3rd lecture (of 21 lectures) of his MASTERFUL series linked below:

The Jewish Life of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum [21 lectures in mp3]
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