Larry Hurtado on early Chrisitans’ worship of Jesus

Jun 112013
 

jesus on his throneLarry Hurtado is, rightly, one of the most respected historians of early Christianity. His massive Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity is much cited. To new reader, I would recommend his later and shorter How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus as a good starting point. Also notable is his God in New Testament Theology.

Goaded by once fashionable theories that worship of Jesus arose in the second century or later, Hurtado has pulled out all the stops in looking at all the historical evidence, both in and beyond the New Testament. He shows that an intense devotion to Jesus alongside God arose very quickly, and very early, in the first generation of believers in the risen Christ.

I think his work is insightful, and while I disagree with his exegesis of some texts, I find him in general an astute commenter on them, one who is committed, rightly, to understanding them in their own terms, and not reading into them what we would like them to say.

He has never much pursued the theological implications of his discoveries. It is clear to me that he does think the NT strictly identifies the one God with the Father, and with the one god Yahweh of the OT. He’s clear, unlike many Christians, that Jesus and God are two, that they are not numerically identical. He seems to acknowledge that later catholic tradition says that the one God is numerically identical to the Trinity. But he never discusses the fact that this is logically incompatible with the one God being identical to the Father alone. This is hardly just the translation of the NT gospel into the terminology of a different culture, as Hurtado sometimes suggests. He’s holding out hope that some sort of (vaguely social?) trinitarian belief truly does fit well with the NT. That remains to be seen, though, because he says precious little about what such a theology would be. (See e.g. Lord Jesus Christ, 651; God, 99-113; How on Earth, 55)

In this post, I want to highlight one of Hurtado’s key insights about early christology – one which theologians and apologists should pay attention to. I happened to hear a public discussion of his (linked here, last file). Just after the 27 minute mark, Hurtado says

“…I don’t think that we can account for the worship of Jesus, or the level of cultic devotion that was given, on the basis of his historical ministry and reminiscences of that alone. Continue reading »

“Only God can forgive sins.” False.

Jun 062013
 

Here’s the argument discussed:

  1. Only God can forgive sins.
  2. Jesus forgave sins.
  3. Therefore, Jesus is God.   (1,2)

The argument is plainly valid. (That is: if 1 and 2 were true, then 3 would have to be true too.)

But is it sound? (Are both premises true?) One might think so. A Christian, on the basis of the New Testament, must agree with 2. And isn’t 1 obviously true?

Not according to Jesus. Is he your teacher? If so, then you should not make the above argument. Even if 3 is true, the above will not be a sound argument, according to Jesus, because premise 1 is false.

Why? Check out the video above: John Schoenheit of biblicalunitarian.com hits the nail on the head, discussing Jesus’s relevant teachings. (See this too.) In short, God can and does authorize people to forgive sins on his behalf, including both Jesus, and disciples of Jesus. (One should relate this to the theme of Jesus as eternal high priest in Hebrews, and to the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of believers; this is a priestly function.)

Bizarrely, many in catholic traditions agree with Jesus’s opponents’ assumption in Mark 2.

Let’s not ignore and contradict what Jesus says in a misguided attempt to defend him.

Jerry Walls: What is wrong with Calvinism? (Dale)

May 172013
 

Devastating.

I have long noted that Augustinian/Calvinist theology is unpopular among Christian philosophers, though many, like me, go through a Calvinist phase (when I was a sophomore and junior in college), before seeing its problems to be hopeless. Walls concisely and fairly sums up what Calvinism is all about, and then shows it to be profoundly problematic, focusing on philosophical problem rather than biblical ones.

I would add that many of us – many Christians who’ve studied analytic philosophy – are persuaded by the Consequence Argument that compatibilism about human freedom is false, and also that if compatibilism about human freedom were true, then J.L. Mackie would have a sound argument for atheism. Christians need to make the free will defense against that argument, and to do that, you must believe in libertarian freedom. (But, that’s the kind of freedom we all, or almost all, believe in anyway.)

