Skip to content

Apologetics

Zarley on “worship” of Jesus in the New Testament

moon clip artTheology blogger / author / golf pro Kermit Zarley asks: Is Jesus Divine Because He Was Worshipped?

He answers in the negative. As usual, he highlights some important scholarship. In part,

When the gospel Evangelists report that someone performed proskuneo toward Jesus, Bible translators invariably reveal their Christological bias by rendering it “worship,” suggesting that that person thought Jesus was “divine” or “God.” But when the Evangelists relate that a person performed proskuneo toward someone other than Jesus, they translate it “bowed down,” “bend the knee,” or “prostrate.” So, they translate it “worship” when done to Jesus, but a physical act when done to someone else.

I agree that it is important that Christians should worship Jesus too, and not only God. The New Testament, in my view, clearly teaches this; it is a consequence of his being raised to God’s right hand. I also agree that this is not at all the sin of idolatry.

Keep in mind that the passages he’s discussing above concern Jesus before his resurrection and exaltation. He is  clearly worshiped in the fullest religious sense after. e.g. Philippians 2, Revelation 5, as well as prayed to.

Contrary to Mr. Zarley, I do think it is technically a violation of the command, now made out of date by the one who issued it, to worship only Yahweh (i.e. the Father). I would add that it’s simply not correct to define the sin of idolatry as worshiping anyone other than God.

I don’t think we can make much progress distinguishing kinds of (religious) worship. To say there are kinds of worship is one thing, but to display the differences is another. But we can distinguish indirect from direct worship, as the New Testament does in several places. We worship God (indirect object) by worshiping his Son (direct object).

Here’s another angle. In the NT, the justification given for worshiping Jesus is that this is our obeying the God who vindicated, raised, and exalted Jesus. Now, if we should worship Jesus because he’s fully divine, or because he’s God himself, or because he shares a divine nature with the Father… wouldn’t that be their main reason?

Below the fold, much better music than we usually feature on this blog. Read More »Zarley on “worship” of Jesus in the New Testament

podcast 5 – Anglicans Defending “Athanasius”

This time, an answer to Nye by Anglican minister and writer William Sherlock (c. 1641 – 1707 – pictured to the left). He offers a unique, but to us surprisingly contemporary rational reconstruction of the claims in the “Athanasian Creed.” Did he convince his fellow Anglicans that the “Athanasian Creed” is, after all, self-consistent? We’ll also look briefly at a sort of defense of the “Athanasian… Read More »podcast 5 – Anglicans Defending “Athanasius”

Craig’s a priori argument for a three-self Trinity

We’ve covered this before. Craig slurs the argument, making the conclusion a bit unclear. The point is not really that a three-self trinitarian theology is just somehow superior to a unitarian theology. Rather, the point is supposed to be that the concept of a perfect being who is a self collapses into incoherence; it is perfect, yet (the idea is) lacks a feature any perfect… Read More »Craig’s a priori argument for a three-self Trinity

William Lane Craig in the Chronicle of Higher Education

Here. On the whole, a well done piece. Craig is indeed a fearsome debater, and a bold and insightful scholar. His devotion to apologetics makes him a bit uncool among professional philosophers. But I would guess that his work is probably read by more average people – Christians, atheists, Muslims, and who-knows-what – than any living philosopher. The reason is that it has many good… Read More »William Lane Craig in the Chronicle of Higher Education

Kermit Zarley on the Holy Spirit

Theology blogger / author / golf pro Kermit Zarley posts on the Holy Spirit. A few excerpts: During the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there was no consensus among church fathers, called “apologists,” about the constitution of the Holy Spirit. Most of them didn’t think it was important. In fact, there was a widespread fluidity of ideas among Christians about it. Some thought the Holy Spirit… Read More »Kermit Zarley on the Holy Spirit

Jerry Walls: What is wrong with Calvinism?

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.… Read More »Jerry Walls: What is wrong with Calvinism?

White vs. Navas – Does the New Testament teach “the deity of Christ”?

Ably reviewed by Sean Finnegan. I would add a few philosophical comments: White, like many evangelicals, understands “the deity of Christ” as meaning that Jesus and God are numerically one, that is, numerically identical. He argues that various things the NT asserts about Jesus imply this. (e.g. He is worshiped, called “Lord.”) Conveniently, he ignores the many passages which assert or presuppose a qualitative difference… Read More »White vs. Navas – Does the New Testament teach “the deity of Christ”?

Bill Maher on God and Jesus

I consider comedian Bill Maher to be a fairly funny guy. I don’t care for his politics. But I watched his movie Religulous, and I thought it had some funny and interesting moments. He’s not as smart as he thinks he is. He’s typical of kids who were raised Catholic, who didn’t pay too much attention, and who later sloughed off the whole thing as… Read More »Bill Maher on God and Jesus

Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea

I’ve blogged about these folks before. I do not enjoy criticizing apologists, because I think Christian apologetics is important. And the folks at Credo House Ministries seem like good-hearted and hard working Christians who are doing their best to help Christians love God with their minds. And I think Patton is an excellent blogger and writer. But I feel compelled to correct some of their… Read More »Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea

Dan Wallace: 5 Myths About Bible Translation

Check out this post by Dan Wallace over at Parchment and Pen. I teach religious studies, and regularly encounter this one: Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original. Wallace’s answer is absolutely right. #2 is also an important point. Wallace might have added that quotation marks are never in the Greek manuscripts; they didn’t… Read More »Dan Wallace: 5 Myths About Bible Translation

New Papers

I’ve just updated my homepage with a paper forthcoming in Faith and Philosophy, called “Hasker’s Quests for a Viable Social Theory.” My sincere thanks to editor Thomas Flint, and to that journal’s anonymous readers for their help. The paper critically examines the various discussions of William Hasker, a very accomplished Christian philosopher, and former editor of F&P, from whom I have learned much. I think… Read More »New Papers

Craig wins again

craig - that's your argumentThis post is a commentary on the Craig-Rosenberg debate. Most of my comments are in italics; factual reporting is in regular text.

