Texas School Censors Charlie Brown

Is there a single Christmas tradition that progressives will leave alone?!

A Killeen Texas teacher drew administrator’s ire over her posting of a quote from A Charlie Brown Christmas on her classroom door.

In spite of clear state law and clarification from the Texas Attorney General, Killeen ISD is refusing to back off of their decision to force the removal of Linus’ offending quote.

No school official in Texas can silence a biblical reference to Christmas. This is an attack on religious liberty and a violation of the First Amendment and state law. – Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General

It remains to be seen what actions may be taken by Paxton’s office to remedy the action.

Finding Your Safe Space

Liberals may love “safe-spaces” but poor, safety-blanked-clutching Linus can’t catch a break.

What I find particularly sad about this attack on Linus is that he discovers his safe-space during the recitation of the Christmas Story. I only wish that so many progressives could see the parallel with their own search for protection. Linus already found what they are searching for!

Linus and his blanket are inseparable, as he says “Fear Not,” he relinquishes the blanket voluntarily for the remainder of his monologue. This is widely believed to be the only time when he gives up the blanket without protest or significant effort.

It’s in the midst of this heart-felt retelling of Christ’s advent that Linus finds his only true release from fear.

Jesus Isn’t Real and Other Myths

The second emperor of Rome was Tiberius. He reigned from September 18, 14 to March 16, 37. He had been adopted by his father-in-law, Caesar Augustus. It was under Tiberius’s rule that Jesus walked through Judea, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, was buried, descended into hell, and on the third day rose again.

We know Tiberius existed through the historic record and writings of men like Tacitus. But all we know about Tiberius comes from men removed from his reign by about 100 years. We would have no knowledge of Tacitus’s rule but for these men.

Ironically, the earliest historic reference about Tacitus’s reign comes from the Bible.

But as we approach the Christmas season we will not be subjected to “Tiberius is a myth” stories like those peddled by the new atheists about Jesus. We will instead be subjected to “Jesus is a myth.”

This omits the fact that we have six direct eye witnesses writing in the Bible. Matthew, Mark (Peter), Luke, John, James, and Jude were all contemporaries of Jesus. Two of them were either half-brothers or first cousins (James and Jude). Luke, additionally, diligently interviewed eye witnesses. Paul, to an extent, can be considered an eye witness too, but it is clear that Paul was writing at a time when eye witnesses were still alive and could be interviewed.

None of that exists for Tiberius, though, as the picture above shows, we do have physical evidence for Tiberius’s reign, but we have no documentation of that reign within the first 50 years after his death except for the Bible. It is worth noting that many of the same new atheists have for years rejected the Israelite dynasty of King David due to a lack of physical evidence, but more and more of that keeps cropping up too.

The new atheists who are about to take to mainstream newspapers are going to tell you that none of these eyewitnesses really were eyewitnesses, the witness of others as to their veracity like Polycarp for John cannot be trusted, and because we are claiming divinity for Jesus he must be held to a higher standard. Many people will be written out of history or placed at different times in history to make Jesus a myth, which seems like a whole lot of trouble to go through to avoid having to deal with whether or not he is God.

The new atheists pull the sleight of hand of claiming we need more evidence for Jesus since he claimed to be the son of God. It is a sleight of hand because we haven’t gotten to that point yet. We’re just dealing with whether or not Jesus existed historically. What the new atheists want to do is reject historic standards of proof for the existence of men like Socrates, Tiberius, and even Alexander the Great when it comes to the historic Jesus. They refuse to allow the same standards of evidence.

Back in 2014, the Washington Post ran this Christmas time piece “debunking” the existence of Jesus. As that author’s professor explained, the “Jesus didn’t exist” crowd is the historiography equivalent of “vaccines cause autism.” They’ve got a few Ph.D. folks, but otherwise a lot of conspiracies and “don’t believe your lying eyes” stuff.

Christians believe in Jesus “by faith.” But we do not need faith to recognize he existed. We have eyewitness accounts, we have accounts of Jesus written within his generation, we have significant oral history, and we have a well documented religious movement where people were willing to die for him. We have all the same things used to establish others in history existed, whose existence we do not doubt. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt Jesus’s existence.

As western society becomes increasingly secularized, every Christmas the political left wants to sow more doubts about the authentic life of Jesus. Every year, Christians have an obligation to point out the weight of historic evidence is on our side.

It really tells you how incapable of dealing with Jesus as Lord the new atheists are that they would prefer to write Jesus out of history than deal with the guy who actually existed.

‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ Gets Feminist Harpy Makeover

The Huffington Post is ecstatic over a new version of the Christmas classic, “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” created by a singer-songwriter couple who found the original song “aggressive and inappropriate.”