Mysterianism, as Walls points out, is very important to being a Calvinist. They think that “The Bible teaches X” is an answer to any difficulty. But it isn’t – in particular, objections to the effect that the Bible doesn’t actually teach X, and/or that X seems to be a contradiction.

Judging just by a few things he says here, I assume that Walls is a “social” trinitarian; but I don’t think that detracts from his case. And note that God is a “he” throughout.

Note to young professors and grad students – this is how you give a presentation. Note what Walls does.

  • Simple but relevant slides. Not too many. No distractions.
  • Talks loudly, to the audience, moving around.
  • Touch of humor.
  • Knows what Continue reading »

Simplifying the Indiscernibility of Identicals (Dale)

Feb 122013
 

equals - greenI’ve posted quite a few times here before about identity, and about the principle often called “Leibniz’s Law” – the Indiscernibility of Identicals. This is often put:

Necessarily, for any x and any y, x is identical to y only if for any P, x has P if and only if y has P. (Compare, e.g. Colin McGinn, Logical Properties (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 4-7.

I agree with other philosophers that this has apparent counterexamples, if “P” can stand either for any predicate or for any property.

But in my view, the underlying metaphysical intuition – that a thing can’t at one time be and not be a certain way – is undeniable. (And of course, it has important theological implications.)

I would restrict the “P” above to intrinsic properties, if I believed in properties. But I don’t. So I’ve been putting the principle like this:

The Indiscernibility of Identicals: Necessarily, any A and B are identical only if they (1) never have differed, (2) don’t differ, (3) will not ever differ, and (4) could not differ.

This formula doesn’t import any assumptions about property-theory, either for or against. Rather, it uses only a primitive concept of differing, or being different – as to qualitative aspect or way of being, not as to number. I think this well captures the intuition and fundamental conviction noted above.

But it now strikes me that the formula is needlessly complicated. Why not just this? Continue reading »

God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation (Dale)

Nov 032012
 

Here’s a video of my May 2012 talk in Atlanta, “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament.” Many thanks to Sharon and Dan Gill, who filmed, edited, and posted it on their fine website, 21st Century Reformation.

The characteristic thesis of unitarian Christianity (aka Biblical Unitarianism, Christian Monotheism) is that the Father of Jesus just is the one God, Yahweh, and Jesus is someone else.

This is assumed in this passage:

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ (John 20:17, ESV)

Actually, it is consistently assumed in the entire New Testament – there is no difference between authors on this score. But here, it is especially close to the surface, as it were.

And it is explicitly asserted in these:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.  And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3, ESV)

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—  yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:4-6, ESV)

The waters have been muddied by evangelical and Catholic apologists arguing for “the deity of Christ,” and by some big name theologians like Bauckham and Wright arguing that in the last passage Paul “inserts Jesus into the Shema.” In this talk, after I give a quick logic lesson, I discuss how logic helps us to think clearly about these three passages.

You’ll have to watch the video to find out why the Lord is face-palming. :-) Hint: it has to do with an often-misread piece of scripture.

Here’s the screencast version, which I did when I got back from the conference.

Who Should Christians Worship? (Dale)

May 302012
 

Here’s a screencast version of a talk I gave in Atlanta at the 2012 Theological Conference sponsored by the Atlanta Bible College. My thanks to the hosts and audience there for a good discussion.

This version is a bit longer, and I’ve tweaked my definitions of idolatry, I hope making them more accurate.

I believe an actual video of my talk will eventually be posted at the 21st Century Reformation website. The Atlanta version is more conversational and has film of me talking, and I believe it will include the Q&A that followed. I will post links when they are available.

Part 1:

Part 2: Continue reading »

A Tale of Three Kims – Part 2 (Dale)

May 282012
 


To continue:

Jun-suh had heard rumors that both Kim Il-Sung and then later Kim Jong-Il had died. Jun-suh reasoned that since the Great Leader could not die, some foolish people must have mistaken the economic Leader (Leader as manifested to North Koreans, i.e. Kim Jong-un) for the immanent Leader (which is incomprehensibly great). In himself, he is one Leader but is three men. He has manifested himself as such, and we can trust that the economic Leader is the immanent Leader, and vice-versa. He remembered reading this somewhere, and was firmly convinced of it.

