FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: One of the worst Christian argument I have ever had the displeasure to argue against

It is truly a blessing when you write a blog post and you get a response - even if the response is disagreeable. I thank God for Jonathan MS Pearce. Not that I agree with him, or the things he posts. but you got to give him some credit for posting his own own blog posts instead of just trying to get me to post what he wants. No, Johnathan Pearce takes responsibility for his failure. Good Job! I find this very interesting. In this post he tries to summarize several days of back and forth and I have to say he did a very poor job of representing my position. He imposes an anachronistic standard of interpretation on the Bible that he would bristle at if someone applied the same standards to his writing. He telescopes time and leaves out details. He would say that I would be wrong to tell him what details he does and does not include, but he seems perfectly alright to accuse the Gospel writers of contradictions or being flat out wrong.

Recently, I posted a piece on biblical contradictions and how Christians harness cognitive dissonance tohelp them find desperate ways in which to defend ideas of inerrancy. I looked to show that they use a circular approach without realising it:

1) The Bible never makes contradictions
2) All alleged contradictions can be harmonised
3) Since the Bible never makes contradictions, all harmonisations are inherently more probable than the idea that there are contradictions
4) All harmonisations stand
C) Therefore, there are no contradictions in the Bible. 

Here is one example of where Pearce goes off the rails. I have been studying the Bible for years. I have come to the conclusion that the Bible has no contradictions because I haven't found any. A harmonization is not enough.  Either there is an explanation or there isn't. I keep finding out that when I don't understand a discrepancy in the text the problem is me - not the text.

The example of contradiction I gave in the original post was this:

Mark 5:1-2
They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. 2 When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, 

Matt 8:28 
When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. 

Luke 8:26-7 
Then they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. 27 And when He came out onto the land, He was met by a man from the city who was possessed with demons; 

Now for this post i am not interested in the contradiction of place, which seems fairly cut and dry as explained in the previous post.

Not cut or dry. But I have written on this and gone back and forth with Pearce on it. You can find it here: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/07/bible-contradiction-where-did-jesus.html and there: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/07/responding-to-jonathan-pearce-on-divine.html

I would like to concentrate on the number problem:

When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs.

He was met by a man from the city who was possessed with demons;

So let us move on to this rather obtuse defence (and that is being generous). It comes in the form of a blog post from Marcus McElhaney who was, as far as I can make out, once banned from this site. Since then, he has taken it upon himself to devote most of his blogging to attempting to debunk DC, so to speak. Except he monumentally fails. And he does so with aplomb here. As ever, he continually illustrates Danth's Law, defined here:

States: “If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.” Named after a user on the role-playing gamers’ forum RPG.net. Danth’s Law was most famously declared in “The Lenski Affair”, between microbiologist Richard Lenski and the editor of Conservapedia.com, Andrew Schlafly, who cast doubt upon Prof Lenski’s elegant experimental demonstration of evolution. After what is widely held to be one of the greatest and most comprehensive put-downs in scientific argument from Prof Lenski, Mr Schlafly declared himself the winner.

So, Pearce does not think he won? Neither do I. Also, I was not banned from Debunking Christianity. I left when GearHedED admitted to being a pig and not worth talking to because I'd be casting my pearls before swine.  Not worth the time. Vocal people at DC are only interested in pontificating about how much they hate Christianity and not really interested in discussion. Don't bother them with the facts, they're "minds" are already made up. Just like John Loftus. Since then I haven't made a single comment on the DC blog. But I have made the comments I wanted to make here. Just like Pearce did today although I have enough class to read and disagree with him on my blog no matter how stupid his ideas are!

The exchanges we have are heavy on the rhetoric due to the long and annoying history we have of arguing stuff. Marcus plays a numbers game, as follows, to circumvent the problem that one Gospel claims there was one demoniac whilst the other claims there were two:

As for the number of men Jesus met and healed. Mark and Luke definitely says that there was one one guy while Matthew says there were two. The thing is how is this a contradiction? A contradiction would be if Mark and Luke had said that there was only one man. They don't. Each of the Gospel contains details that are not in the others. But none of those details contradicts the details in the others. If I tell you that Jack and Jill went to the mall and bought a DVD, but I tell another person that Jill went to Walmart and bought a DVD, did I contradict myself? Nope. I just didn't give the same detail. A contradiction would be if the mall did not have a Walmart. You don't have such a thing in this case.

To which I replied, somewhat rhetorically:

This is the funniest defence I have seen. This was the JP Holding defence I warned you not to use. This is ridiculous because no two claimed numbers that are different can ever be a contradiction because one number is always smaller than the other, and is thus claimed to be a subset of another.

If I said i played football against a team of 10 men the other day (when there should be eleven), you would claim, "that's OK, you obviously meant 11 men since 11 men includes 10 men. Just because you said 10 doesn't mean there weren't 11!"

Ridiculous, silly. You would only see this from someone who can't bear for the accounts to differ. This is so ad hoc and improbable as to literally be laughed at. I laughed at this.

So, as mentioned, you reasons are incredibly improbable and would require redefining language into being used in ways it is not...

Your Jack and Jill analogy is simply a false analogy. it is not numerical.

If I say yesterday in a news report "1 person was shot at a bank robbery" that does not leave the possibility that I could mean "2 people were shot yesterday in a bank robbery".

I would simply be wrong in my first claim.

To which Marcus opined:

I would have said the football team must be 11. You don't know how many men Jesus met unlike you know how many people there should be on a football team. You have to go on what the text says. Again they don't conflict because neither tells you there was only one man. Just because Mark and Luke does not tell us about both of them does not mean they didn't know about him.