Apparently, Lydia Liza and Josiah Lemanski found themselves tortured by the unrevealed fate of what they imagine is the date-rape victim described in the tune. “You never figure out if she gets to go home,” worries Lydia to CNN. So they made up new, consent form-approved lyrics, complete with phrases like “You reserve the right to say no,” and hipster favorite Pomegranate La Croix sparkling water replacing that suspicious drink.

Since the dawn of time, men have been trying to convince women to get it on, and women have made them jump through hoops to get there. This basic, politically-incorrect male-female dynamic seems to be lost on millions of my fellow Millennials, so allow me to relieve Lydia, Josiah, and their fellow feminists of their anxieties about the lady’s well-being.

The man and the woman in the song had sex, and they both enjoyed it.

(For my next trick, I’ll explain to you why Jimmy Stewart does a double-take when he sees the bed in his new married home in “It’s A Wonderful Life.”)

Every year, campus feminists and their hysterical media counterparts reiterate their concerns about the song’s “problematic” nature. One feminist columnist could barely stand to listen to the lyrics; “even typing those four, slimy words forced me to take seven showers,” she wrote. Though the critiques range from the laughable to unhinged, all of them focus around the idea that the man in the song is convincing his unwilling partner to stick around, and perhaps drugging her – “say, what’s in this drink?” – to do so.

These staggering misinterpretations of the courtship dance between a man and a woman can only sound reasonable in a culture that insists that there are no differences between male and female sexuality, sex differences in general are a societal construct, and traditional masculine and feminine behaviors are problems to overcome through indoctrination.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, most women enjoy being the object of male pursuit. Most men enjoy pursuing women more when that pursuit has at least the veneer of a challenge. That this even has to be spelled out shows how confused relations between men and women have become in the modern era.

If the 1960s were about sexual “liberation,” the 2000s have been about trying to put that genie back in the bottle through an ever-expanding notion of consent. If the only legitimate reason to condemn sexual activity is lack of consent, it stands to reason that the concept of consent will have to be stretched to cover territory previously governed by archaic notions like fidelity, morality, and loyalty. Enter the affirmative consent contract, because contracts are such well-known aphrodisiacs.

The world wrought by the contradictions and fantasies of modern feminism, besides being ruinous to many young men, is just so d*mned unsexy. No wonder women having casual sex aren’t even getting orgasms out of the deal, and women today report being more unhappy than they did under the dark days of The Patriarchy. Their partners, boyfriends, and husbands (throuple partners?) are asking “may I?” before every step of the deed.

In the new version of the song, when Lydia croons that she really “can’t stay,” Josiah responds with “Baby, I’m fine with that.” Ladies, let me give you a piece of advice. If you’re dating a man who responds to your flirtations with resigned acquiescence, walk out that door and don’t bother coming back, no matter how cold it is outside.

Victim Blaming is Bad…Except When it Defends Terrorists…

In a pretty shocking example of forcing the facts to fit a narrative, ABC News “reported” that last year’s San Bernardino terror attack may have been triggered by Christmas decorations…

Today marks the 1 year anniversary of the terror attacks that resulted in 14 dead and 22 wounded. Apparently ABC needed to blame the victims before the 1 year mark hit, so they released this crock yesterday.

Let’s get this out of the way at the start: there is no excuse for murdering civilians. Yet this article takes two small pieces of evidence and construes them as the entire motive for the attack. The logical conclusion of that line is that the victims are to blame for the terrorism. A Muslim man was forced to attend a job training event, at which there was a Christmas tree…so blame the guy who brought the tree and tinsel, not the terrorist with guns and bombs…

Beyond the blatant victim-blaming, what I find disturbing about the article is how far the author had to stretch the facts to arrive at their conclusion!

Police evidence has shown that this attack was in planning long before the Christmas party was scheduled or the offending tree harvested. Straw purchases of firearms were executed, training was carried out, they made bombs, etc. On it’s face, the idea that the Christmas party was what catalyzed the attack is ridiculous.

The article points to an email where the female attacker expressed that, “she didn’t think that a Muslim should have to participate in a non-Muslim holiday or event.” The more reasonable conclusion from this piece of evidence, when taken with everything else we know, is that these guys hated a bunch of stuff about America and this was one thing, among many, that they hated.

ABC’s supposed reinforcement of the victim-blaming is that they assert the terrorist couple didn’t actually have ties to ISIS or a terror organization, so they must have been acting alone. Therefore adding weight to their theory that the Christmas tree, not Islamic Radicalism catalyzed the attack…

Evidence to refute their ties with ISIS is a google search for the name of the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Their speculation is that if the terrorists were googling the name of their supposed leader then they probably weren’t really affiliated that closely.

Little enough information is shared about this evidence that I will limit my own interpolation of the data. However, I will tell you that I’ve used google to figure out how to spell more than a few difficult words. It seems possible that a couple terrorists might want to double check the spelling of their leader’s name before getting themselves killed.