His Leaderology was now highly developed. But his friend Seo-yun made one last try to convince him Continue reading »

How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament (Dale)

May 172012
 

Most Christians are (at least in theory, according to creeds and statements of faith promulgated by denominations) trinitarians, believers in a triune or tri-personal God, which they call the Trinity. But some have always been unitarians, believers in one God who is one perfect self, who does not in any way contain three selves or “persons.” Nowadays, these are a minority (again, going by official statements and membership rolls – I think the facts about Christians’ actual beliefs are more complicated than the official documents suggest).

In my view, before around the start of the fifth century, unitarians were always a majority. Of course, they didn’t call themselves “unitarians” – that term is of late 17th c. coinage – but arguably most of them were unitarians - for some arguments read this. (Update: or this series.)

In any case, one can’t determine what is true by taking a vote. Truth may be unpopular. But also, it can be popular. So, who is right?

I propose that the following clear arguments provide a way forward. Which should we accept?

T1 The Father is not the Trinity
T2 The Trinity is God.
T3 Therefore, the Father is not God.

T1 The Father is not the Trinity.
U2 The Father is God.
U3 Therefore, The Trinity is not God.

“Is” here means numerical identity throughout. If x in this sense “is” y (in logic we write x=y) then x and y are one and the same, numerically one thing, numerically identical, and so x and y can’t ever differ in any way. The order doesn’t matter: it will be true that x=y just in case it is also true that y=x. And if it is false that x=y, then x and y are truly two – those terms name different things. To repeat: every “is” in these arguments is the “is” of identity. This is why we’re dealing with clear arguments. We’re not talking about some less close relation or association.

“God” here names Yahweh, the one true God asserted in the Hebrew scriptures.

Each argument is valid; in each case, if both premises were to be true, then the conclusion would also be true.

But we can’t consistently accept both arguments as sound. T2 conflicts with U3, and T3 conflicts with U2 (in both cases the pairs are contradictories – pairs such that one must be true and the other false).

So what to do?

Let us start on common ground. All sides should agree Continue reading »

King of the Non Sequitur (Dale)

May 132012
 

The word is “Therefore…” When you are making a deductive argument, this means that what you are about to say logically follows from (is implied by) what you have just said. That is, if the former part were to be true, what you’re about to say must also be true.

A non sequitur (Latin for: “it doesn’t follow”) is an invalid argument, one in which the premises don’t imply the conclusion, that is, where one could consistently accept all the premises and yet deny the conclusion.

I recently stumbled upon this youtube video, The Trinity Explained (with Reason), featuring a supremely confident sounding young man. I watched amazed, as a torrent of non sequiturs ensued.

If only this fellow was as good at constructing arguments as he as at selecting pictures!

Here are most of them – note that in each case, the step starting with “Therefore” is not implied by the premises.

1. If unitarianism is true, God is more comprehensible than if trinitarianism is true.
2. God is not totally comprehensible and not fully explainable.
3. Therefore, unitarianism is false.

1. Unitarianism is true.
2. Therefore, God is no greater than a human being. Continue reading »

Patton’s problem with Apologists (Dale)

May 072012
 

(click for image credit)

I recently stumbled upon a great post by Michael Patton that just about perfectly expresses how I’ve felt about Christian apologists since growing past teenagerhood.

In part:

This is the problem that I have with some apologists (those who defend the faith). Don’t get me wrong, I believe very much in apologetics and also love many apologists. But very rarely do I find a reasonable apologist. Most are very hardened because they are committed first to defending their particular position, not so much to learning.

Read the whole thing. He also has done a similar post recently.

I would add: apologists too often fall into mere rhetorical violence: hyperbole, attacking a straw man, verbal aggression, smug, acid condescension, simply repeating oneself more loudly, insults, poisoning the well, and so on. And this is leaving aside poorly constructed arguments. Sadly, debates between philosophers (one or both of whom may be atheists) are nearly always ”cleaner” (more reasonably and respectfully conducted) than your average debate between a Christian apologist and anyone else.

