Well, golly, hi, everyone! I'm just so excited to be doing this. If you don't know me, I'm one of JP's favorite toons these days; there are a lot of us (we sometimes call him "Dad" but don't let that out) and since we have a lot of time on our hands between panels, JP has decided to let us write answers to some of the more stupid Skeptics who send him stuff. And gosh, stupid isn't even a strong word for this Stephen Van Eck guy. I mean, the man sends around junk mail like it was being used to heat Pittsburgh!

Anyway, JP handed me a bunch of scrap paper this Eck guy sent him with all sorts of goofy stuff on it in the same Unabomber type he likes. One thing here says that Joshua 11:15-17 is some sort of problem because -- oh wait, JP told me I should quote these things when I use them. Hang on -- open, copy, paste, ta da!

Joshua 11:15-17 As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same; Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them.

OK, so like, this absolute moron Van Eck says, that this "must mean that [Joshua] succeeded in wiping out all seven nations specificed in Deuteronomy 7 & 20" and then he makes a big deal over how there were still Canaanites around in Joshua 16 and later in Judges. Duh! I mean, come on! Where I'm from we don't have your Bible, of course, but it doesn't take a lot of brains to see that if this really were an error, it would be one of the stupidest ever made, so stupid that this Eck character must think Joshua ran face first into walls all the time. I mean, come on, the context itself says specifically what Joshua did. How in the heck does Eck take v. 15 to say that in that instant, Joshua went out and fulfilled every jot and tittle of unfulfilled command? I guess he's reading that "nothing" like some sort of pathological literalist. Good grief! How much brains does it take to see that "nothing undone" refers to what happened within the specific context of previous parts of the story, the places where Joshua DID conduct war and followed the commands for it right? I mean, if you wanna be THAT pathological, why not say that 11:15 means that Joshua ALSO did what the Lord commanded Moses not just in Deut. 7 and 20, but also say back in Egypt when Moses was commanded to do all sorts of stuff? Why not say it also applies to when God commanded Moses to approach the burning bush? I mean, COME ON, guys, this is ridiculous! I think Van Eck needs to lay off the mercury-laden fish for a while.

By the way, Eck also makes a big deal over what he says is archaeological evidence that Israel "gradually infitrated" Canaan instead of conquering it, like he thinks the Bible says. JP says he doesn't get into this subject, but he does have this book by a guy named Kenneth Kitchen (gosh, is he married to someone named Betty Bedroom???) who says that the whole idea of reading out of the Bible some big fighting conquest is wrong anyway. Kitchen says that if you read the Bible closely, what you find IS more like an infiltration than a conquest. But if you want more of that JP says go to this place.

Ok, so what else do we have here? Oh, please! Now this is a really sick item here, where Van Eck makes fun of Ezekiel for doing stuff like lying on his side for 430 days and calls it "bizarre". I swear, some of these guys are such bigots! I mean, as JP said someplace, this is just like "performance art" you guys sometimes do in your world. Even a Skeptic by the name of Callahan knew that much, and he's no smarter than Van Eck is! Guys, Zeke wasn't "crazy" or anything like that when he did this, as Eck (eck!) says. This is just Eck acting like some Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan who would have as much appreciation of Louis Armstrong as Eck does of Ezekiel. Oh yeah, he also mentions some prophecy about Tyre. JP says send him here (though, like, I get the idea that Eck is way behind on repying to what JP has sent him back already!).

OK, that leaves one more sheet and JP said he saved the best for last. I guess I'd better do this first -- copy, paste, blase squase.