In short, Craig undeniably wins. I felt bad for Rosenberg, and could hear naturalistic philosophers of religion face-palming throughout the debate.

Debaters: there’s a lot you can learn from here.

  • 8:00 The debate has judges? Yet no philosophers? Or rather, one who used to teach it?
  • 17:14 – Debate finally starts. C comes out hitting on all cylinders, with a clean argument for a self (an “unembodied mind,” “a consciousness,” or “person”) which exists a se (he hedges with talk of “a personal being”) (person etc. – before 24 min). (See comment re: 37:00 below.)
  • 25:30 It is clear that C has read some of Rosenberg’s work.
  • C keeps his arguments simple, short, and understandable – though philosphers and other pros might prefer more detail. But this is effective communication; he knows his audience. His pace is conversational, and not a word is wasted. It is clear that C has tailored his arguments to his opponent, even while using mostly his standard arguments – and he points out some of the most ridiculous things R has said follow from naturalistic atheism.
  • 28:00 – I don’t at all understand C’s comeback to the multiple cosmoi objection to the fine tuning argument. A rare mis-step in C’s debate performance.
  • 37:00 C: God “can be personally known.” Never mind that God is NOT literally a self/person, or C’s controversial Trinity speculations, which he habitually presents as “the” doctrine of the Trinity. But, this does nothing to hurt him in this debate.
  • 38:00 Rosenburg starts his case, and is hilariously rude. He falsely implies Read More »Craig wins again

Santa vs. Arius, round 2

Now that I’m actually looking for it, I see that this stuff is very popular on Catholic websites and blogs. Here it is – the same version I mentioned last time in comic form. Excellent epistemologist and apologist Tim McGrew responded on Facebook to my previous post: Of the 318 bishops that Athanasius (and Eusebius in his Chronicon) say were present, I can find names… Read More »Santa vs. Arius, round 2

You’re another!

“You’re another” – that’s what tu quoque means – it’s the name of an informal fallacy, often called a fallacy of relevance. For example, if I argue that your theory is self-contradictory, suppose you retort that my theory is too. Well, so…? It’s irrelevant to the point that the first theory mentioned is self-contradictory (so, self-refuting).

Cornell grad student Chad McIntosh argues that if the social trinitarian God – or rather: the three divine persons  posited by clear “social” Trinity theories – would be deceivers, then so would the perfect self in whom I believe, being a unitarian Christian. So granting that an ST is implausible, for similar reasons unitarian Christian theology is implausible (because it has a perfect being doing what appears a wrongful deception).

Is this a defense of ST?

I’ve already argued in that paper than a Swinburne-type ST implies what looks like wrongful deception by at least one of the three divine persons. This hasn’t been disputed.

I don’t grant that if God is a single self, then Read More »You’re another!

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

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… Read More »God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation

Orthodox modalism

The standard orthodox formulas admit of a “modalistic” or one-self interpretation.

Is God Perfect?

Three Christian philosophers on perfect being theology, tradition in philosophy going back to the great medieval philosopher Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109), but really, as Leftow has shown, back to Augustine, Plato, and the Christian Bible. First, a great interview (click the thin blue button) with Oxford philosopher Brian Leftow by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, for the PBS should Closer to Truth. I did not know that Leftow was… Read More »Is God Perfect?

Jesus: not an entirely fictional character

Eminent Bible scholar Dr. Craig Keener argues that yes, the man Jesus existed; Jesus is not an entirely fictional character.

Big news, huh? 🙂

I’ve followed this issue from afar from a while, but just can’t get myself to take this point of view (that Jesus never existed) seriously. To anyone very much acquainted with the relevant sources, it is obvious that there was a Jesus – whatever you think about his miracles, his claims, his status as Son of God, etc.

It is so obvious that one of our more important critics of traditional Christianity and the Bible, textual scholar and historian Dr. Bart Ehrman, has recently penned a book refuting Jesus-never-existed claims. See this long interview with fellow scholar Dr. Ben Witherington here.  (HT: triablogue)

And here is Ehrman on NPR. And The Huffington Post. And the Washington Post. And Religion Dispatches. (He gets a lot of press!)

Honestly, don’t spend too much time on this – it is at bottom a conspiracy theory. But credit to Ehrman and Keener; if one can muster the energy to take it seriously, it brings out the strength of the evidence for a historical Jesus.

It will be more interesting when he wades into more christological territory, into the matter of the historical Jesus’ self-understanding and public teaching about himself. In the Witherington interview linked above he saysRead More »Jesus: not an entirely fictional character