I chipped in:

Wow. I can't believe you really believe your own shit. You were unable to rebut my football analogy. In order for you to claim you understanding you would have to qualify. This is absolutely empirically true. If you claim what you do in all seriousness (I honestly don't think you really believe that) you would have to, and I now expect you to, when told any number in any context, ask the commentator to qualify themselves.

Jim: Hey Marcus, I just ate 2 donuts.
Marcus: That's great Jim, but i was having this argument about inerrancy and now I have to ask you whether by 2, you mean 3...or 4... or 5... or 5001...

Jane: Hey Marcus. I just stayed in Vancouver for 6 nights.
Marcus: That's lovely. but by 6 nights, did you actually mean 7... 8... 9... 2546...

Marcus' mum: Marcus, can you go and buy me 2 chairs?
Marcus: Sure.... Here you are.
Mum: Why have you bought me 56 chairs?
Marcus: Well, 56 includes 2 right? So I am technically not wrong.
Mum: Marcus, did I teach you to be such an idiot?

Etc Etc

Marcus is claiming that whenever someone is in a pickle (in danger of contradiction) and they make a numeric claim, then that number can be interpreted as being of any value higher than the actual number quoted. The problem with this is as follows:

1) With the language used, there is no precedent for this happening in normal conversations.
2) There is no reason to believe, and no evidence to believe, that this would be the case in this instance, unless one was desperate enough to want it to be true.
3) This would make no sense, would invalidate, any conversation involving number that people have had and do have.
4) No two numbers can contradict unless, as Marcus claims, the word "only" is utilised.

Go back and read the exchange and better yet the text.Neither Mark or Luke tells us there was only one man. These books existed individually and isolated from one another for years. There are generations  of Christians who only had Mark. Or who only had Matthew. Or who only had Luke. Or only had John.And that means that they would not have known about the second man if they only had Mark or Luke. A discrepancy or a difference in details does not a contradiction make nor  a difference in detail a necessary error. The answer I gave is the same answer that has been given for centuries.  In order to reject it you have to show that Mark and Luke did not know that there was a second man  and/or that they were saying that there was no second man.

Marcus:

I am not arguing against numerical contradiction. I am arguing that Matthew chose to include then number of the demon possessed men Jesus healed on this occasion and Mark and Luke only talks about one of them, I don't know why but this not the only occasion that the gospels differ in details. Different details do not equal a contradiction. I know people like you will disagree but this makes sense. Of the three, which one would be most likely be an eyewitness of the event? Matthew. Notice he was one of the twelve and most likely would have been present and seen the two men with his own eyes. Mark and Luke were not eyewitness to the event and they only spotlighted...

Different details do not make a contradiction if those details do not contradidict. Omitting one man form the account is not a coNtadiction because neither Mark or Luke says that there was only one man there. Don 't like it? Too bad.

Prove that the apostle named Matthew is not the author of the Gospel that bears his name. I dare you.

I am not saying Mark or Luke got anything wrong. You are and nothing to show for it.

Notice a slight move away towards now defending it in the context of Matthean priority. What Marcus is pleading is that one of the Gospel writers had no need to mention two demoniacs since it must be that only one of them was doing interesting enough stuff to warrant being mentioned.

 Um no. I'm not arguing that Matthew was written first or that it supersedes Mark, Luke, or John. I'm saying that Mark and Luke or not obligated to talk about the second man just because Matthew did. We don't know how much either knew about what details Matthew gave or not given that each was writing to a different audience.

 However, given that the other Gospel writer mentioned him, it looks like both warranted mention.

 And just where do Mark and John mention the other man? Keep in mind that the above text wasn't even written to Pearce. It was directed to another commentator who agree with Pearce. However he neglects to mention that there was another commentator. Does that mean that Pearce and I are in contradiction and that his account should not be considered because he did not mention the second commentator? Nope. There are several other reasons to discount his arguments.

I STILL can't believe you believe that stuff. I think you are merely paying lip service to your own cognitive dissonance.

Your numerical defence is so shoddy it makes me laugh.

If , in a court of law, I claimed I was assaulted by 3 men, and then the defence claimed, or a witness claimed, there were two men who assaulted me, this would be a contradiction that called into question at least one of the accounts. They would NOT SAY "well, three includes the number 2!"

When skeptics deny AGW (sadly misrepresenting science), they use different numbers than the climate scientists. This is to contradict the scientists. You DON'T hear people claiming "well the larger number includes the smaller number!"

I could go on with these analogies which you have failed to defend.

THEY ARE NOT DIFFERENT DETAILS such that one claimed he was wearing sandals and another witness claimed he had blonde hair such that the two pieces of information could be pieced together. There are two claims of the same subject - the numerical value of the demoniacs. If you don't get this, and keep making your rather embarrassing defences, then there is no hope for you... you need to give me concrete examples where people writing history say one thing but mean another, numerically speaking. Tell me where a quote when someone says "the army was 10,000 strong" actually meant something like "the army was 150,000 strong" because 10,000 is a subset of 150,000! You are utterly bastardising the English language. I have illustrated this with many analogies which you have simply ignored.

You are using understanding of the language that is not only not used, but highly improbable, and you don't even have the gall to admit it.