It’s possible that we will never know the level to which the terrorists were tied in with ISIS but the degree to which they were self-radicalized or worked with an official terrorist organization doesn’t change the culpability of some freaking Christmas tree or the victims of this horrific attack.

Our thoughts and prayers should be with the victims of these monsters as  they’re mourning great loss and horrific pain. Blaming them for this atrocity as they deal with its first anniversary is unconscionable.


Merry Christmas

I wish you and yours a wonderful and Merry Christmas.

God bless,

— Erick

The Gospel of John 1:1-18

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’ ”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

The Gospel of Luke 2:1-20

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

The Gospel of Matthew 1:18 – 2:12

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel

(which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

“And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.”

Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

From Eden to a Manger

For two years I struggled intensely with the idea of going to seminary. It is something I wanted to do, but I kept putting off. The timing did not seem right.

But as I spend more time writing about “You Will Be Made to Care” and faith and cultural topics, I realized that I have a ministry whether I want to believe it or not. I have a pulpit and a flock and an obligation.

The Bible is very clear about shepherds who lead the flock astray.

I’m not a traditional minister. I will probably never have an M.Div. But my conscience demanded I improve my own learning on the subject of the Bible lest I lead anyone astray.

So I enrolled at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. I’m just taking one class a semester. My first class was Covenant Theology. Most everyone told me I was jumping off the deep end and would be overwhelmed.

I actually found the whole experience deeply and richly rewarding. And it prepared me to do my first ever Christmas Eve special on the radio.

I have a massive audience on a daily basis between television, the internet, and radio. I want to be able to glorify God in what I do. It has all come together for this hour of radio.

I invite you to listen.

To Understand the Beginning of the End, You Must Understand the End of the Beginning

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And it was perfect until temptation and sin crept in. In the last 24 hours, left-wing articles have attacked Christianity, accused God of raping Mary, and denied there is a deity at all. They have no understanding of either the theology or history of Christmas.

For sane people, to understand what this is all about, we need to go back to near the very beginning.

The God of all creation tells the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers.” (Gen. 3:15). This is a real and historic event. There was a real Adam and a real Eve — a real first man and first woman.

It is important to note that God tells the serpent that enmity will be between its offspring and the woman’s offspring, not the man’s offspring. In Genesis 5, we get a hint of why. “When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God.” (Gen 5:1) But when Adam had a son, “he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image.” (Gen 5:3) God’s creation was in his image. Man’s creation was in man’s own image. It is a hint of something to come.

In Genesis 9, God establishes his covenant with Noah and sets the sign as a rainbow. The bow, the weapon of that age, points up toward Heaven — God makes his covenant with Noah and the sign he places on it is one of beauty but also metaphorically a tool of destruction that he points away from man and toward himself.

And then we get to Abraham. God establishes his covenant with Abraham and God takes the oath to fulfill the covenant on himself. He tells Abraham

“a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.… Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.… So shall your offspring be.”

Abraham then took a cow, a goat, a ram, a dove, and a pigeon. He slaughtered them, cutting them in half. This was a traditional way of entering a covenant. The party agreeing to the covenant walked between the pieces to symbolically say if he violates the covenant, he will be slaughtered just like the carcasses surrounding him. But Abraham did not walk through the pieces.

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.… When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

God himself walked between the pieces taking upon himself the obligation to fulfill the covenant with Abraham. God himself would submit to be slaughtered in order to fulfill his covenant with Abraham.

In Exodus 2, God heard the groaning of his enslaved people and “remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israel—and God knew.” He set them free, led them through Moses to Sinai, and declared to them “if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” He then gave them the ten commandments. To confirm the covenant, instead of slaughtering animals and passing between the parts, Moses sacrificed oxen

And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

The blood upon the people placed them under the obligation to abide by the covenant with God or risk death.

In 2 Samuel 7, God tells the prophet Nathan to go to King David and tell David that God,

will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’”

The dynasty of David descended into sin, division, and rebellion against God as the Israelites had done before the Kingdom. God told his prophets that a time of exile was at hand. But he had promised Abraham that his would be a great people forever. And God himself had taken the covenant obligations upon himself. He promised Moses and the Israelites a relationship and promised David his throne would be eternal.

After the Kingdom was divided into Israel and Judah, God through the prophet Isaiah in Judah declared, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Immanuel means “God with us.” Isaiah further prophesied:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon[d] his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

Thus God came to the prophet Jeremiah over one hundred years later and declared

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

God told Isaiah that the Virgin would bear a son named Immanuel or “God with us.” Over a hundred years later, God tells Jeremiah that in this new covenant He is creating, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people,” or Immanuel.