I’m always reminded of what James says: Continue reading »

Defining the concept of a Christian unitarian (Dale)

Apr 242012
 

(click for image credit)

Thanks to reader Mike Gant  for his question about my last post.

As of now I think I’ve got a solid definition of the concept unitarian: someone who believes that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) a certain self and not to any other self.

But I then tried to define the more specific concept of a Christian unitarian: someone who believes that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) a certain self, namely the Father, and not to any other self.

But this is not a good definition. Mike asked: what about ancient friends of God like Moses and Abraham?

D’oh! The above definition makes them Christian unitarians. Thus, it is too “broad” or “wide.” Continue reading »

A Tale of Two Tattoos (Dale)

Apr 142012
 

I love philosophy majors. The best of them almost always develop a nerdy and warped sense of humor – and I mean that in the best way. :-)

These two young ladies, recent alumnas of our department, decided to get complementary tattoos. (Sober, they swear!)

In each case, the tattoo artist left off the two initial universal quantifiers: AxAy (I can’t find the symbol codes for the upside down A representing the universal quantifier – so please imagine those A’s upside down.) They would read: For any x whatsoever and for any y whatsoever…

Now to the tattoos. “F” is supposed to be, either a predicate or a property. On the right tattoo (wrist) the right, closing parentheses is just out of view.

One of the tattoos says something nearly all philosophers agree is true (a rarity!) while the other is held to be false by many. Here’s your homework, dear reader: Continue reading »

Scott Williams’s new paper: Henry of Ghent on Real Relations and the Trinity (Dale)

Mar 262012
 

Congratulations to Scott Williams, trinities contributor and newly minted Oxford University PhD in Theology,  on his forthcoming paper:

 ‘Henry of Ghent on Real Relations and the Trinity: The Case for Numerical Sameness Without Identity’, in: Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 79.1 (2012), will be published.

Here is his abstract:

I argue that there is a hitherto unrecognized connection between Henry of Ghent’s general theory of real relations and his Trinitarian theology, namely the notion of numerical sameness without identity.
This last notion can be traced back to Aristotle, and pops up through the middle ages: the basic idea is that an x and y can differ, and so fail to be identical, and yet be “numerically one”. Myself, I deny that there’s any such relation, but some disagree, most notably Mike Rea and Jeff Brower. Here’s a relevant 2007 post featuring Billary.
Theories of real relations… well, Scott should get on here and explain that one! Medieval theories of relations are best left to the specialists. :-)

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 7 – Morgridge on Revelation 4-5 (Dale)

Mar 112012
 

19th c. American minister Charles Morgridge makes an apt comment about Revelation 4-5:

There is not in the Bible a clearer distinction between the only true God, and his only Son our Saviour, than is here expressed. GOD sat on the throne; the Son stood amidst the elders. GOD had in his right hand a book; the Son came and took the book out of his hand. GOD was worshiped as the Being who created all things; and who liveth forever and ever. The Son was honored as the Lamb that was slain, and redeemed us unto God by his blood. And as [in 1 Chronicles 29:20] the whole congregation of Israel bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD and the king, who was but a type of this Lamb; so, in verse 13, the whole universe is represented as ascribing Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, unto HIM that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever. (The True Believer’s Defence, p. 58, bold added)

A couple of other gems:

The word worship is now generally used to express the religious homage due to God. But this is not the only sense Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 5 – An Objection (Dale)

Mar 082012
 

(click for image credit)

If we stick with objections arising from the text of Revelation itself, perhaps the most obvious one is that raised in a comment on previous post by my friend James Anderson. Reformulated by me, it goes:

The text itself (Rev 19:10, 22:9) asserts that we should worship only God. And yes, Revelation plainly implies that Jesus should be worshiped. And so it plainly implies that Jesus is God. 