Marcus again:

Neither would a court of law conclude that no assault happened or that either witness is a liar. This is the kind of thing you would expect from eyewitness testimony. Of the three accounts Matthew gives less information about the even than the others - Mark and Luke. The only detail given in Matthew that isn't in Mark or Luke was that there was a second man who was healed. The man who is detailed in Mark and Luke is quite busy in the story and maybe he was only mentioned because he wanted to go with Jesus and the other man didn't ask to go with Jesus. Here is an important point that might help you

"In any case, no contradiction exists. A contradiction occurs only if one statement makes the other impossible and there is absolutely no way for them to be reconciled. For example, let's say we put two apples on a table. Statement 1: There are two apples on the table. Statement 2: There is only one apple on the table. These two statements contradict each other. Now read these two statements: Statement 1: There are two apples on the table. Statement 2: There is an apple on the table. These two statements do not contradict each other. In the same way, the biblical accounts do not represent a contradiction. All three accounts describe demon possession and the power that Jesus has over the spirit world. All three tell us that He made a point to cross the sea to save someone from the demons. All three affirm that there was at least one man who was plagued by demons. The fact that the three accounts differ in some minor details only proves that they were written by three different authors, each of whom chose to focus on a different aspect of the account."

And me again:

Look how you change the frame of the conversation here. I am NOT denying the event happened. I am claiming that one account contradicts the other. In the court case, this would be hugely important, because in one case (3) we have one more person than the other case (2) such that if we believed the 2, and 3 was true, there would be a guilty person walking free. If we believed the 3, and 2 was true, then we would have incarcerated an innocent person.

The point about the biblical accounts is to get someone like you to admit that some of the details might be wrong. They may or may not be important details (this one isn't). But if one can show that unimportant details could be wrong, how can we be sure that important ones are correct?

You are literally defining an ad hoc hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis) and you don't seem to understand this.

The problem is, and your next point clearly proves this, is that you depend on the fallacy of equivocation in order to sustain your argument. Your are conflating "immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him" with meaning "at least one". If he meant that, he would have said that. I have shown rather conclusively that by utilising that logic, you would not be able to have sensible conversations normally. I have clearly shown above where equivocation gets you.

You elucidate a pragmatic contradiction similar to a zen koan.

Taken with a traditional and sensible understanding of the words used, it is contradictory. Your attempts to get yourself out of this position is fairly amusing, but it doesn't cut the mustard.

Do you ever, in you everyday life, use this understanding of language? Because you could never have a sensible conversation involving numbers, and you certainly couldn't do maths.

But if it makes you happy that to think this allows you to still hold that Mark 5 and Matthew8 don't contradict each other, then go for it. You are only deluding yourself.

Marcus then starts to get even more ridiculous, claiming that early Christians would have had a different understanding of number. Of course, he does this whilst providing no supporting evidence:
 

As for how this plays out in how we talk to one another today. We don't. But for centuries, this was not a problem. Because in that culture it would not have been looked at the way we see it today. The bottom line neither Matthew, Luke, or Mark tells us anything about the event that makes either account false...

You haven't shown that either Matthew, Mark, or Luke are wrong. All you have managed to prove is that they tell the story with different details. The details do not conflict, but taken together you get a complete picture about what happened. What part of Matthew saying that there were two men, make anything that Mark or Luke said impossible to have happened? Nothing. Ont top of that for there to be something wrong in either account you would have to show that Mark and Luke did not know about the second man. You can't. Sorry, but going against the Word of God invites failure.

Um nope. I'm not saying that they did not understand the difference between one and two. I'm saying that they would not balk at Matthew saying that there were two men, while Mark and Luke give a great deal of detail of only one of them plus all the information that Matthew gives except for the total number of men Jesus healed in the incident.

Notice the complete lack of any supporting evidence for his claims. And finally, for this post, though it goes on, me again:

"As for how this plays out in how we talk to one another today. We don't. But for centuries, this was not a problem. Because in that culture it would not have been looked at the way we see it today. "

What a load of ad hoc BS. Please provide evidence of this. By the way, I ran a little experiment the other day. I heard, in conversation, numbers used about 47 times throughout the day. Of them, not a single conversation would have made sense with your understanding of the language.

Not 1.

0%.

I have never before seen such flagrant flailing. It's dishonest, to be honest.

I actually used this thread in teaching someone about logical fallacies. I copied and pasted the replies. He sent me back emails saying how much he laughed at your answers. That they define ad hoc.

Dude, you are so far out on this, it's not funny. You have 0% evidence that people use language like this and then try to assert they do.

Maths depends on numbers having different and discrete numerical value.

Language depends on it.

You don't realise that in order to claim that a number is a subset of another number, you HAVE to talk about the set to begin with.

eg:
15 hooligans were hanging around the football ground. One of the hooligans...

or

a hooligan...

walked up to the policeman.

The second option is still stretching it. YOU CANNOT without any context at all simply say:

A hooligan walked up to the policeman...

When another account says:

2 hooligans walked up to the policeman...

and expect people not to see a contradiction. This is how language works. You are SPECIAL PLEADING your case for a use of language for which you are providing no proof of it being probable (or even possible without equivocation).

It's all so obviously petty. I realise it has no great consequence. What is fascinating is the cognitive dissonance on show. You really get a feel, in a conversation like this, for how the Christian mind works. The answer is irrationally, a priori siding with the non-contradictory theory even if it is inherently far less plausible (and arguably impossible) than the theory that the bible may well be errant. 

Cognitive dissonance is Pearce's because Matthew is not in contradiction with with Mark or Luke.

Rather than accept that one and two are contradictory in any normal understanding of the sentences, Marcus' dissonance makes it far more plausible that:

1) Any use of a number can actually mean any number higher than the quoted number

I never said that. The Language Mark and Luke use does not tell us that there was only one man. 

2) This is the case irrespective of surrounding grammatical constructions (or lack thereof)

"When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, " 

So what part of this phrase means that there was not another man.  Let us check Luke,

"And when He came out onto the land, He was met by a man from the city who was possessed with demons;"

And what have I missed. Where did Luke say that there was only one man?  

