Response to Top 10: Problems with Baby Jesus « Rationalists's Blog Part 2

Here is part two of my response to a tweet from TheGodless of a article that laughably tries to poke holes in the Christmas story as told in the Gospels. Again I have provided the title of the blog for laughs. His comments are quoted as he published them with mine following.

6. Despite extensive accounts of Caesar Augustus’ reign there are absolutely zero mentions anywhere that an empire wide census for which all citizens had to return to their ancestral home to register. NONE! And furthermore – how could such a thing ever logistically take place, for example –  the Bible says that Joseph must return to Bethlehem because his ancestor David was born there, but David lived 1000 years before Joseph. Do you seriously believe that every citizen living under the Roman empire was required to return to the homes of their ancestors from 1000 years prior??

This has been used too often to count. Let's try again and look at  Quirinius and the Census
and take a look at the following link also to see evidence for why we know the Census really did take place: Was Luke Wrong about the census under Quiriniua? and When Did the Luke 2 Census Occur?

7. Matthew writes than Joseph was pissed off  upon discovering that Mary was pregnant. He retires to bed that night, presumably with intentions to kill her the next morning as per Mosaic law, but an angel appears to him in a dream to comfort him that she is carrying the Holy Spirit’s child. Whereas Luke writes that Mary is unaware that she is pregnant but an angel appears to her to advise she is carrying God’s baby.

First the way the point is worded is highly misleading. It makes it seems like Jesus' conception was sexual and it wasn't. Secondly, although Joseph by right of Jewish law could have had Mary stoned, the text clearly states that he had no intention of shaming her or publicly punishing her. Thirdly,  the point that Mary did not know she was pregnant until an angel told her is false. When Gabriel appeared Mary was not pregnant yet! If the point here is that Luke and Matthew disagree then there is no point because there is no disagreement...both are true. Joseph got the information about how Jesus was conceived from an angel in a dream and Mary got it months earlier from an angel before she was even pregnant. There is no problem.

8. Matthew writes that three wise men are guided by a star from the east that leads them to Jerusalem. The star takes a breather. Starts up again and leads them to the very house that baby Jesus was born in. A star!!! Amazing shit isn’t it? Think about it, a star a million times bigger than earth parked above a small building? We can forgive the author of Matthew for this mistake as they believed stars to be basketball size fire balls 2000 years ago, but we can’t forgive those that believe this fable true today.

 As pointed out in the comments section on the article that this post is based, Matthew does not tell us how many wise men there were. Tradition assumes three because there were three gifts named that they brought the baby Jesus...I also would surmise the tradition of three wise men was also influenced by the Trinity Doctrine. However, the point is we don't know how many wise men visited the Baby. As for the star, I think the writer of the article is being too literal. Yes many stars are millions of times larger than the earth, however if the star was say millions of miles away, wouldn't it appear to be able to mark out a small building? Get real.  Of course the Bible is not describing a ball of fire "basketball size". Many debate about what the star really was. The Christian Research Journal published a great article on this. Read it here: http://www.equip.org/articles/the-star-of-bethlehem

9. Luke writes that shepherds are lead to the new born baby Jesus by an angel that visited them in a nearby field. Matthew wrote something completely contradictory (see point 8 )

The wise men (the Magi) were coming from much farther away and arrived maybe as much as two years after Jesus' birth. The shepherds' experiences of seeing the mulitude of angels heralding our Lord and Savior's birth was the same night as the birth. How is that contradictory? It is not!

10. Many other irreconcilable discrepancies of the gospels illustrated in the New Testament chapters of ‘God Hates You. Hate Him Back’ (Making Sense of the Bible) available now on Amazon or Barnes & Noble

I've written several posts responding to such contradictions. I have seen many people try to show contradiction but they just don't work. No way does it make sense. It's been 2000 years, does anyone think they can come up with a fresh contradiction that has not been refuted yet? I don't think so either. This list sure doesn't add anything new.

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

Apologetics 315: The Theological Roots of Modern Science by Henry F. Schaefer MP3 Audio

Image via Wikipedia

I just heard a great lecture by Dr. Henry Schaefer. He was talking about how almost all of the greatest scientists of the past 2000 years were at least religious if not full-blown Christians.  I've heard of Schaefer before and then I realized why: he said that used to be a chemistry professor at UC Berkeley and he used to teach freshmen Chemistry. I took that class myself, but not from him.. If he taught chemistry as well as he delivered this lecture, then his students were extremly blessed!

Apologetics 315: The Theological Roots of Modern Science by Henry F. Schaefer MP3 Audio

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 4

Image by JL Outdoor Photography via Flickr

I came across a blog article attempting to systemize the "cultic" beliefs of Doug Wilson. I like Doug Wilson and I have been blessed to hear some of his lectures and debates and I am quite impressed. The writer of this particular article is not impressed or happy in the slightest regrading what Dr. Wilson stands for. I'd like to respond to this writer because I want to affirm that about a great many things Wilson is correct. This fourth post deals with Doug Wilson's stance on: church and state, non-Christians, Environmentalists, and pluralism. My comments will be in read, the writer of the original article's words will be black.