Luke 11:37-44 And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

OK, so like, Van Eck once again makes some big deal about this and asks a bunch of really dumb questions, but I better explain WHY they're dumb first. Now you see, JP has told you guys a lot about how the world of the Bible was, like, an "honor and shame society," right? We got some of those too, where I live, and even though I don't live in one of them myself, I do have some good friends from there (Brett and Annabelle Ketterling -- she's so sweet!) so I do understand how things work for them. Now first of all Eck makes a big deal over how the Pharisee was sure nice to invite Jesus to dinner, and how rude it was for Jesus to argue with him. Ha ha! Hogwash! Van "Ick" definitely had never been in any kind of honor and shame setting himself to say something stupid like this. First of all, Eck is shooting the moon if he thinks the Pharisee was being "nice" by inviting Jesus to dinner. He wasn't! Put it this way: It's like you invited Jed Clampett to dinner knowing the place would be filled with people like Thurston Howell the Third. (Yeah, we have some of your old shows on my world; don't ask how we get them. No one wants them.) The whole point of the invitation was not to be nice to Jesus, but to embarrass him in front of the other guests! The whole thing is what you call an "honor challenge" -- and Jesus can't refuse to come, because to do so would be like admitting he's a loser already. The Pharisee asks that question as a challenge -- think of it! He asks this in front of everyone, knowing Jesus has a reputation as a teacher, and so he himself makes a big deal ("marvelled" -- what a funny word!), and that would mean here he probably loudly commented at the table about how that dumb rube Jesus didn't wash before dinner. (Oh by the way, this refers to ritual and public washings that the Pharisees would do to show off how closely they followed the law -- not to your ordinary santizing wash.) The whole point was to shame Jesus in front of everyone else and try to hurt his reputatation as a teacher. Well, guess what! In that case, Jesus' reply is just what the doctor ordered. He's got the Pharisees trying to shame him, so the proper response for an honorable person in his time is to fight fire with fire! I mean, LOOK -- the Pharisee ALSO invited all sorts of scribes and stuff who were WAAAY above Jesus in the public honor department, and even Eck admits that Jesus was just some itinerant preacher, so does he really think the Pharisee was being NICE when he made the invitation?!? Give me a break!!!

Van Eck makes a few other dumb statements, too, about how he thinks Christianity was a "Gentile cult" and all sorts of other crap, and how he thinks the Pharisees were "unfairly maligned" by this passage and others, but look guys -- if he doesn't even know how to read Luke 11 in light of honor and shame principles, he sure as Eck doesn't have any of THAT right either. Eck doesn't get it -- sure, the Pharisees had some respect from the people at large, but that's only because they shared a common enemy: the oppressive priestly caste and their Roman masters. And the way it works in these societies is, the enemy of your enemy is your friend -- at least where you have common interests. The everyday people liked the Pharisees for some things, but on others they didn't -- what Jesus says here is exactly what we would expect when there was interaction between the Pharisees and the peasant class. And if an Eck is too stupid to know better, I'd like to know if he thinks the Essenes "highly respected" the Pharisees! (JP found me something neat here which says: Seeking holiness the Pharisees sought to integrate the priestly standards of ritual cleanliness and Temple purity into their private lives (Neusner 1979:89). The reputation of the Pharisees was as the most observant in the land (Josephus Wars 1.5.2; Whiston 1957:614) and "the strictest sect" of the Jews (Acts 26:5). They were not particularly popular with the Judean public although Josephus, a Pharisee himself, wanted his readers to believe they were (Josephus Antiquities 13.10.6; Whiston 1957:397). The general public tended to hold them in awe but as a rule did not join in their religious fervor. The Pharisees, on the other hand, restricted their dealings with the public whom they regarded as lax in matters of the law (Wyatt 1986:822). That fits right in with what I've been saying, thanks, Dad! -- er, I mean, JP!)

OK, well, that's about all I can stand of this drivel, that's for sure. I don't know how in the world JP puts up with these creeps like Van Eck all the time. I mean, he STILL hasn't replied to JP on ANYTHING, like on Mithraism, or Bible contradictions, or Gnosticism, or anything. I really don't blame JP at all for asking us toons to respond to Van Eck so that he doesn't have to waste time doing it. Well, we're always glad to help out. So see ya'll some other time, huh?