3) That this wouldn't cause undue conversational confusion, even though we can clearly see it does

For centuries a lot of Christians were not confused.

4) That people actually do this, even though I have anecdotally shown that they don't

I'm not arguing that Matthew, Mark, or Luke were confused about how many demoniacs there were. I'm arguing that Pearce is when there is no reason to be. 

5) That early Christians had a different numeric understanding than modern ones

I never said that. Pearce did. 

6) Matthew priority

Nothing I said means categorically that Matthew was written first.  We don't really know which one is written first. Many people believe they have really good reasons they think Mark was written first but they can't really prove that there was a "Q" source or that Mark or Luke copied from Mark. There are many hypothesis-es and opinions but I see no reason to think that these accounts disagree in the slightest.

7) That there were two demoniacs, but one was just not doing a lot

Fits what the text actually says. 

8) That Christians who did not have access to both accounts would still have an accurate understanding of what went on

I never said that all Christians would know that there were two men. I don't think it's even really necessary to know that there were two men to get the point of the story. 

So on and so forth. He HAS to believe all of the above is more plausible than:

This is exactly what I mean about Pearce misrepresenting me.  He claims that there are eight people that seem implausible. I don't believe any of these things as being true. Pearce understand what I have written no better than he understands the Bible. 

1) The two accounts are contradictory in that claim.

Whoah, bring in good ole Ockham for a shave with his Razor, please. What an elegantly simple hypothesis I just brewed up! It is sad to see potentially rational beings be so evidently irrational. Just remember, if anyone uses a number in conversation of writing tomorrow, that according to Marcus, they could be inferring any number higher than the one provided. Who needs accuracy!

Pearce would have a point if there was indeed a contradiction. Let again requote something Pearce interesting left out:

A contradiction occurs only when one statement makes the other impossible. If Mark or Luke said that only one demoniac came to Jesus while Matthew says that two came out, that would be a contradiction. If there are two demoniacs, there is certainly at least one; therefore, there is no contradiction.

Debunking Christianity: One of the worst Christian argument I have ever had the displeasure to argue against

Bible Contradiction - Where Did Jesus Drive the Demons into Pigs?

I have been conversing with Jonathan Pearce over the past week who maintains that the Bible can't be reliable because it contains "numerous contradictions". Although he was reluctant at first to back up that conclusion and discuss those passages that he thinks conflict with one another, he did provide the following example.

I will humour you.

Mark 5:1-2
They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. 2 When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him,

Matt 8:
When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way.
Luke 8:
Then they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. 27 And when He came out onto the land, He was met by a man from the city who was possessed with demons;

Now the standard reply is that they are two towns in the same general region so there is no contradiction. However, this is silly. The contradiction is plain. All accounts use the time connective 'when' which implies in all cases immediacy. When this happened, this happened. Thus, no traveling can be done. Looking at any map, the use of Gerasa is nonsensical (at least 12 miles from Gadara - ie further from the lake) - it is inland and too far for the sense to be made. Here is the hilariously bad bad harmonisation from Barne's noted on the bible:

"Country of the Gergesenes - Mark Mar 5:1 says that he came into the country of the "Gadarenes." This difference is only apparent.

"Gadara" was a city not far from the Lake Gennesareth, one of the ten cities that were called "Decapolis." See the notes at Matthew 4:25. "Gergesa" was a city about 12 miles to the southeast of Gadara, and about 20 miles to the east of the Jordan. There is no contradiction, therefore, in the evangelists. He came into the region in which the two cities were situated, and one evangelist mentioned one, and the other another. It shows that the writers had not agreed to impose on the world; for if they had, they would have mentioned the same city; and it shows. also, they were familiar with the country. No men would have written in this manner but those who were acquainted with the facts. Impostors do not mention places or homes if they can avoid it."

So bad it's funny.

Then there is the problem that Matthew clearly states two demons, not one.

You will have an answer, no doubt. It's just that to think it is plausible takes some wild gerrymandering.

Yes, indeed there are answers that don't require punting to the conclusion that the Bible is contradicting itself. Pearce recognizes that the passages are referring to two cities: Gerasa and Gadara. What I don't get why he think Mark and Luke think Jesus went to one city and that Matthew says that he went to the other? The texts do not say that it. They say that he went to the region containing those cities. The miracle that happened did not occur in a city or town. Pigs weren't kept in towns, as far as I can tell. The pigs are also an important point because it shows that the area was primarily populated by Gentiles - which is what Archaeology and extra Biblical sources tells us. Had the people been Jews, they would have neither cared about loosing a heard of pigs nor owned pigs.

As for the number of men Jesus met and healed. Mark and Luke definitely says that there was one one guy while Matthew says there were two.  The thing is how is this a contradiction? A contradiction would be if Mark and Luke had said that there was only one man. They don't. Each of the Gospel contains details that are not in the others. But none of those details contradicts the details in the others. If I tell you that Jack and Jill went to the mall and bought a DVD, but I tell another person that Jill went to Walmart and bought a DVD, did I contradict myself? Nope. I just didn't give the same detail. A contradiction would be if the mall did not have a Walmart. You don't have such a thing in this case. We know that Jesus went to an area containing two cities, Gerasa and Gadara, and while he was there he cast demons out of two men that met Him as he came ashore and they knew who Jesus is. The demons drove some pigs mad and they drove themselves off a cliff into the Lake and drowned. No need to bring up phantom contradictions.  If Pearce or anyone disagrees, I'd love to know what is so bad or false about understanding the text this way.

Alleged Historical Errors in the Gospels (Luke & John) by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted another set of materials by Dr Tim McGrew from a series of lectures he has done on "Alleged Historical Errors in the Gospels". This lecture deals with Luke and John. I'm really enjoying the material. You can follow the link below to get a video, pdf, and mp3 for the lecture.

