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

Neil deGrasse Tyson Says the Enterprise Is the Greatest Starship Ever - Topless Robot

I wasn't at San Diego Comic Con 2012 last weekend (or ever), but I've been scouring the internet for news and videos to see what I missed. And I heard about the following event that we are so blessed that was it was actually recorded! Four words: Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson







Video Description:

Every Comic-Con ends with one of the event's most popular panels, the Starship Smackdown, in which 12 spacecraft battle it out for sole supremacy (based not on armament or shielding, but, usually, whose captain is best with the ladies). This year, it came down to--astonishingly and agonizingly--the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 (1960's television series) vs. the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A refit (original motion pictures). Enjoying his first Comic-Con appearance, astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson stood to offer his cosmic perspective on which of the two very worthy vessels should win the day. The hall, and ultimately the panel of judges, agreed.



Neil deGrasse Tyson Says the Enterprise Is the Greatest Starship Ever - Topless Robot

Neil deGrasse Tyson Says the Enterprise Is the Greatest Starship Ever - Topless Robot

Responding to Jonathan Pearce on Divine Inspiration

When talking to unbelievers about the Bible, it can be difficult to convince them that the Bible should be taken as authoritatively.  They reason that you can't use the Bible as testimony in favor of itself because its "circular". The problem is that many unbelievers attempt to use the Bible to disprove the Bible due to it's content  or some imagined contradiction. And when an objection is raised that the Bible does not say what they say it does, they cry "Circular reasoning!"  Wrong of course, but Jonathan Pearce has issued a challenge that puts the disagreement into perspective.

I challenge you to prove to me how the bible is divinely inspired without appealing to the bible at all.

I would say that there are six really good pieces of evidence pointing to a divine hand behind God. There are several Bible passages that tell us that the Bible is true. People like Pearce reject that  because the Bible can't be it's own witness. Before we go through these six strands of evidence, let's look at how Jesus answered this charge when it was used on him.

¹³ The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
¹⁴ Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. ¹⁵ You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. ¹⁶ But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. ¹⁷ In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. ¹⁸ I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
¹⁹ Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” ²⁰ He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come. John 8:13-20
Ultimately, God backs up the Bible because it came from God. All the following evidence points to this.

A. Uniqueness

The Bible isn't a single book, it is a collection of 66 books, over 40 authors, written on three continents, over 1500 years. It's telling a single story and a nonconflicting message. There is no way all the authors could have known each other or talked to one another to get the story together.  Not everyone agrees that the Bible does not conflict internally or with external evidence, but they are wrong. If you think the Bible contains contradictions you are making a positive assertion that you have to demonstrate is true. People who assert that there are contradictions in the Bible, they have the burden of proof.

B. Best Attestation

Honest scholars - believers and unbelievers - admit that when it comes to being the earliest ancient text copied, widely distributed, and translated, nothing comes closer than the Bible. I think Dr Daniel Wallace put it best.

"The wealth of material that is available for determining the wording of the original New Testament is staggering: more than fifty-seven hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts, as many as twenty thousand versions, and more than one million quotations by patristic writers. In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high! This is indeed an embarrassment of riches."

—Dan Wallace 

Source

Does this mean that the entire text is true? Nope. The text is not true because of this evidence, but if it were not true it would mean that the Bible would most likely be wrong.  This does not just include the copies text itself being well-attested but also the content of the text. For example a scholar so liberal that he thinks that Jesus was not buried or physically resurrected named Dr. John Dominic Crossan. He says:

Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea and, appointed by the emperor Tiberius, he ruled from 26 to 36 C.E. He and the Jewish high priest Caiaphas collaborated not wisely but too well and they were both eventually removed from office by their Roman masters. Jesus’ execution is as historically certain as any ancient event can ever be but what about all those very specific details that fill out the story? - Dr John Dominic Crossan  Source

Another example. A lot of people don't realize it that the first three centuries of Christianity have a few examples of Jesus being discussed by non-Christians and Christians after of the cannonical Bible ends.How is it that no other piece of literature from the time of the New Testament has been so well preserved, given that we know some people did their best to destroy it?

