Tag: bible

He is Risen – 5.1.1: A Strange, but Powerful Argument for God, ft. Aquinas, Aristotle, prod. Dr. Feser (1/2)

Jun 22nd, 2025
*AI Generated image*

I debated whether to include this here since it’s marginally off-topic, but considering 5.2.1, I thought it made sense to lay the foundation of the reasoning here before I got there. Here, I present a summarised form of Dr. Ed Feser’s “Thomistic Proof” for God’s existence, aiming to show why everything, right here, right now, ultimately depends on God for its existence.

It’s not my favourite proof, but I think it has its merits and ultimately does the trick. For a better and more in-depth analysis of the argument – you’ll want to go to Chapter 4. The Thomistic Proof – Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Ed Feser).

also im kinda tired of saying i have good arguments for God but not actually showing them

Warning: It’s quite technical, but I like to view metaphysics like mathematics. It’s hard, but the merits of some metaphysical investigations can heavily outweigh the costs.

A brief note – I’ll often use the words ‘essence’, ‘definition’ and ‘nature’ interchangeably. More often than not they can be used as such, but if there’s a need to use one specifically then I’ll say so.

Stage 1: Analysing Stuff

We experience stuff in reality, which really is stuff. We know that things such as trees, stones, and other humans really exist as things outside of our minds, and we know what they are – i.e., their “essence”. For example, a brief Google search defines a tree as “a perennial woody plant having a main trunk and usually a distinct crown”. Now, whether you agree with this exact definition isn’t the main point. The main point is that certain things have certain characteristics that distinguish themselves from others, such that we know one thing from another.

However, we also know that merely knowing what something is, doesn’t mean we also know that it is – i.e., that it exists. It’s not in the definition of a tree for it to also exist – they aren’t necessary. Therefore, we can say:
1. For any of the things we know from experience (stones, trees, etc.) there is a distinction to be drawn between its essence and its existence.
But what type of distinction is it? For example, the morning star and the evening star (the planet Venus) are the same thing outside of the mind, or extramentally. Those two names refer to the same real thing. However, merely by using different words to refer to it, we must be distinguishing between something, right? Otherwise, we wouldn’t notice a difference between the two phrases. This kind of distinction can be called a logical distinction, where the phrases refer to the same thing in reality, but the only distinction is mind-dependent, or intramental.

Is the essence-existence distinction also a logical distinction? No, for reasons stated earlier. Merely knowing what a thing is (its essence, or nature) doesn’t mean you know that it also exists. This type of distinction can be called a real distinction, where there is an extramental distinction. We can say:
1. If this were not a real distinction (a distinction in extramental reality) we could know whether a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
2. But we cannot know whether or not a thing exists by knowing its essence.
Repeating what I said earlier – we know that if something’s essence and existence were the same thing in reality, then it would exist necessarily. It would be literally in its definition (or essence) for it to exist:
1. If it were not a real distinction, then the things we know from experience would exist in a necessary way rather than a merely contingent (non-necessary) way.
2. But in fact they exist in a merely contingent way and not in a necessary way.
Another reason as to why there must be a real distinction between something’s essence and its existence (at least for each of the things we know through experience) would be that if this were not the case, then there cannot be in principle more than one such thing.

Here’s why:

Remember how the morning star and the evening star (in not being really distinct) refer to the same thing in reality? The same would go for essence and existence. If they are not really distinct, then that something’s essence literally is its existence.

Now, let’s say there are two such things, A and B, where this is the case. How would you differentiate them? You might say A has the essence of [whatever A is], and it exists, while B has the essence of [whatever B is], and it also exists. However, remember that in this case, the essence and existence would have to be the same thing, and so the essence (or definition) of A, is simply that it exists. The same thing goes B, but notice that there’s no longer anything left to differentiate the two of them, and so they’re actually just identical!