Alleged Historical Errors in the Gospels (Luke & John) by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315

FacePalm of the Day: Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier On The Eclipse of the Sun At The Death of Jesus

John Loftus posted an argument that Dr Richard Carrier has included in his upcoming book, claiming that the Bible's truthfulness is discredited by the claim that Darkness covered the world for three hours  while Jesus was alive and on the cross and there is no other record of it happening.  Here is what Loftus posted. 

I've received an uncorrected advance reading copy of Richard Carrier's book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. I'll say more about it later after I've finished reading it. But he highlights a serious problem for inerrantists that I'd like to share. In chapter three he evaluates the claim of the gospels that at the death of Jesus "there was darkness over the whole world from the sixth hour until the ninth" (Mark 15:33; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44-45). If it was meant to be taken literally per Luke, who claims it was an eclipse of the sun ("...for the sun stopped shining"), it could not have happened.

Why? Because a three hour eclipse over the whole world is scientifically impossible. They only last a few minutes, not three hours. They do not cover the whole earth at the same time either, since they only cover parts of it as earth revolves. An eclipse additionally could not have occurred during the Passover, for the Passover was always celebrated during the full moon. This means the moon was on the opposite side of the earth from the sun at that time. Lastly, the entire world at the time had its astrologer/astronomers and not one of them mentioned it. Carrier writes, "This is a slam dunk argument...establishing beyond any reasonable doubt the non-historicity of this solar event."

One of the comments on the post bears careful scrutiny because it attempts to deal with Christian answers to the objection Carrier and Loftus are trying to run up the proverbial flag pole:

extian

John, you might be aware that many apologists like to point out that the passages never specifically mention an eclipse, only a "darkness" and that "the sun stopped shining" - a supernatural event with no natural reference. They will quote Africanus (AD 221) who referenced Thallus, a first-century historian, as corroborating the darkness event.

The problem is that we don't have Thallus' original words, we don't know where he got his sources, and we don't know if Africanus was right in assuming that the "darkness" Thallus refers to was actually the same "darkness" described in the crucifixion story. Thus, the "darkness" remains uncorroborated.

I believe Richard Carrier wrote an article on this on infidels.org, but he also might've included it in this book.

I have indeed heard this defense against the charge that the darkness did not happen. Ironically, extian states the argument better than Loftus does. .Three of the four gospels say it did. Let's look at the passages.

³³ At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. - Mark 15:33

⁴⁵ From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. - Matthew 27:45

⁴⁴ It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, ⁴⁵ for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. - Luke 23:44-45

The sun not shining is definitely not an eclipse. I would not go that far as throwing out the account. I think that no one has enough data to say that it didn't happen and therefore throwing out the Gospels is not just not warranted but silly. I'm amazed how much much weight is being given to Dr Richard Carrier. Loftus does not make it clear whether he is stating that the darkness was caused by an eclipse or is it just him saying that. Either way, it greatly undermines the argument against the Gospel accounts because none of them say it was an eclipse.

Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier On The Eclipse of the Sun At The Death of Jesus

Related articles

• The Bible: An Exposé: Eyewitness Testimony? (arizonaatheist.blogspot.com)
• This Week's Winner (Historical Jesus: Five Views) (marccortez.com)
• Defending Jesus and Judaism (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Online brand. (averyedison.com)
• Non-Biblical Sources which Document the Historical Jesus (compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com)

Truthbomb Apologetics: 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts

Cover via Amazon

Chad posted a good article that he made from a list of 84 confirmed facts that Luke got right in the Book of Acts.The list is by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 256-259. You should really take a look at this!


Truthbomb Apologetics: 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts

Related articles

• Saturday, December 31, 2011 @ Acts 29...? (phyllisbenigas.wordpress.com)
• Acting Out or Acting Up? (ponderingpastor.blogspot.com)
• reflections: acts 1 (jhoannaisla.wordpress.com)
• The Book of Acts and the Gospel Message (kimolsen.wordpress.com)
• The Four Pillars of the Church (worthyofthegospel.wordpress.com)

Fistbump of the Day - He Lives: I am Richard Carrier. I have demonstrated this. I have refuted that.

I've often been amazed that Dr Richard Carrier's work critiques of the Bible and Christianity is given such weight. It's often erroneous and empty of any real weight or substance. In a recent blog post, Dr David Heddle posted a recent exchange he had with Carrier on Carrier's charge that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are in conflict on the events surrounding Jesus' birth. Dr Heddle wrote:

It boggles the mind when people claim, definitively, that they have refuted the bible. If they were to say: Here is a serious problem for those who affirm biblical inerrancy--well that would be one thing. But to claim to have demonstrated error--not just to have made a decent case for error--well that takes an especially small mind.

Such a mind is that of Richard Carrier.

Read the post at this link:

He Lives: I am Richard Carrier. I have demonstrated this. I have refuted that.

Related articles

• Why I am an Atheist: Christianity's Dubious History (skepticalseeker.com)
• The earliest gospels 6(a) - on the cusp of Luke (à la Couchoud) (vridar.wordpress.com)
• Studies of the Gospel of Luke the Gentile.1 (rev12eleven.wordpress.com)
• The Accuracy of the Bible (compasschurchamman.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of th Day #132 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will?

Johnny P has responded to my blog post on an article he posted on Debunking Christianity Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will?. He took some of my comments and attempted a response. It's too much to respond to in the comments so another blog post is in order. My quoted comments are in italics and his response is in black font and my response to those are in red.