Here is a good link that lists over two hundred such citations: Historical Jesus - Two Centuries Worth of Citations

C. Fulfilled Prophecy

One big reason I believe the Bible is reliable is that it contains fulfilled prophecy. By this I mean that it makes predictions about historical events and those event have either come true or haven't happened yet. There is not a single prophecy that has fallen to the ground unfulfilled.  For example God gave the Prophet Daniel a prophecy predicting the fall of the Babylonia Empire and the rise of the Persian Empire before it happened. He also predicted the rise of the Greek Empire and Alexander the Great and how it was split up after his death. And He predicted the Roman Empire.. Some have tried to circumvent this by attempting to date Daniel as late as possible so that the Daniel who was taken from Jerusalem in the 580s BC could not have written it. I think it's a pathetic attempt to deny the miracle so that they can believe that the Bible is not true. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that the Book of Daniel is reliable. There are many such prophecies that can be studied and discussed.

I do not have enough time to really discuss all the examples, but I would like to point out that we see a lot of prophecies concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament - about his person, origins, and mission. These things are either fulfilled in the New Testament or will be fulfilled in the future by Jesus. Because of the prophecies that have already been fulfilled I see no reason to not believe that the unfulfilled ones won't be completed.

There are well over 100 prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament. The chances that one person could have fulfilled just eight of them in a single lifetime has been calculated to be one in one hundred million billion. Want an image? Think of covering the whole state of Texas with silver dollar coins to a depth of two feet. Mark one of them. Mix them up. And then have a blindfolded person pick that coin. The odds are just the same a one person fulfilling eight of them. Now let's make it really interesting. What are the odds of fulfilling 48 of them? Mathematician Peter W. Stoner computed the probability to be one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. My favorite objection  that is often raised that Jesus had read the prophecies and purposely and methodically fulfilled them like he had a "to-do list". Does this make sense? Kinda. I mean we know that Jesus was conscious of what he was doing and he even said that he did somethings to fulfill scriptures. Fair enough.  Of course that means he orchestrated being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, to be descended from King David, being born in Bethlehem, and the time in which he born? Oh and his mother would be a virgin?! Okay.  Fine by me. He'd have to be God or something to have done that.(See Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ page 183,184  ).

D.  Archaeology

As near as I can find archaeology confirms the Bible. Many of the people, places,and things found in the scripture have been confirmed or now has evidence pointing to them. Here are a few examples.

1. Pilate. There was a time that people thought Pontius Pilate was made up - that was until the 1960s when an inscription on limestone (from the first century) was discovered in what had been Caesarea in Israel.


Line One: TIBERIEUM,,
Line Two: (PON) TIUS
Line Three: (PRAEF) ECTUS IUDA (EAE)

The  Translation: "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."

The Gospels tells us that Pilate existed and who he was, but now have lots of evidence that it make no sense to doubt that Pilate exists. Source

2. Also the High Priest,  Caiaphas, that presided over Jesus' trial has often been labeled a fabrication by skeptics because there seemed to be no mention of him outside the Bible. After a few years, Jews would rebury their dead relatives in limestone boxes now called ossuaries. A two thousand year-old ossuary was recovered bearing an inscription in Aramaic (the language of the region) : "Miriam daughter of Yeshua son of Caiapha, priest of Ma’azya from Beit Imri." This was the bone box of Caiaphas' granddaughter. Evidence for Caiaphas' existence outside of the Bible. source

3. John 5 tells us that in the city of Jerusalem there had been a pool called Bethesda surrounded by five colonnade. Up until the 19th century, a lot of people thought it was a myth, but then it was found.

This archaeological discovery proved beyond a doubt that the description of this pool in the Gospel of John was not the creation of the Evangelist. It reflected an accurate and detailed knowledge of the site. The Gospel speaks of (a) the name of the pool as Bethesda; (b) its location near the Sheep Gate; (c) the fact that it has five porticos; with rushing water. All these details are corroborated through literary and archaeological evidence affirming the historical accuracy of the Johannine account.^[23]

It can't be underscored how important this is. People had used the concept that pool was mythical as a reason to conclude that the writer of John had no idea what he was talking about. Oops.  Source

Yes, the Bible being correct about somethings that can be confirmed in archaeology does not mean that everything is correct - is the object you will get. However, if we can find absolutely no evidence confirming Biblical content we'd be justified to chuck the Bible. You know....like the Book of Mormon. However we have much more solid ground regarding the Bible.