On Church and State
If the judge can't figure out what the proper biblical punishment should be for a crime, then the judge must take the case to the church (Doug Wilson's church). The church (Doug Wilson) will then decide what the Bible says the punishment must be and the judge "wields the sword." The ultimate authority for every matter is the church (you know who's church). Everyone must be a member of and submit to Doug Wilson's church.

God has established the magistrate for the purpose of executing His wrath, but He has not made the civil ruler the exclusive authority on the question of when wrath is appropriate. If a matter is too hard for the judges to determine with the knowledge at hand, then they are commanded to take the question to the church for clarification. The church decides, based on God's Word, what judgment should be carried out, and the judges are obliged to pronounce sentence accordingly.
The state wields the sword, and must wield it in submission to God's law. But if the law is not clear on a particular point, and the state has a question about what God's law requires, it is powerless to interpret Scripture on its own authority. Instead, the state must take the question to the church, which has been charged with protecting, interpreting, and teaching the law of God. The leaders of the church are instructed to make a judgment as to what the law requires, but the church does not thereby take up the sword. Rather, the judgment is passed back to the state, and the magistrates then wield the sword in a manner consistent with the judgment of the church.
[I]t is not enough that the civil government give Christianity a place at the table, even if it is the most honored place. … Nor is it sufficient that the magistrate render "personal submission to the spiritual government" of the church. While our rulers should be members of Christ’s covenant household … a Christian who is also an executive, legislator, or judge owes a duty of submission different than that of the ordinary layman.

I do find my self disagreeing with Wilson on this point because i can find nothing in scripture that says civil authorities should take anything to the church. In fact I find the opposite.

 ¹If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? ²Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ³Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! ⁴Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!^{[a] 5}I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? ⁶But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
 ⁷The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? ⁸Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
 ⁹Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ¹⁰nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:1-11

In addition, I doubt Wilson mean his own personal local church, but the Christian, Jesus-following, church.

On Non-Christians All citizens would be required to to take oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship. "Reforming the State ... is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion." We should have the courage to punish heretics, apostates, blasphemers, swearers, sabbath-breakers properly. (They should all be killed.)

[T]he political leader is the head of the civil covenant. If that head acknowledges that his authority comes from God (as he should), is it enough that he honors God personally? … Or can he also require, for example, oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship? (Before you balk, keep in mind that we don't have any problem saying pledges of allegiance to mere flags or the nations for which they stand.) Again, we have no problem making school children dutifully recite the pledge of allegiance, or requiring new citizens to swear oaths of loyalty to the U.S. government. Why can't they also be required to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one true God, and to "zealously renounce all heathen practices?" … Someone who is required to renounce Buddhism as a condition of citizenship is no longer trapped by a spiritual snare, and can't be a snare to anyone else. That is a blessing. Reforming the State is not about forcing people to be Christians. But it is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion. Historically, the civil magistrate has enforced laws against blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, swearing, and working on the Sabbath. The difficulty is not in defining or punishing these crimes; the difficulty is finding the strength and wisdom to do so.

No where in the quote does Wilson talk about killing anyone. And this is the way it was done in theocratic Israel. I don't even think that Wilson is trying to say we should do this, but it would be nice if we could. If we did it God's way would have less problems!

On Environmentalists All environmentalists are anti-Christian and all true Christians are anti-environment.

An environmentalist who seeks to "manage" the environment by letting it run wild is disobeying God's command to fill, subdue, and exercise dominion over the earth. The consequences of environmentalist philosophy are disobedience to God in the short run…. Droughts and famines do not come upon a people who are obedient, but they are promised to those who disobey. An earth left to itself will only yield thorns, thistles, disease, and decay. If Christians are to be obedient to God's dominion mandate, they must oppose the rebellion inherent in environmentalist government policy. (11)

Wilson is not talking about all envrionmentalists. Be honest!!! He referred to managing "the environment by letting it run wild". He points out that is untenable, not that we should not take care of the planet.

On Pluralism There wouldn't be any. Everyone would be forced to belong to the One True Church (Doug Wilson's Church).

[T]he Christian magistrate acknowledges there is such a thing as a true church, and that he has a responsibility to nurture that church so that it thrives and to protect it against those things that threaten to do it harm. Obviously, this excludes the idea of pluralism. (12)

A "true church" does not just refer to his church....but to all who are willing to follow the bible and obey, And by that criteria there is only one  church across several localities and denominations. Puralisim is the thought that all religous beliefs and thoughts are all equally true. Wilson is right.

The writer of the article I am responding to definitely has an ax to grind and misrepresents Wilson and the Bible. It's sad really.

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world?