Hubner Compares Self to O. Palmer Robertson

Evidently, Jamin Hubner and O. Palmer Robertson share a similar view regarding Israel on some points.  Hubner seems to think that consistency demands that if he (Hubner) is a "dupe for the jihadists" and is "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments," then the same must be true of Robertson.

There's a fundamental flaw in Hubner's reasoning.  Hubner has some "main points" in mind, and he thinks that Robertson shares his opinion on those main points.  Perhaps Robertson does.  Yet it wasn't the "main points" with respect to which "dupe for the jihadists" and "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments" were used.

In fact, Hubner himself had complained that his critics were not addressing his main points.  So, one might think he would realize that it doesn't resuscitate his use of bad sources and bad arguments to find someone who agrees with the points he was trying to make.

Let me try to simplify the point for Hubner: if you argue Man is mortal; Socrates is an ox; therefore Socrates is mortal, you have reasoned fallaciously and from an untrue premise.  If you come along and say "Einstein agrees with me that Socrates is mortal," that does not revitalize either your claim that Socrates is an ox, or your fallacious reasoning.  Consistency doesn't demand that we criticize Einstein, because Einstein didn't reach his conclusion the same way you did.  Capisce?

Analogously, using a source that is a shill for Hamas is still using a bad source and using an invalid argument that supports Arab claims is still supporting Arabs with unsound arguments, whether or not O. Palmer Robertson thinks that “Never can the promise of the land be properly claimed by those who fail to exercise true faith and faithfulness in the Redeemer provided by the Lord of the Covenant.”

So, when Hubner asks, in his article: "…But, for some reason I don’t suspect Robertson and those who endorsed his book (RC Sproul, Robert Reymond, Richard B. Gaffin) will earn any terrorist associations, titles of mockery or titles of supporting any particular race (e.g. Arabs) for saying the same things I’ve said. I wonder why?"  The reasons may be several: they don't actually say the same thing, they don't say it the same way, and they don't have the same emotional reaction to criticism of their arguments and sources.

- TurretinFan

One God and One Lord

In Dr. White's recent debate with Patrick Navas, I was struck by Navas' attempt to say that Paul is distinguishing between Lord and God in 1 Corinthians 8:6  But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Keep in mind that the Shema actually begins:

Deuteronomy 6:4  Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 

Mark 12:29  And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And one of God's titles is "Lord God"

Ezekiel 5:8  Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations. 

Revelation 18:8  Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

So, to say that we have only "one Lord" to exclude the Father from that title seems blasphemous, at best.  Moreover, later in Jude this very title ("Lord God") is applied to Jesus:

Jude 1:4  For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course, Navas may attempt to view the "and" there as disjunctive, but if he does there are now seemingly two lords.

So, it seems that Navas cannot consistently maintain this argument.

-TurretinFan

Sex Abuse Scandals and the Roman Communion

Another case of a sex abusing priest who was shuffled off to another parish without the police being alerted was recently report (link to story)(Updated link provided by a diligent reader). There are doubtless some people who will be glad to learn that this abuser was neither a pedophile nor a homosexual (though the priest's sexual preferences seem to have been for acts that don't require an adult woman). Two archbishops are implicated by the story: former archbishop Harry Flynn (now Archbishop Emeritus) and his successor archbishop John Nienstedt.  In an interesting ironic twist, Harry Flynn is (or at least was) chairman of a United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) committee on sexual abuse (of course, there's an even worse irony that recently came to light with respect to the investigation of paedophilia by Rome's finest).

But what of it?  After all, we recently heard about a story of sexual abuse by men from a college football program.  What's the difference?  One difference is that Rome claims to be a divinely ordained organization, "the Church," and not simply a self-perpetuating institution seeking worldly fame and glory.  A football program fits the latter category.

Another difference is that this is the first such scandal for that college.  It's not the first such scandal for Rome.

A third difference is that, from what we can tell, those in the football program actually did report the abuse to the appropriate authorities.

Perhaps we could go on and on.  The bottom line, however, is that both scandals illustrate institutions that seem to think that they are not required to play by the same rules as the rest of society - which think that they are above the law, for lack of a better term.

I don't think Christ came to establish a denomination.  That said, if Christ had established a denomination, would we expect it to be better or worse than a college football program?

-TurretinFan

Joseph - Widower with Older Children? Nieces and Nephews?

A friend of mine pointed me to an interesting exchange of the blind leading the blind over at the "Catholic Answers" forums.