E. Undesigned Coincidences 

There are two things to consider here. One is that the Gospels each having different details is a good thing. They interlock and shed light on each other by providing corroborating details that can't be explained by the writers of the Gospels getting together and working it out this way. I'm going to just provide a single example now but there are many others. John only tells us about Mary Magdalene going to the tomb Easter morning. But when she finds the tomb open and tells Peter and the other disciple that the tomb is empty we find something interesting:


Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. ² So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”- John 20:1,2


Who's "we"? Well, we know from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Mary Magdalene was not alone when she went to the tomb early Easter morning. She had other women with her. Although, John spotlights only Mary Magdalene, he does not say that only Mary Magdalene was the only woman at the tomb. For further information look up the work of Dr Tim McGrew because there are many, many other examples. Here is a place to start looking up more information: link.








F.  Evidence of Intimate knowledge of the Time and Place

Peter J Williams does a lecture where he explains how the Gospel writers get things correct that only people who have knowledge of first century Palestine correct. These are details that you can't just make up. For example, the percentage of popular people names in the Gospels with respect to the total names of persons in the Jewish population of the first century matches what you would expect given the data that has been collected about the names of people in the population during that time. For example, you would expect that a great number of men who lived during the time of the New Testament was named "Yeshua" and "John" and "Simon", but not many Thaddeus. The percentage of people in the Bible named John and Yeshua and Mary match what you would expect from studying population data from that time. But you find no such  in correspondence in other Jewish population centers in places like Alexandria, Egypt.

Here is one of Dr Peter J Williams' lectures to understand this point better.





Lecture with Dr. Peter Williams from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.

G.  Geography.

I like the fact that the Bible is grounded in reality. It didn't take place once upon a time, a long, long time ago  in a land far, far away. That's how the Greek myths and other myths are placed - no real historical time or place that you can touch or feel. The Bible is different. The Bible talks about real people who actually existed and real places and describe real events that we know took place. The counter I run into most often against this point is that getting a lot of incidental details correct doesn't mean the whole Bible is true. Objectors can't have it both ways. Had the Bible contained such incidental errors it would be enough to reject it. As a matter of fact sometimes accusations are made that things like geography are indeed wrong in the Bible, but upon closer examination this never bears out. It makes no sense to reject the Bible based on the error of incidental details. Does not hold because it does not make incidental mistakes on geography - neither in the Old Testament of the New Testament. It's a good test, because a person who had never been to the places or experienced the things the writers say they did would not be able to get such things right. It is interesting how objectors are quick to use such things to try to reject scripture but then deny the incidental details if they support Biblical reliability.

Here is a link to such an example. link


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 8:26,27
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;

Unbelievers think that there is a contradiction between Mark and Luke over against Matthew. Did Jesus go to the city of Gerasa or to the city of Gadara? Neither. The texts say the incident of the demoniacs being healed happened away from a city but in a region that contained both cities. Matthew referred to the area by it's capital and most important city, while Mark and Luke used the city closest to where the action really took place - near a cliff, near a cemetery, and near lake. No contradiction at all!

Conclusion

I have presented 6 reasons why I think we can conclude that the Bible is reliable but also why it's different than any other book. It's not the pure products of human minds. It's purity transcends the writers. Our faith is based on the inerrancy of the Bible. If any part of it is false, why should you believe any part of it? I find that giving up Biblical inerrancy is the first real step to apostasy. This is not saying that you should believe that Bible is true despite evidence that it has errors. I'm saying that the Bible doesn't have those contradictions. There is not a single contradiction or objection against the Bible that has not already been raised and dealt with. The thing to remember is that we don't need to now everything. and God has not chosen to reveal everything to us. God has revealed to us everything we need through God's word - The Bible.