It seems that you are somewhat overambitious in calling this a face-palm, judging by your continual question-begging annotation. For example, you first comment on evil, without really defining it, says that we would never exist if evil did not exist. I take it, then, we don’t exist in heaven – it’s empty (d’oh, facepalm!).

Evil doesn't make it heaven (double facepalm). The point of Jesus dying on the cross and being born-again is to get rid of the evil in our souls. I also find it interesting that Johnny P didn't define evil. As a Christian, I can define it but without God I don't think anyone can define what evil is. It would be amusing to see Johnny P try. In case he responds to this (or anyone) I'll save my full definition. Instead let me explain what I am meant that without evil we would not exist. I wrote: This line of argumentation has never impressed me because who says that we can determine when God should deal with evil. The argument also fails to take account that if God destroyed all evil now, we would all be destroyed. If God had destroyed all evil at any time in the past, we would never exist. Instead God has a plan in mind and everything is in place to bring that plan to fruition - even evil. Because obviously Johnny P didn't understand, let's restate it. The statement was in reference to the evil and sin that permeates humanity. If God destroyed evil without cleaning evil from our lives, we would all be destroyed. When we say that God should get rid of evil and punish sin, we usually mean those people over there - apart from us and not recognizing that we are no better than they are. We deserve hell just like they do. You don't earn your way to heaven - it's by grace.

“I really wish that when people raise this objection would really argue without the arrogance of assuming that we know just how much suffering there should be in order to get the "best possible world". “

Er, I think you entirely miss the point. It’s not about what we know, it’s about the notion that God knows. And as such, in order to earn he title of omnibenevolent and perfect, this MUST be the most perfect world. It’s got nothing to do with what we know. We simply make evidential observations about the amount of suffering and people like you try and harmonise it with your God claiming that it is not gratuitous. This does, indeed, beg the question. It is logically possible, but this by no means that it is logically probable or plausible.

Johnny P missed the point I raised. God does know perfectly everything. And we don't. The Bible does not tell us that his world is perfect. It tells us that the world is decaying because of our sin and evil. I quoted Romans 8:19-25. Guess he missed it. Let me be clear. Johnny P's presumptions are wrong. Even if you don't think the Bible is correct, you have got to admit that he is making arguments based on claims that the Bible does not make.


“Why would we expect the universe and reality to be different?”

Well, for starters, I would be clever enough to create a life-sustaining planet that didn’t have plate tectonics that killed millions of people throughout history. I think that’s fairly obvious. Especially since no theodicy that you could offer says anything about the billions of animals and ecosystems destroyed in the 2004 tsunami.

I don't need to. Paul answered that: Romans 8. Also he ignored the rest of the argument. How do you know that the world would be better without plate tectonics, As far as we can tell, life as we know it is impossible without plate tectonics. No people. John Lennox discussed this really well.  As for Tsunami, Jesus offered the best theodicy.

 ¹ Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ² Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴ Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5

Your next set of comments lead onto the larger argument over whether free will can be a potentiality only.

“Doing the maximally loving thing at all times is hardly limitation if you don't want to do anything otherwise”

If God can’t WANT to do anything else, then what the hell do you define as free will?

I didn't say "can't" I said "doesn't" and watch your language. . 

I would say that this is simply determinism. To analogise, this would be exactly the same as espousing determinism in humans – we act because we are who we are, in our nature. If you studied free will (I have written a book on it) you would see that, if God was always to act in a particular way, you are denying the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.

What is the title of this book? According to the Bible telling us that we are hopelessly imprisoned in sin, terminated in total separation from God, I don't see how we have the ability to make choices free of sinful influence without God. That's not free will. I don't deny that there is such things as free will. I'm saying that only God has it.  And yes, that mean there aren't alternate possibilities outside of what God has already "bound" or "loosed". (Matthew 16). God always acts in a particular way - the way he chooses. 

¹¹ In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹² in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:11-12

As for your criticism of my tax man analogy, you don’t really say much but a simple assertion that it is a bad analogy (it is a synopsis of a much longer analogy).

Maybe Johnny P missed it. I offered a different analogy.  Here is again: It's more like having already been born in prison and not being able to raise bail. You are sentenced to death. The only way to be free and live is to let Jesus no just pay the price for your release but take your  punishment of death as well.

“The problem is that we don't know that the maximally loving options are or even what "love" really is in all situations. We have an idea, but we don't really know exhaustively”

Exactly the same issues as mentioned before.

Which Johnny P again misses that giving our ignorance we don't know what the perfect world even looks like. 

And your worst moment comes here:

“The Creation did not fall short of perfection before the fall.”

Oh dear, you believe in Original Sin. Too many criticisms of this to even begin.

Bring it.

“Again do you or anyone of know what the whole plan is? Do we know what the best for us in the world is? I don't. If you think you do, then you are really dishonest. If you don't know what maximally good and perfect are, how do you know that there is no purpose for the suffering we witness? You don't.”

Again, pretty poor reasoning. As I asked God in my last book:
If my child was to walk on the flowers in my garden, trampling them, it would be immoral to punish him without telling him what he had done wrong. This would communicate to my child his misdemeanour so that he would not do it again. What have we done wrong to deserve cancer, malaria, the tsunami, the Holocaust, disability, cholera etc., and is it right that you have not communicated to us why we have had these ‘punishments’?

God told us what we did to deserve all of this. The books of Job, Habakkuk, and most of the Bible deal with this. Johnny P said that he asked God this question in his last book as if God did not answer. He did..

The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death. - Proverbs 10:!6

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

This is not saying that every single bad thing that has ever happened to you is because of something you personally did. The book of Job deals with that. This world is fallen - bringing us back to Roams 8. I don't know what kind of answer Johnny P is looking for but God more than answers us.