A first poster ("Glomung") wrote:

A very simple explanation for the whole scenario is that Joseph was a widower, who already had several children. This explains Jesus' brothers and sisters. Joseph happened to be the only bachelor in town, so when Mary came of age, the local Rabbi pushed Joseph to marry her, [Joseph] was not too thrilled with the idea (been there/done that, don't need another mouth to feed) explains Josephs' reluctance. Also when she turns up pregnant Joseph is not overly irked (she's just a kid, you know how they get into mischief). He doesn't take all of it too seriously until the angel has a chat with him.

He never has sex with her because of "pick one", too old, not interested, she's God's gal, like a daughter, whatever the reason that explains the "ever virgin". That is also why he is not present in any of the rest of Jesus' life, he has died of old age.

Then, a second poster ("ConstantineTG") replied:

He wan't the only bachelor in town. The priests of the temple wanted had to remove Mary from the temple because she was of age, and the concern is that women of age may lose their virginity which then would defile the temple. But they wished to preserve the virginity of the temple virgins so they sought older widowers who have no interest in having children (and probably have no ability to do so anyway) to take her as a wife (but in reality be more of a guardian). So they called all the old widowers in town to the temple, and the Holy Spirit showed the priests a sign that Joseph is the chosen one (a dove landed on Joseph). And thus Mary was betrothed to Joseph.

Joseph was indeed irked that Mary was pregnant because of the trouble it would bring to him. After reading the Protoevangelium of James, Joseph's reactions and emotions in the Gospels made sense to me. Also it seems that Joseph handled the situation more maturely. A younger man would have made a big fuss of the issue and ratted Mary out to the pharisees who would have stoned her to death. Joseph seemed to proceed cautiously even though he was distraught by the events.

As to Glomung's comments, nowhere in Scripture is Joseph described as widower.  There is no reliable basis upon which to assert that Josephus was a widower. Likewise, there is no mention of Joseph having any prior children.

There is a good reason to think Joseph didn't have other children from a previous marriage.  Recall that in both the flight to Egypt and the return from Egypt, only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus are mentioned: there is no mention of step-siblings coming along.

Matthew 2:13-23

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him." When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."
But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life." And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

As for whether Joseph was irked, he was ready to divorce her, as it is written:

Matthew 1:18-19

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Joseph was not willing to overlook the assumed adultery.  Instead, he wanted to divorce Mary, although he wanted to do so quietly.

As for Joseph's age, there is no indication that he was particularly old.

As for being in Jesus' life, Joseph was in Jesus' life at least until he was 12:

Luke 2:41-52

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.

And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."

And he said unto them, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Moreover, recall that during Jesus' ministry, people knew of Joseph and of his occupation:

Matthew 13:55-56

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Turning to CTG's comments, whatever makes him think Mary was in the temple?  The Scriptures do not say this, nor is there any reliable evidence she was.  There was no divine appointment for there to be "temple virgins" and virginity was not prized over matrimony in Jewish times.


You will notice to the reference to the Protoevangelium of James.  This is a thoroughly worthless and unreliable source, which was rightly rejected by Christians from the patristic era through the medieval era (as I have previously documented).  Even if it had not been traditionally rejected, consider that it's account in sections 13 and 14 (here is a copy of the text) contradicts the Scriptural account of Joseph's reaction to discovering Mary's pregnancy.  In Scripture, Joseph (being a just man - not as a coward) wants to quietly divorce her.  In the Protoevangelium of James, Joseph wants to divorce her quietly because he is afraid.

Even leaving aside the bizarre sign of a dove emerging from the end of a rod and landing on Joseph's head as a sign that he's supposed to be Mary's guardian in this work, the author of the work shows his only passing familiarity with Hebrew customs, by suggesting that the "waters of ordeal" were to be administered by the priest's order both to Joseph and Mary (whereas the law prescribed the waters only for a woman and only upon the suspicion of infidelity to her husband, at her husband's demand).

And it only gets weirder.  In section 19, Salome meets the midwife, and in section 20 Salome demands to investigate Mary's private parts with her hand to see if she is still a virgin after having given birth.  Her hand then starts to drop off as if being burned by fire until it is cured by holding Jesus.

And yet again, in section 22, the account contradicts the Scriptural account in terms of Herod's slaughter of the children.  Instead of a flight to Egypt, Mary hides Jesus in an ox stall.

There is not really any reason to suppose that anything in the so-called Protoevangelium of James has any reliability of any sort, beyond those parts which are obviously derived from the gospel accounts.  Yet that is what is being relied upon by those who are looking for straws to grasp in defense of the fiction of perpetual virginity.

-TurretinFan