The Divine Institution of Marriage: Our New Video with IV and Crown Rights

Dr James White has again teamed up with Ivey Conerly on another Spoken Word project. This defending God's definition of "Marriage."'.




The Divine Institution of Marriage: Our New Video with IV and Crown Rights

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.

This Made The Amazing Spider-Man Completely Unrealistic [Image]

Of course, no one uses Bing!

This Made The Amazing Spider-Man Completely Unrealistic [Image]

Scripture Reliability Lectures Referenced on the Dividing Line

Turretinfan has posted a quote from Dr James White reminding listeners to his webcast today regarding a conference from last year on  reliability of scripture. This is real important. It is about how we can be sure we can trust scripture.

This morning I listened, for the 2nd time, to a 3 1/2 hour seminar recorded in Scotland, I believe, in Edinburgh. The presenters (the audio file did a horrible job and explaining who was who) were Peter J. Williams, Dirk Jongkind, and Simon Gathercole. I just found a link, thankfully, here. I would highly recommend this series for everyone. The presentations are lively, well done, and very understandable. I have benefited from them greatly. In particular, Peter J. Williams' presentation was very useful.Here is a video of a similar presentation Dr. Williams gave. I likewise truly enjoyed Dirk Jongkind's dismantling of a particularly troubling section of Ehrman's work. I would love to hear Bart's response in a one-on-one discussion.

Here is the video from Dr Peter J Williams that is referenced above.



Lecture with Dr. Peter Williams from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.

Scripture Reliability Lectures Referenced on the Dividing Line

The Amazing Spider-Man And The Gospel - Review and Opinion

I've got to admit that I did like the movie. It was a reboot, but it also changed a few details to make the movie's story unique. I don't agree with all the criticism about the way Andrew Garfield portrayed Peter Parker. I think that Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were excellent in their roles. I think that a newer spin was put on Parker. I think it fit the current culture much more to portray Parker as more confident and less socially awkward that the way he has been depicted in the past (especially from the 2002 film). If you haven't seen it, I suggest that you might like it and it's worth go seeing.  If you have seen it, here are some other articles that may be interesting to you.

Who Was That In The Amazing Spider-Man's Credits Scene?

Here are a good break down comparing the original Spider-Man trilogy with the latest movie

TR Review/Comparison: The Amazingly (Unnecessary) Spider-Man 

If the reports are true that perhaps the footage that was cut out the movie so that they can go into the sequels then I don't think it was unnecessary. A lot of loose ends were left tangling but it was set up for those to be tied up later. 

One of the best things about the character is that Spider-Man is selfless. He doesn't try to judge anyone such that they are are undeserving of his help or protection. He also grows as  a person. His getting powers doesn't just solve all his problems it adds to them. His Uncle Ben does not utter the famous line  "With great power comes great responsibility" in this movie. Instead the message is that if there is something you can do to help someone else, you should. I think this is the central message of the character. Is it a part of the Christian Gospel?

Yes, but it's a more watered down version of what Jesus said.


⁴⁷ “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. ⁴⁸ But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. - Luke 12:47-48

Notice that in both formulations, responsibility and talent are tied together. Jesus' words are in context of explaining a parable of a manager who has been put in charge of a task and how bad it looks if the master returns and the task is not being carried out. Go back and read the parable. It's not that the manager could not do the job. Like us, God does not give us stuff to do that we can't do. Instead God gives us talents and opportunities to do the things that he has commanded us to do and we are judged by what we do because it's not that we don't know.  If we are faithful carrying out what we know and can do, more power and responsibility is added to us and if we are not faithful we will loose what we have. Look at the context and notice that its not about salvation it's about rewards and just life here. The biggest difference I see between the ethics the Spider-man character is built around and the commands of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ is that Jesus is clearly not pointing to just responsibility but also our accountability to the one who gives us our powers and responsibilities.  It's not a minor difference. One one hand to do good but no real reason given for why. Jesus tells us why: We owe it to God.