So, if there exists something that has its essence identical to its existence, there can only be one such thing:
1. If there could be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, then two or more such things would be distinguishable in the way that species of the same genus are distinguished, or members of the same species are distinguished.^[1]
2. But they cannot be distinguished in any of these ways
3. So, there could not, in principle, be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence.
And, just for formality, we’ll restate the things we’ve already considered more clearly.
1. So, for any of the things we know from experience, if the distinction between its essence and existence were not a real distinction, then there could not be, in principle, more than one of them.
2. But for each of the things we know from experience, there is, or could be more than one of them.
3. So, for each of the things we know from experience, the distinction between its essence and existence is a real distinction.
Before we continue, it might be good to clarify one (rather crucial) thing. Just because two things are really distinct from one another, doesn’t mean that they can be separated.

One such example might be a circle’s radius and its circumference – these two things are not the same thing (since C = 2πr), however (quite obviously) you can’t have one without having the other – they’re quite literally dependent on each other.

Following on from that, in extramental reality, there’s no such thing as something’s essence existing apart from its existence – that doesn’t really make any sense whatsoever. You can’t separate the essence of a stone or human from its existence, right?

But if this is the case – how do things “get” their existence? We’ve concluded, quite obviously, that the things of our experience do not exist necessarily – but how is it that something’s essence is combined with its existence?

One possible answer is a brute assertion – just like with a circle’s radius and its circumference, the things of our experience are simply inseparable and are simply never apart.

The problem is, this doesn’t really answer the question, because it’s natural to just ask why it is the case that these things aren’t separable. In the case of a circle, its radius and circumference are mathematically related, but that doesn’t seem to be the case for a stone, does it?

We can also note that the things of our experience cannot impart, or give, existence to themselves. In that case, they would have to already exist – but we’ve already noted that things that have their existence really distinct from their essence can’t give existence to anything unless they already exist. They would have to exist before it exists, and I think it’s quite clear that such a possibility isn’t coherent – nothing can be the cause of its own existence. Let’s write this more clearly:
1. For anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, the existence must be imparted to it either by itself or by some cause distinct from it.
2. But if it imparted existence to itself, it would be the cause of itself.
3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
4. So, it cannot impart existence to itself.
Therefore, for anything in which there is a real distinction between its essence and its existence, its cause of existence must be from outside of it – let’s call this thing being caused, thing A. One thing to note though, is that whatever causes this thing to exist, let’s call it, the causer, thing B, mustn’t just exist before thing A comes into existence, it has to exist while thing A is in existence. We’ve already determined that thing A cannot cause its own existence, so at any point in time that something exists – i.e., here and now, thing A must have a cause of its existence (B) which isn’t thing A but is imparting existence to A’s essence.

The same thing might be said for B, its cause at a given time, or simultaneous cause, might be C, and so on. Let’s pause and write this more formally first:
1. So, for anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, the existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it.
2. Since its essence and existence remain really distinct at every moment at which it exists, including here and now, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
3. So, for each of the things we know from experience, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
But can this series go on forever – no, I don’t think this so, and here’s why. I think we can distinguish between two types of causal series.
1. A per accidens series – this would be a series in which each member is not simultaneously dependent on a previous member’s existence at a given time for its causal power. One such example might be a family tree – if your great-great-grandparent passes away, it doesn’t remove your ability to reproduce.
  - Interestingly enough, the original proponent of this argument (St. Thomas Aquinas) thought that time might be a per accidens series – so he probably wasn’t very convinced by the popular Kalam Cosmological argument.
2. A per se series – this would be a series in which each member is simultaneously dependent on a previous member’s existence for its causal power. An analogy might be a coat which is hung on a hanger, which is hung on a rack etc. If any member of this structure is not supported by another structure (i.e., a foundation or something), the structure as a whole is not supported.
I think, and with good reason, that existence is a per se series. If at any given moment, something of our experience is not supported, or concurrently caused by another thing, then we can easily start to wonder why, or how, the series as a whole actually exists.

Now, the reason that a per se series cannot continue infinitely is based on pretty much what I just said. It doesn’t matter how many more “supporters” you add to make the coat hang – if there is nothing that supports the whole structure at a given time (whether it’s some magnetic force or whatever), it falls. The per se series, therefore, must end with a primary cause, something uncaused.