You special plead God’s master plan on behalf of God, but any responsible and loving parent, teacher, society TELLS PEOPLE WHY THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED. Whether it be tsunamis, malaria, cancer of whatever, The almighty God can’t be bothered to tell us why these things are necessary to make a better world, but instead relies on you to tell us through ad hoc, implausible reasoning! Outstanding. No, my friend, the facepalm is all yours.

Considering Johnny P fails to understand the answer given in the Bible or even offer and objection - I see two facepalms

And as for arrogance, you are attempting to speak for an almighty and all-loving God. I’m sure he could get off his throne and do it himself.

I'm not speaking for God out of pocket. I'm only saying what the Bible say. I didn't write it. If you don't believe it prove it wrong. Johnny P makes several assertions without a single basis. It's arrogant to criticize a design and not know the specs, which is all Johnny P had done.  If you want to demonstrate arrogance on my part Johnny P has to do one of two things.  Show how I have misrepresented what the Bible has said or show that the Bible is wrong.  He has done neither.

"So Johnny P's reasons for rejecting God has to do with erroneous presuppositions about what good is and what love is and what the nature of God is."

This, again, is poor. My ideas about what God is follow necessarily from the rather arrogant and unsupported ideas of what his characteristics are. You circularly use the bible to maintain your opinions and then accuse others of misrepresenting your god when you ad hoc harmonise everything about your god.

Using the Bible is no circular reasoning. I maintain that the only way you can know much about who God is, is by revelation. The Bible gives us that revelation. Unless you can show that the Bible is wrong there is no reason to throw it out as a source of knowledge.

As for Middle Knowledge, I did not say that WAS the mechanism, so thanks for building the straw man. Go back and read the sentence.

I didn't say Johnny P did. I was saying that Johnny P seems to think that the Christian position is Middle Knowledge by default. I know Johnny P is an atheist and does not accept Middle Knowledge. Neither do all Christians. The straw man is his.

This was a logical argument that you have treated rather illogically.

Sim,ply[sp] put:

1) God is perfect
2) a perfect being cannot create imperfectly
C) this universe is a perfect creation.

What do you disagree with there? That was my argument, and it then follows that:

The Bible does not support your premise: "this is a perfect universe" You should agree. That's the point you are making. God did not create imperfectly. It was perfect until Adam and Eve sinned and our sin perpetuates the problems. Your premises fail.

1) this is a perfect universe
2) we have tsunamis, malaria, cancer etc
3) these things exist in a perfect world
C) these things must be necessary for a perfect world

It's not a perfect world (see Romans 8 and the rest of the Bible). Therefore Johnny P's conclusions are flawed because we don't know what the "perfect world" is. His argument is that if there was a perfect world things like tsunamis, malaria, cancer, and etc would not exist. God agrees.  It's not perfect. The Bible does not tell us it is with sin running rampant. When God purges sin, and according to the Bible He will, then it will be perfect again.

All you have done in you 'critique' is waffle on about not much, and NOT address the argument!

Johnny P has been consistent in his inability to answer what God has said about the questions he raised. I did address the argument because God has addressed and it was put to rest 2000 years ago. Just read your Bible for a change. Philosophy doesn't cut the mustard. Revelation is need. And you can't argue against Christianity without understanding what the Bible says and  Johnny P shows no understanding. Double FacePalm.

What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #129 - Debunking Christianity: Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will?

My Common Sense is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: Why the Q Hypothesis Works

Tommy G. Baker has posted another article attempting to discredit the Bible. He fails. But let's see how he fails. I find that his methods better than John Loftus;, however so I guess that's worth a little something. My comments are in red. 

Mark 1: 21-39 presents Jesus going to Simon Peter's house and curing Peter's mother-in-law. She has a fever which Jesus "cures'. She then gets up and serves them. That evening people brought the demon possessed and sick to the house. The whole city gathers about the door.

Notice how Baker just summarizes the text instead of quoting it. It's not that he doesn't get it right but it is interesting.


Jesus heals many of the cases and told them to keep quite. And the following morning before daylight he went out to a private place and prayed. he is interrupted by Peter and the rest telling him that the crowds were looking for him. He gets the new followers to go the the next towns in Galilee preaching and exorcizing demons.

Until we get to here

³² That evening after sunset, the people brought to Jesus all who were sick. They also brought all who were controlled by demons. ³³ All the people in town gathered at the door. ³⁴ Jesus healed many of them. They had all kinds of sicknesses. He also drove out many demons. But he would not let the demons speak, because they knew who he was. - Mark 1:32-34

Notice how Baker seems to say that that Jesus only heals some of the people who are there as if there were some people who were sick that Jesus did not heal. This isn't what the text says. It says that Jesus healed some of the people who were there because obviously not every single person there was sick. Second the text does not tell us that he told all the people he healed to be quite but Jesus told the demons He cast out to be quiet.  I wonder why was Baker saying the Bible says things it does not say.

When we look at Matthew and Luke the story changes. Matthew 8:14 -27 has been rewritten by its author:

Let's see if he can prove that.

1) Matthew as throughout the Gospel intensifies the situation to make it ore outstanding. Here instead of Jesus curing many of those brought. Matthew now says he cures all of who was brought to him.

Guess not

¹⁶ When evening came, many people controlled by demons were brought to Jesus. He drove out the spirits with a word. He healed all who were sick. Matthew 8:16

This isn't a conflict with Mark at all. They are both saying that Jesus healed all those who are sick.