Related articles

• Sony Announce 'the Amazing Spider-man' Will Be A Trilogy

  ---

• The Amazing Spider-Man Review

  ---

• The Amazing Spider-Man (Yellow)

  ---

Amazing Spider-Man: What’s With The Cut Scenes? | ComicBook.com

I like this article about the missing scenes in the Amazing Spider-Man. How we know that they are missing? They were in the trailers but they were not the theatrical cut I saw. I have a fuller review with links to other reviews. One scene I was hoping to see that was cut when we Peter was asked to join the football team and he shook his head and quipped "Too Dangerous!" I do hope that there will be an extended director's cut.

Amazing Spider-Man: What’s With The Cut Scenes? | ComicBook.com

Do YOU understand the Higgs Boson?

How far do you make it down this flow chart?

Do YOU understand the Higgs Boson?

Teenagers: 1982 vs 2012 [infographic] - Holy Kaw!

From: BestEducationDegrees.com

Teenagers: 1982 vs 2012 [infographic] - Holy Kaw!

Debunking Christianity: What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods

Cathy Cooper has written an article analyzing Genesis 6:1-4. I'm really surprised some if it is actually good and true. There are a couple of things that are wrong.

1. 'B'nai Elohim'  does indeed mean "Sons of God" because it's referring to Yahweh who is single in Being but plural in person. "Elohim" was a title not a name like "god" and could be used to refer to multiple gods. 
2. The fact that some of ancient Israel did worship other gods alongside or instead of YHWH does not mean that they were supposed to or that there was some progression from polytheism to monotheism. The Bible is really clear that there was polytheism even in Genesis forward, from many people, including Abram's extended family, but not Abram himself. 

She correctly shows that many people disagree that with what the passage means. Her opinion is definitely from a non-believer. So how about after reading Cathy Cooper's take on the passage, whose conclusion I don't come agree with and is linked below:

Debunking Christianity: What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods

Watch and listen to Dr Hank Hanegraaf answer the question and other relevant questions.

Questions and Answers with Hank - 07-05-2012

Who are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6?

The Science of Lying [Video]

This was an interesting video. But does have it's problems.




Video Description:

Hank gets into the dirty details behind our lying ways - how such behavior evolved, how pathological liars are different from the rest of us, and how scientists are getting better at spotting lies in many situations.

The Science of Lying [Video]


I  was disappointed with the video because it gave a reason for why humanity knows it is immoral to make lying a day-to-day practice \or a way of life, but does not give  any evolutionary explanation for how and why humanity became presupposed to be liars. The video goes as far admitting that we all lie even from an early age but stops short of calling it what it is. Sin. Lying is evil. Plain and simple.  No one likes being lied to or lied on. Why,  if it is so natural and a good thing? It's not.  So my question is: How do we free ourselves with it? Sometimes when the truth is inconvenient, how do you avoid the temptation to lie? How do you break free? We all know what it's like to fall for it and lie almost without even thinking about it. Why would any one of us think that we won't have to pay for that? We know we have told lies. We know we have hurt other people. So wshat what are you going to do about it?

The truly unfortunately thing is that when the video points out how religion may have helped people realize that lying was bad for society, it references medieval Europe as if the Bible, and many other things had not already been in place - just to take a jab at Christianity.

Stephen Hawking – Higgs Discovery has lost me $100 [Video]

Well,there seems two opinions: either the Higgs-Boson has been discovered or there has been enough evidence that some experts believe we are close to discovering it. Apparently Dr Stephen Hawking is sold on the idea.




Stephen Hawking – Higgs Discovery has lost me $100 [Video]

And here is a video explaining what the fuss is all about

How To Explain Why Star Trek Is Better Than Star Wars [Comic]

How To Explain Why Star Trek Is Better Than Star Wars [Comic]

Parting Shot: 'Who is Miles Morales?' Fan Film [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Parting Shot: 'Who is Miles Morales?' Fan Film [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Who pays more taxes, Spider-Man or Batman? | The Beat

 Yup, Batman is one of the 1% and Spider-Man is part of the 99 with the rest of us!