One might look to one of my favorite translations, the New Living Translation, which has these two verses saying, in part: “Worship only God”.

When you look at the Greek, though, you see that it simply says “Worship God.” Not the same thing! And most translations get this right. (Even The Message and the Good News Bible get it right.)

Where does the “only” come from? From the theological agenda of the translators; they want the text to be making the argument above. So in the ESV Study Bible, which translates these phrases correctly (“Worship God.”) they feel the theological need to add this footnote:

Human beings must not worship even the angels… God alone must be worshiped. Since the Lamb is rightly worshiped (5:8-14), he is God. (p. 2497)

Interestingly, these evangelical commenters agree with those in the recent Jewish Annotated New Testament that Revelation asserts that only God should  be worshiped. In their comment on 19:7-10, they assert that

It is God, not the Lamb/Jesus, who is to be worshiped. (p. 493)

And bizarrely, in their notes on chapter 5, they ignore the obvious fact that Jesus is being worshiped together with God, although they correctly note that

The heavenly song makes a clear distinction between the enthroned one and the sacrificial lamb. (p. 474)

I’m reading between the lines here, and the commenters in this book are understandably very circumspect, but I think their assumption is Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 4 – Implications (Dale)

Mar 062012
 

Last time we carefully read through a heavenly scene in which Jesus is exalted to God’s side and worshiped alongside him.

We saw that it is indisputable that Revelation 4-5 holds forth Jesus as worthy of being worshiped.

But can this help us choose between the dueling arguments from the first post? Yes!

Given that we accept that Jesus ought to be worshiped, we must choose between Only God should be worshiped and Jesus isn’t God because we can’t consistently accept both of these, in addition to the claim that Jesus ought to be worshiped.

Based on our careful reading (Part 2, Part 3) of Revelation 4-5, let us ask which of these John would agree with?

Would John agree that only God should be worshiped?
Plainly not. 

  • Jesus is presented throughout as someone else. In these chapters, he comes into God’s throne room, receives the scroll of God’s secret plans from God, and is then honored alongside God.
  • God, the one on the throne, silently approves of all this. He lets Jesus take the scroll. It is his mission that Jesus accomplished, because of which Jesus is worthy to now be exalted. And he stands by while people worship both him and Jesus. And he does not thunder “You lousy idolaters” – worship only me!” And he, he tacitly approves of this exaltation of Jesus.
  • Smartly, the people present agree. (v. 14) No one calls out God Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 3 – Revelation 5 (Dale)

Mar 042012
 

(click for image credit)

Last time, in chapter 4, our author (a “John” – 1:1) was granted a vision of God in heaven, receiving worship in his throne room.

In chapter 5, God – the one on the throne – is holding a sealed up scroll – a scroll which we later find out (ch. 6-9) contains his future plans. This is what the author was promised at the start of chapter 4 – that he’d be shown the future (4:1), again, something we know from Isaiah is the prerogative of God alone.

No one is found worthy to open it, and John is bummed. Someone tells him,

“Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Lamb. Who? We’ve met him before – it is Jesus, the one through whom Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 2 – Revelation 4 (Dale)

Mar 022012
 

(click for image credit)

What does Revelation imply about God, Jesus, and worship?

In Revelation chapter 4, the author is granted a heavenly vision:

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. (ESV, emphases throughout are added)

Awesome. Who could this be? There follows a description of the setting and the heavenly court. Featured are some wierd heavenly beings singing,

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

Right – this is Yahweh. All of this is very reminiscient of the vision in Isaiah chapter 6:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.  Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

“LORD” here is the proper name Yahweh. So this is who Isaiah saw. And this, the author of Revelation is telling us, who he now sees in his vision. Much in the vision is similar to the visions in Ezekiel 1 and 10. There too, the prophet sees God himself.

If the point wasn’t clear enough in Revelation 4, some worship this one on the throne, saying,

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

This recalls well-known passages later in Isaiah, were Yahweh asserts that he’s the only true God, and the only creator.