More than six hundred years after God spoke through Jeremiah the Angel Gabriel appeared to the Priest Zechariah, declaring that his wife would give birth to John the Baptist. Zechariah, in disbelief, was struck silent. When at last he could speak, he was filled with the Holy Spirit and declared:

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.

Zechariah knew that God was fulfilling now the covenant that he not only made with Abraham, but took upon himself to fulfill.

In so doing, the Apostle Matthew focuses on the lineage of Christ via his earthly father Joseph back to David. But God told the devil, in the beginning, that the enmity would be between the devil and the offspring of the woman. Mary too was a descendant of David. And as the Holy Spirit caused Mary’s conception, unlike Adam bearing a child in his image, the child Jesus was born in the image of God — a second Adam, fully man, but also fully God.

And the boy rose taking on the role of priest, prophet, and king. He then stood in substitution for mankind who had accepted God’s covenant at Sinai with the blood on themselves. Christ shed his own blood fulfilling the prior covenants. And he rose from the dead now our eternal king on David’s throne.

We celebrate Christmas because it is the birth of our Lord in human form. He humbled himself to be born into the form of man, to suffer as all men suffer and to die as no man has died.

We can reason all day about the facts, but in the end it takes faith. I believe the testimony of those who came before me. I believe because they believe. I believe because Christ’s own brothers who rejected him in life were willing to die for him, at no advantage to themselves, after Christ’s resurrection.

God fulfills all his promises, so I know that with Christ’s birth we begin the end. To understand just how significant it is though, we should understand the beginning. God put enmity between the devil and the woman’s offspring who would crush Satan’s head. Then he obligated himself to fulfill his promise to Abraham and took on all mankind’s sins himself, suffering and dying, that we may live and worship him before David’s throne forever.

Through Christ all things are possible and God’s holy word is fulfilled. That is why Christians worldwide will celebrate his birth.

Merry Christmas.

There They Go Again

With metronomic precision each year the national press corps begins running columns by “religion scholars” who wish you to know that Jesus Christ is a fictional character. Mind you, no newspaper of note in the world is brave enough to run a similar story about the Prophet Mohammed.

The latest comes from a “lecturer in religious studies” from Australia named Raphael Lataster. The Washington Post felt compelled to run this so the godless heathens in Washington, D.C. can continue on with no consequence.

According to Mr. Lataster, “There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased.” These biased, non-eyewitness accounts include the writings of the Apostles Matthew, Peter, and John all three of whom were standing near the cross on which the magical mythological Jesus was nailed. They were just, one might suppose, looking in a different direction.

Then, of course, there are the books of James and Jude in the Bible, written by the brothers of Jesus. There are also the several letters written by Paul, who claims Jesus appeared in physical form to him after Jesus’s death. Lastly, there is Luke, a doctor, who interviewed many eyewitnesses including the imaginary Mary, mother of the imaginary Jesus.

Mr. Lataster must write out of history many people we know existed in order to write Jesus out of history. His dismissal of all scholars who disagree with him is pretty staggering. One must wonder if he is also prepared to write out of history Socrates who, like Jesus, never wrote anything himself. Others wrote about him after he died.

That the Washington Post and other news outlets feel compelled, each year, to point out that Jesus is a myth is telling in and of itself. They lack the bravery to do it about Islam’s top prophet because Christians will turn the other cheek whereas muslims would kill them. For any who disagree, just review the book stores bombed for carrying Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” or the riots against cartoonists who drew Muhammed.

The only really remarkable thing about the media effort to cast doubt on Jesus’s existence is that the press usually finds an Episcopalian priest or Jesuit scholar to do it. They first attack the virgin birth as an interpretation then end up at Jesus dying and his resurrection being only metaphor. Rarely do they go straight to the atheist religious scholar.

The common thread of all these columns, articles, and expositions are unbelievers writing to reassure other unbelievers at a time of year billions of people are celebrating either the miraculous burning of oil for eight days or a virgin giving birth to a child. The secular left can abide no miracles.

For the rest of us, it is worth reflecting on what did happen two thousand years ago. A virgin gave birth to a child fulfilling a prophesy made at the beginning of time in the fifteenth verse of the third chapter of the first book of the Bible. “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

The prophet Isaiah, nearly 750 years before the birth of Jesus, said God told him, “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” The Apostle Matthew, a friend of Jesus, wrote that Mary was a virgin and Jesus’s birth fulfilled Isaiah’s prophesy.

Non-Christian scholars and poseurs within the faith argue over Isaiah’s word choice, but the Christian’s scripture gives no choice. It is a fundamental belief of the faith that Christ was born of a virgin and rose again from the death. Take away either and we are left with just a man, not a God.

Several billion people around the world believe Jesus is real. We can also hold with equal certainty that a century from now several billion will still believe that and no one will remember the name of Raphael Lataster.

The post There They Go Again appeared first on RedState.