Who pays more taxes, Spider-Man or Batman? | The Beat

Facepalm of the Day - Assuming that God is Limited To A Gender

Recently I had been "challenged" by Ryan Anderson on a previous blog post regarding God's gender. You can  read the post and the comments at this link: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/06/secular-outpost-20-questions-for_26.html. Grant it the post has nothing to do with the complete confusion of categories and logical fallacies included in the sophomoric concept that God is limited to human conceptions of gender. It appears that Ryan Anderson wanted to find something to argue against the posts in which I talk about God with the pronoun "He". Ryan Anderson complained:

I guess we don't have better noun than Father. Why no reference to "God the Mother"? Mother would certainly describe many of it's alleged qualities...

 His contention is that the Bible never applies feminine terms or imagery to God. Ryan Anderson refused to open his mind and really look at what the texts say. It doesn't take long to find a lot of material demonstrating that God has no gender as humans do and that both male and female imagery is applied by scripture to help us understand who and what God is and is not.  Here is a good link to an article on this subject written by a Christian.

Bible Verses They Never Taught You in Sunday School… | Purging my soul…one blog at a time.

People think that because the Bible is such an ancient text that it prescribes and condones sexist attitudes for men and and against women. Unfortunately some go as far as accusing the Bible of misogyny. The history of the church and God's people is filled with various examples of such stupidity and mistakes. This is because of our sin not because of our God - Jew and Christian alike. Such attitudes are not Biblical nor pleases God. God is described using female imagery showing that without femininity humanity is incomplete. Sure the ignorant my counter that if I'm right than its because of Christians coming along and changing everything that was Jewish. Completely wrong. Here is a link to an article discussing the feminine imagery of God from a Jewish views of scripture!

Visions of the Divine Gender in Textual Imagery By Esther Shkop

 Dr. Esther Shkop wrote:

One can only be impressed by the majestic beauty and profound emotion which Jewish sources, especially in the Prophets, conjure through the use of feminine imagery. The numerous and various strong feminine images more than balance the masculine ones. While we must remember that the Divine is beyond form and gender, human language by necessity conceives even the most Abstract in visual images. The multiplicity of feminine images alongside the masculine, and the context in which one or the other is used requires close study and (often mystical) understanding. Careful analysis of the Hebraic texts will reveal that religious experiences and the immediacy of God are to be found in the world of women no less than in that of men. It would be a tragedy - and a travesty - to "castrate" the language, for it would then remove God from the experiential milieus of both men and women, rendering us mortals mute, unable to commune with or communicate about our Creator. 

Silly, Atheist, God is for everybody. I totally agree with Dr Shkop on this. I think it's important to look at a few (not all) of the references she and the other referenced article are using.

1. Genesis 3:21
2.  Jesus Washing the disciples feet is noteworthy because in the first century only slaves and women did that work. This is what made the act so noteworthy given the status of slaves and women.
3. Jeremiah 31:20
4. Isaiah 42:14
5. Isaiah 46:3-4.
6. Deuteronomy 32:18
7. Isaiah 49:15
8. Isaiah 66:12-13
9. Isaiah 66:9
10. Isaiah 42:14
11. Matthew 23:37

You have got to love the following written by Dr Shkop:

Yet we must realize that God does have a name, the famous Tetragrammaton, or four-lettered name of Hashem - which is made up of the letters yud-heh and vav-heh. The ineffable name of Hashem is a contraction of the Hebrew verb, to be, in past, present and future, and is therefore often translated as The Eternal. However, in the Hebraic source this name is written as a feminine noun - and signifies the aspect of rachamim, which, as indicated earlier, is quintessentially feminine. Thus every blessing and prayer we say, every evocation of the Eternal Presence [Kabbalistically called the "Shechina" ] is in fact an evocation of the feminine concept - the unconditional love of the Creator. 

 The Bible presents men and women as ontologically equal and necessary to one another, but neither equivalent nor interchangeable. We need each other to fulfill the purpose of humanity and together we are the image of our Creator. God is neither male nor female and to try to cast those categories on the infinite God shows that one has no idea who God is.

²⁹ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." - Matthew 22:29

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Gospel of Matthew Caught In A Lie

Harry McCall keeps releasing material that makes no sense attacking the Bible. It makes me wonder what translations that he is using and who is he talking to? This particular post actually answers some of those questions. 