We’ve already noted that whatever this thing is, its essence cannot be really distinct from its existence (as therefore it would not be primary and would itself require a concurrent cause) and so its essence must be really identical with its existence or, as more fancily said by St. Thomas Aquinas, subsistent existence itself.

Essentially, right here and now, all the things of our experience, with a real distinction between their essence and existence can trace their existence back to this cause, and this cause…is God. The next post will show why we can make that leap, but just to clarify:
1. Either this cause is itself something the essence of which is distinct from its existence, or it is something whose essence and existence are identical (something that just is subsistent existence itself)
2. If this cause is something the essence of which is distinct from its existence, then its own existence too must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists including here and now.
3. The causal series this would generate would be a hierarchical (per se) one, which cannot regress infinitely, but must have a first member.
4. The first member could only be something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
5. So, either directly or indirectly, each of the things we know from experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now, by some cause whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
That’s part 1, part 2 should show us how to get to something like the classical conception of God.

Type your email…

1. To fully understand this fancy terminology, and for a more in-depth analysis of why this is the case you’ll want to check out Ed Feser’s explanation on pages 108-110 of his book. I’m trying to keep the word count minimal here 😊. I think the unemboldened part of the premise is decently justified based on what I’ve already said.
He is Risen – 4.3: Who does he think he is (John)?

May 25th, 2025
The Gospel of John is by far the easiest Gospel to mine divinity quotes from, and I do have a theory as to why this specific gospel, as opposed to others, is littered with them.

Late, High Christology?

I think the development of the “I am” sayings can also be chalked up to Jewish precedent. We’ve demonstrated that they have some precedent in Mark, but with Jewish persecution and Christianity being persecuted during the 60s, and heavily in the late 60’s with the Neronian flavour (when the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are argued to have been written by many scholars) by the 80/90s, post the destruction of the Jewish temple, its plausible that Christians may have had more theological “freedom” to more clearly expound Jesus’ claims to divinity.

Only in the Gospel of John?

Another point I want to highlight and that is semi-related to the above is what I’ve discovered is a rather interesting position. It goes like this:

“John has a lot of ‘divine’ statements, therefore John is not historically reliable”.

You won’t often hear it phrased like this, but you do hear people start to doubt John’s credibility simply because he has a higher concentration of divine statements in his gospel. However, this sort of scepticism is contradictory, simply because it’s an arbitrary standard that doesn’t entail historical reliability or unreliability. All the Gospels are unique in some way, but why does a higher concentration of divine statements somehow necessarily reduce John’s credibility?

The ’Contradictions’ Argument

In a debate that Bart Ehrman had with Peter Williams, he pushed his ‘contradictions argument’ (which he usually does to discredit the historicity of the Gospels). The issue with this sort of argument is that Bart can’t claim that there are contradictions (which is at a logical level) and then later claim that implausible explanations should be dismissed. If one proposes a contradiction, it doesn’t matter how implausible my explanation is (at least, when we’re dealing with a possibly supernatural text. and there are many plausible ones), the interlocutor just needs to offer an explanation that is not logically contradictory to refute one’s claim. The explanation may reduce the posterior probability of the event at hand, but that’s not an issue if one is pushing an argument as strong as claiming logical contradictions.

Without further adieu, I’ll highlight what I think are the most impactful passages in this Gospel regarding Jesus’ self image.
1. John 5:17-18, 22-23
‘ So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.’
17-18

‘ Furthermore, the Father does not judge anyone, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, so that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.’
22-23

I feel like John’s making my own points for me. He highlights that Jesus’ idea that he had the authority to break the Sabbath without consequence and familial language used with reference to the Father designate that he clearly is putting himself on the same stool as God the Father.

Secondly, although we do see some individuals in the Old Testament referring to God as the ‘Father’, such as Isaiah 63:16 and Isaiah 64:8 – both of these passages use the term ‘our Father’. John seems to note that Jesus’ use of the term ‘My Father’ in the presence of those around him is especially significant. The following verses support this reasoning, because in verse 23 above we see that this ‘Son’ that Jesus refers to is to be honoured in the same way as the Father. If he meant ‘Son’ in an adoptive sense (like the spiritual sense we are all ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ of God) then it doesn’t make sense to say that all of us as ‘Sons’ would be honoured in the same way as the Father. What makes much more sense is that Jesus’ sonship is distinct and divine.
1. John 8:57-9
‘ Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area.’

