Response to Top 10: Problems with Baby Jesus « Rationalists's Blog Part 1

I received a link to this post from TheGodless on Twitter. Apparently, he seems to think that this article gives 10 good reasons to disbelieve the stories of Jesus' birth as found in the Bible. Just in time for Christmas! Oh Joy. I'm amazed that people keep bring up these points that are easily refuted and have been refuted. I've got to admit that the name of the blog on which this was posted make me laugh at the contradiction: Assuming that the writer is an atheist, how can you be "rational" (the name of the blog) and hate God although he assumes God does not exist. If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny. Therefore, I will take each of his 10 points and make comments.

1. Mark being the first of the synoptic gospels makes no mention of Jesus being born of a virgin. Matthew & Luke, the other two synoptic gospels, have differing reasons for Jesus’ immaculate conception.

So what? Mark does not discuss any of Jesus' life before his ministry began. Matthew and Luke does talk about his birth. There is no reason to dismiss Matthew or Luke or Mark because neither one conflicts with the other just because one offers details the others do not. Who are you to tell Mark how to write his gospel? In addition several commenters on the original post pointed out that "immaculate conception" historically does not refer to Jesus but to Mary and that does not go back to the first century. Jesus' being born of the Virgin Mary goes back to the beginning. No where does the Bible say Mary also had virgin birth.

2. Matthew, a Greek speaking non-Jew, goes to extraordinary lengths to match Jesus’ life to Old Testament prophecy. His inadequate Hebrew linguistic skills cause him to make more than 20 interpretative errors of the Hebrew Bible. The glaring error being he cites Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy, which it is clearly is not. Further, he mistakes the Hebrew word ‘alma’ to mean virgin. Thus the Jesus myth of a virgin birth is nothing more than a language balls up.

Again the comments made on the post thoroughly dismiss this point. I wrote about this earlier this week myself at Biblical Exegesis: Isaiah 7:14

3. Luke, the only other gospel to mention virgin birth, does not make any reference to the prophecy as being the reason for Jesus’ non-sexual conception.

Seriously?!!! Luke does not contradict the prophecy and nor does he say that there is no prophecy of Jesus’ non-sexual conception. There is no point to be made here.

4. Luke writes that Jesus was born when Quirinius was the governor of Syria! Problem is that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 10 years after the death of Herod. Which means Matthew can’ be right with his claim that Herod was king at the time of Jesus’ birth.

Well, that's not quite true. We know that Quirinius was in Syria between 8 and 5 BC. No where in the Bible says that Quirinius was called "governor" it says that he was governing. Quirinius was running the first census during the time of Jesus' birth. You can read a great post about this at Historical Evidence for Quirinius and the Census.

5. Despite extensive records of King Herod’s reign there is no mention of a baby killing edict of children under the age of two in the Bethlehem vicinity.

Common Sense! Herod was so willing to endear himself to the Jews by spending considerable time and money on the temple in Jerusalem, do we really think that he would keep records that he massacred innocent male babies in Bethlehem? Besides this Bethlehem was a small town. With a population as estimated to be about 1000 citizens we can surmised that there were about 10-30 babies killed - horrible as that is. And of course anyone who knows anything about Herod "The Great" knows that such a thing was well possible given his character. Here is another great article on this subject: Did Matthew Fabricate the Account of Herod’s Slaughter of the Bethlehem Infants?

Top 10: Problems with Baby Jesus « Rationalists's Blog

Atheism is Dead: Atheism is Dead—God

Mariano has posted a recommendation of a book by Norman Geisler. I love the title and the cover. I will get to read this book!

Atheism is Dead: Atheism is Dead—God

Is Hell Endothermic or Exothermic?

When I was in college in 1997,. there was an e-mail floating around that I thought was hilarious. I was so green then, i took it as a true, but humorous story about a student who got a question a final exam in science that is nigh impossible to answer. At the time i thought that it was plausible because there are some mean-spirited hazing  professors in academia.. It is however just a joke. I have found several versions of it. Here is the one most like the first one I saw.

Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:

1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."

The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.

The most funny alternative ends with hell being endothermic.

If we accept the postulate given to me by Sandra during my freshman year, that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is extinct…leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being - which explains why, last night, Sandra kept shouting
"Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY
"A".

I know what you are thinking: it's just a joke why bring it up? or "what's Endothermic/exothermic?". Endothermic means absorbs heat and exothermic means gives off heat. As for the reason for bringing it up, other than I think it's funny, is because it shows a lack of understanding theology and where faulty premises can lead you astray. Here are some examples?

1. Souls do not have mass, but just because something is immaterial does not mean it does not exist. The Bible tells us that both those going to heaven and those going to hell will get new bodies...that I think will have mass.
2. The Bible says that hell is enlarging itself

Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied. Proverbs 27:20

Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. Isaiah 5: 14

3. Assuming that all humanity is going to hell is assuming that all religions are wrong. That can't be assumed without proof.
4. I don't think that there is enough information to say whether of not hell is exothermic or endothermic.
5. It doesn't matter because hell and death will be cast into the lake of fire. - Revelations 20:14

The only way out of finding out first-hand if hell is endothermic or exothermic is to put your trust in Jesus and believe.

snopes.com: Endothermic or Exothermic?

Posted using ShareThis