Note finally that the author here nowhere says the one on the throne is a man, although one imagines the character as humanoid – I mean, appearing to be similar to a man – he does sit enthtroned here, and in the next chapter he’s got a scroll in his right hand. Of course, he’s assumed to be a self here too. He has a will, he performs intentional actions like creating, and he can be addressed and worshiped.

He’s a glorious and powerful being here, but the author demurs from directly describing him. I think that’s why a good portrayal of this scene has a sort of non-descript person on the throne, e.g. with no articulated face, as in the picture here (which is really of Revelation 5, subject of my next post).

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 1 – setup (Dale)

Feb 292012
 

(click for image credit)

What, if anything, is wrong with this argument?

1. Only God should be worshiped.

2. Jesus should be worshiped.

3. Therefore, Jesus is God.     (1,2)

Before you answer, be sure you understand the claims fully. The “only” in 1 makes a claim of quantification, which we all understand in terms of identity. In standard logic, it would be analyzed as:

Wg & (x)(Wx -> x=g) That is: God should be worshiped, and for any x, x should be worshiped only if x is numerically the same as God.

Given 2 then (Wj) what follows logically is that Jesus is numerically the same as God. (j = g) Many evangelicals, it seems, endorse 3, and think the above to be a sound argument.

Interestingly, this conclusion 3 is not what most Christians trained in philosophy think – and I’m referring to almost all (various sorts of) trinitarians here. That’s because on anyone’s views (OK – just about anyone – I’m aware of the “oneness” folk) some things will be true of God that are not true of Jesus, and vice-versa. In short, it is obvious that they’ve differed.  So then, they can’t be numerically identical, however closely they’re related. Based on this, most of them would deny 1, interestingly enough. They would allow, consistently with this, that maybe Jesus “is God” in the sense of being divine – where this neither means nor implies being numerically identical to God.

Still, the above argument seems sound to many thoughtful Christians.

Here’s another such argument:

1.  Jesus isn’t God.

2. Jesus should be worshiped.

3. Therefore, it is false that only God should be worshiped. (1,2)

Both arguments are valid; they have the same structure – in both cases, IF 1 and 2 were true, then 3 would be true as well. But it can’t be that both are sound (valid with all true premises) since 3 in the first argument is inconsistent with 1 in the second argument. (Logically, they could both be unsound, if their common premise 2 is false.)

What to do? Accept the first argument, accept the second, or jettison both?

It seems to me that Revelation 4-5 should push us towards accepting the second argument. In the rest of this series, I’ll explain why.

 

 

Jesus, God, and an inconsistent triad (Dale)

Feb 252012
 

Christians believe in God. And Christians believe in Jesus Christ. How should we think these two (?) relate to one another? Consider this following inconsistent triad:

D: Jesus and God have differed.

N: Jesus and God are numerically one.

I: If any X and Y have ever differed, then they are not numerically one.

One can’t consistently accept all three. If any two are true, the remaining one must be false. (Go ahead: work through the combinations.)

So a thoughtful Christian ought to reject at least one. But which?

I suggest: whichever we have the least reason to believe is true. But which one is that?

We have as much reason to believe I as we have to believe anything.

Suppose I is false. Then we have some X and Y which at some time have differed (e.g. at a certain time this X was hot and Y was cold, X was here and Y was over there, X was awake and Y was asleep, X knew that P and Y did not know that P) and yet are nonetheless numerically the same. That is, one and the same thing (call it X or call it Y) at one time differed from itself – at one time was a certain way and was not a certain way. But this is obviously impossible.

So supposing I false implies a contradiction. I must, then, be true. And once you grasp the impossibility just noted, you can be very sure I is true – as sure as you’re sure of anything.

So I is off the table. It’s down to D or N then. Which should a Christian deny?

Why believe D? The Bible. In the Garden of Gethsemane, we are told, Jesus didn’t want to die, but God wanted Jesus to die. (Jesus prays to God hoping to change his mind, but eventually acquiesces in God’s will for him.) Or: traditional catholic theology. God is triune; Jesus isn’t triune. Continue reading »

 Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site