You’re strapped to a wooden chair with a blindfold on and you don’t know where you are. You’re being interrogated, and the interrogator says:

“This is your last chance. One verse. What one verse definitively proves that Jesus claimed to be God in the gospel of John – get it wrong, and I’ll blast your head off.”

The interrogator flips the safety on his gun and presses it to your temple, but you’re unfazed. Cooly and calmly, you respond.

“John 8:58.”

The interrogator lowers his handgun and begins to clap slowly.

Anyway.

If you read the verse above, you’d see why this verse was virtually a slam dunk with respect to Jesus’ divine self-image – not only does Jesus claim a form of pre-existence (which is something that Jewish theology about that time did not ascribe to mortal beings) but he seems to quite literally use the exact same phrase that God used to name himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14:

‘ Moses said to God, “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ – what should I say to them?” God said to Moses, “ I am that I am .” And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘ I am has sent me to you.’” ‘

And, to be sure, they intended to stone him to death – but why would they do that if what he said didn’t count as blasphemy?
1. John 10:18 (the greatest passage in the Bible (unbiased take))
‘ No one takes [my life] away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”’

Here we have the greatest verse in the Bible. There aren’t many (if any) individuals that have the authority or power to ‘lay down’ their life and ‘take it back again’. Understandably, the Jewish people surrounding him were confused – thinking that he was ‘possessed by a demon’. It’s not like they would understand how it would be possible for someone to die and somehow ‘raise himself’ back to life. However, the sort of being that can ‘lay down’ his own human life and ‘take it back again’ is surely something supernatural, and it’s not clear how Angels would have this sort of ability.
1. John 10:30
“’ The Father and I are one.”’

Another verse that frequently appears in these sorts of debates is the one above. Often, the counter is that claiming to be ‘one’ with someone does not entail (in this case) that Jesus is also God, they could just share the same purpose. Generally, I think this is actually a valid response, until you keep reading the text and see the reaction of the crowd in verse 33:

‘ The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”’

The verses following this show a little bit more squabble between the two parties, but the end of verse 38 along with the above verse really do seem to confirm that Jesus was making a divine claim.

‘ But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” ‘

I’ll leave you to guess how they reacted.
1. John 17:1-5
‘ When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you – just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created.’

This is another verse that tends to get a lot of attention in these debates. Oftentimes, counterarguments press on verse 3, where Jesus refers to the Father as ‘the only true God’. In a context where God is necessarily one person, this more or less would seal the deal, however, such an interpretation would struggle with verse 5, specifically where Jesus asks that the Father ‘glorify him at [his] side with the glory [he] had with [him] before the world was created’. To my knowledge, pre-existence was reserved for God and God alone, so a theology that only accepts one person in God can’t make sense of this verse. A theology that accepts more than one, however…

A brief note from Jewish sources

You might be surprised to hear that it wasn’t just Christian sources that (may) corroborate Jesus’ status as a miracle worker. The Toledot Yeshu (ספר תולדות ישו), is a medieval text that presents an alternative and moderately anti-Christian view of Jesus’ life. There are quite a few versions, but it’s not considered canonical/normative within Rabbinic literature. Strangely, it does acknowledge Jesus’ status as a miracle worker, but attributes these miracles to sorcery:

“After that, the people of the Galilee made birds of clay in their presence; [Yeshu] pronounced the Shemhameforas over them and those birds instantly flew away”^[1]

That’s part 4 done! The next part will start to get into the actual meat of this topic. So far, all we’ve done is lay groundwork. We’ve established that the Gospels are historically reliable, that Jesus died by Crucifixion, that there is good reason to believe that traditional authorship is correct, and that Jesus claimed to be God. If you make it this far, I salute you, and thanks for reading,