2) Matthew adds an Old Testament quote to claim that the event was a fulfilment of prophecy, " He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases (Isaiah 53:4)." The Jewish interpretation is that this applies to the whole of Israel. Here we see it taken to create the Suffering Servant as a prophecy of the messiah (Origen, Contra Celsus).

And how is adding the detail that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament a problem? I agree with Baker that Matthew was written to Jews. It's written in such a way that Jewish sensibilities are brought out.  Explaining that Jesus fulfilled the New Testament would be very important to Jewish leaders. It would not have been as important to Romans (Mark) or Greeks (Luke).

3) Here the events will change dramatically. Instead of Jesus going to bed and getting up early in the morning to pray he commands his new followers to get a boat to cross the lake. This is a fabrication by Matthew. It acts as a "seam" to stitch a passage from Q into his reworking of the text of Mark.

Why does it have to be a fabrication? Baker admits that he doesn't know who wrote Matthew. For all we know it could be the man whom tradition says it was who wrote it. And in that case there is no reason to think that Matthew just gives more information than Mark does in this instance.  There is no need to complicate matters introducing a third source that no one can prove ever existed.

Matthew 8:

9 Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
20 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
21 Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
22 But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.

This is followed by the next seam in which Jesus gets into the boat and Jesus calms the storm. With this addition we see that Jesus no longer sleeps or prays early the next day. This addition of the "Would-be Follower" changes the original story of Mark. This is at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus according to Matthew.

Again Baker assumes that Matthew changes a story and can't prove any such thing happened. He merely asserts it.

When we compare the section in Luke 4:38-41 we see Luke also intensifies the event:

1) all of the people are cured by laying on of hands. The demons coming out testify that Jesus "is the Son of God." He rebukes the demons to be silent rather than the people as in Mark.

No, in Mark the demons are rebuked not the people,.  What translation is Baker reading?

2) As in Mark Jesus come the next morning goes out to a private place to pray.

Still doesn't contradict Matthew. One Gospel has a detail the other two do not have. That's not a conflict. That is what one would expect if they were based on eyewitness testimony. 

3) But Luke 9:57-62 still has the Would-be Followers passage. He uses it from Q at the end of the ministry of Jesus. The event is made to occur while going through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem where he will die.

Wow! This time Baker asserts much without any proof whatsoever. If Luke copied from Mark and didn't have access to "Q" then how could he have taken material from Q if it's not part of Mark? I find it humorous. The "Q" hypothesis is not really one hypothesis but comes in multiple flavors. And there are versions where Matthew and Luke did not have access to "Q" and Mark and  where Matthew and Luke only had Mark. They all can't be true. And again a  hypothesis is only a guess not fact. And here I don't even think "hypothesis" is a good description. "Pipe Dream" seems more fitting.

As an atheistic Bible study we can show to Christians that their scripture is not inerrant since the events are changed by the editing of Mark by Matthew and Luke. We can show that a sayings source that had no contextual setting was given context by inserting its collection of Jesus sayings into Mark. Mark thus becomes a convenient context.

If Baker means atheistic Bible study is a good example of eisogesis and how one should not read anything, then  I agree that the approach is useful. 

This also demonstrates that there is nothing historical in these presentations. This approach throughout the Synoptic Gospels shows an early Mark that has an all too human Jesus who does not know who touches his robe, who gets angry with people and insults several who seek his help. He has a human temper.

Baker is pontificating. He proved no such thing. I find nothing but fantasy in his presentation and no fact. Who said Jesus was not fully human? The orthodox Christian viewpoint is that Jesus is fully human and fully God. Why wouldn't he get angry? God got angry in the Old Testament a lot. When the woman with the issue of Blood touched Him, Jesus did not know who it was for the same reason He didn't know the day or the hour of his second coming: He voluntarily limited Himself in His humanity, but that doesn't mean He ceased being God at any time. And no I would not classify Jesus' temper as human as like us. If He were He would have wiped out everyone who had a hand in his crucifixion and kangaroo trial 

Matthew removes all of this. Jesus becomes a heavenly emissary with perfect knowledge and super human powers. Luke shows him to be a divine agent similar to Matthew's restructuring. We can see the progress in a temporal manner from Q an early sayings source of a human Jewish teacher to Mark as a man adopted by God in a Gentile view. Jesus is seen as an Enochican heavenly messenger in Matthew. And finally he becomes a Gentile demi-god in Luke. John will make him a pre-existent property of God, Logos, His Wisdom and Reason.

No, Matthew gives other details that shows how  Jesus was/is the king Israel has  been waiting for. How can you see any progression from "Q" given that we don't know what was all in "Q"? Mark's goal in writing His Gospel was very different from Matthew, Luke, and John. The audience is different. Of course the details included would be different. This does not mean that there is conflict. If I tell you Sue went to the store and then I told someone else that Sue and Jane went to the store, is this a conflict? Did I lie? No, I did not. This is the nature of the differences between the Gospels.

Q becomes the only source of primary attention for a historical Jesus. It shows a human being who is not a sacrifice for salvation as in the later Gospels. It is his teachings that are the source of salvation for the original hearers who were Jewish Palestinans.

Correction "Q" could be a source of primary attention for a historical Jesus if we knew what was in "Q"  and we don't even know if such a document really existed outside of the minds of the men who dreamed it up. 

Written by Tommy G. Baker

So was Baker able to show why the Q hypothesis works and why we should accept it in understanding who Jesus is from a historical standpoint? Nope, not even close. At least Baker is trying to support his atheism by attacking the Bible instead of hiding behind a stupid charge of circular reasoning.- claiming that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. He seems convinced that the Bible discredits itself. Hopefully as he keeps studying the scriptures, God will open his mind and he will truly see them.

Debunking Christianity: Why the Q Hypothesis Works