Jesus speaking: 
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ•). And if he refuses to listen even to the church (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ•), let him be to you as a Gentile (ὁ ἐθνικὸς ) and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18: 15 – 18) 


I looked up a few translations and realized that McCall is using the New American Standard version. I think it helps to look at several translations.  Let me help: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2018:17&version=NIV;KJV;ASV;NASB;AMP

Notice that other translations do not translate ἐθνικὸς  as "Gentile" but "Pagan" More on this later. 



Here we have a Jesus doing no miracles, but just talking to his disciples about how to deal with a sinful brother. So an excellent question would be to ask why is a Jewish Jesus –who was not a Christian and never attended a religious meeting called a church (Greek word “the church” (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ))- giving Church Discipline? 

Hold up and let's get rid of this when McCall attempts to butcher answering the question.

Secondly, why are gentiles (non-Jews) and tax collectors (Jews who worked for Rome) excluded from salvation by having committed some unpardonable sin? 

Looking  at the Greek of the text makes these issues much clearer. ἐθνικὸς means more than just "gentile". McCall erroneously and humorously thinks that Jesus hated Gentiles.  The word means the following:

1. adapted to the genius or customs of a people, peculiar to a people, national

1. suited to the manners or language of foreigners, strange, foreign

1. in the NT savouring of the nature of pagans, alien to the worship of the true God, heathenish

1. of the pagan, the Gentile

For Jews, Gentiles were people who were godless. No where does the Bible tell us that all Gentiles are godless and by godless I mean not worshiping the one true God. 

The word church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) only occurs three times in the Gospels. Of these, all three occurrences are in Matthew (twice in this pericope and once in Jesus’ statement to Peter (Matt. 16: 18 which scholars feel has been interpolated (added) into the story give Peter authority). Yet, it's an acknowledged fact that Jesus was a Jew who attended the synagogue (never the Church) plus, thelingua franca of Jesus was Palestinian Aramaic which had no word for church as Greek did (a term taken over from Greek philosophical schools). 

I disagree that Matthew 16:18 is an extrapolation but that is a rabbit trail I will avoid for now. There wasn't a church for Jesus to go to because He started Christianity. The word church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) does not have solely a Christians context. The word church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) has the lexiconical entry:

a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

1. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

1. the assembly of the Israelites

1. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

1. in a Christian sense

1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

1. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

1. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

1. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

1. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

There was not yet a Christian sense when Jesus said this so I see no reason to assume such a context. 

Apologetically, one pastor tried to explain some of the contradiction by telling me that Jesus (as both God and all knowing) knew the Church would appear after his ascension to Heaven (Acts 1), so he was simply prophesying Church Discipline.

My counter to his response was that if Jesus (as an all knowing God) really did know the Church was coming, then why didn’t Jesus also know that gentiles would be a major part of it? Why did JesusNOT know about the strong conflicts between Peter and Paul over gentiles? What was the whole purpose of the “pillars” council concerning gentiles in Acts 15 headed by Jesus’ brother James? 

I think McCall is missing something. Although the word church (ἐκκλησίᾳ) is not in Aramaic, I wondered how the passage would work in Aramaic? You can find out. http://www.peshitta.org/ Remember to read it right to left!! You will see that there is a word being used "Congregation". And it's used in the Old Testament. 

1. Psalm 26:12
   My feet stand on level ground; in the great congregation I will praise the LORD.
   
2. Psalm 68:26
   Praise God in the great congregation; praise the LORD in the assembly of Israel.
   

Congregations is what God's people had before we had churches. 

Conclusion
Like the conflicts and contradictions in the Birth Narratives and the Resurrection Stories; what we have in this pericope is a firsthand look at how the Jesus tradition was put together though totalcreative fabrication (lies). What we have in Matthew’s Gospels a total anachronistic screw up of the facts in order to give credence and total truth to the Church! 

Harry McCall

Yeah just like the conflicts and contradictions in the Birth Narratives and the Resurrection stories, this one is also bogus. Also the Bible does not teach that the total truth is the Church. Some churches teach that. The Bible teaches total and complete truth is the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Debunking Christianity: The Gospel of Matthew Caught In A Lie