Rookie

Type your email…

1 – Meerson. M, Schäfer. P, Toledot Yeshu: The Life Story of Jesus, p. 22, available at: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783161587276_A40600688/preview-9783161587276_A40600688.pdf (accessed 02.02.2025)
He is Risen – 4.2: Who does he think he is? (Mark) ft. Ehrman, prod. Pitre

May 11th, 2025
It’s common to hear that Mark doesn’t have the strongest case for Jesus’ deity among the gospels. Some of the work on Dr. Bart Ehrman’s website refers to the Marcan Jesus as a merely messianic figure, who “embodies both the power of the Messiah and the vulnerability of the suffering servant”, but his opinion is not as stable as some might think. In one such presentation some years ago, Dr. Brant Pitre questioned him on a specific passage in the gospel, Mark 14:62, and Dr. Bart Ehrman didn’t give a response that would be favorable to sceptics. It makes the most sense to simply write out the exchange here to form the basis of my ‘point’ for this verse.

Mark 14:62
Dr. Brant Pitre and Dr. Bart Ehrman’s exchange

I’ll give some notes on the exchange after – note that there is slight paraphrasing since this was a conversational encounter.

Dr. Pitre:

“My question is about the charge of blasphemy in Mark, in particular in Mark 14, and it’s for Dr. Ehrman, but I’d like to hear what both of you think. I thought I heard you saying that Jesus doesn’t claim to be divine in the earlier gospels, in particular in the Gospel of Mark. And yet we were just looking at the account of the trial before Caiaphas, where Caiaphas asks him, “Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed?” He says, “I am, and you’ll see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming in the Clouds of Glory.” Then they charge him with blasphemy. He’s quoting Psalm 110 and Daniel 7.

So my question is, I just want to be clear: Is Jesus claiming to be divine there? If he’s not, then why do they charge him with blasphemy in the context of a question about his identity? And second, why does he quote Psalm 110 and, well, this ties into pre-existence and Mark 12. He quotes Psalm 110, which is the one psalm in the Old Testament that says, “Before the day star, I have begotten you.“ Isn’t there implicit pre-existence there? So, two questions in one. Sorry about that—my main question is: Is he making a divine claim there? And if not, why the blasphemy charge?”

Dr. Ehrman:

“Well, it’s a complicated question, and it would take a very long time to answer in detail. I think it’s one of the more confusing passages in the Gospel of Mark because, technically speaking, Jesus does not commit a blasphemy. The chief priest asks him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” and Jesus says, “I am.” Now, that’s not a blasphemy. He’s saying, “Yes, I am the Messiah.” There’s no blasphemy in claiming to be the Messiah. The Messiah was just the future king of Israel, and so that’s not a blasphemy.

Then he says, “You will see the Son of Man coming on the Clouds of Heaven.” That’s not a blasphemy either. That’s just referring to Daniel, that you’re going to see what Daniel predicted in Daniel 7:13-14. But then they cry out “blasphemy!” So, what’s the blasphemy?

There are a number of theories about this. One theory that I don’t accept is that when Jesus says “I am,” he’s claiming the divine name for himself. I don’t think so, because the words “I am” simply mean “Yes.” Are you the Messiah? “Yes, I am the Messiah.” It’s not claiming the divine name; it’s just how you say “Yes.”

So then, if that’s not the blasphemy, what is the blasphemy? I think you have to understand that, for Mark, the author of this gospel, Jesus is the Son of Man. Jesus is coming back in glory. Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God, and he’s coming back as the judge of the earth. It’s not that some anonymous Son of Man is coming; Jesus is coming. Mark thinks that. That’s what Mark thinks Jesus is. So, when Jesus says, “You will see the Son of Man,” Mark requires you to think Jesus is the Son of Man.

The high priest knows that he thinks that, and so the high priest thinks he’s claiming to be the Son of Man. And so, he calls out blasphemy.

Is it a divine claim? Well, yeah, kind of. I mean, it is, yeah, kind of. But it’s not like Jesus is saying, “I and the Father are one.” Sorry, I’m out of time.

[an audience member chimes in, claiming this passage to be ‘the invention of Mark’]

Yes, of course it’s the invention of Mark, it’s the invention of Mark! There’s no way we know what happened at the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas – this is Mark’s account, I’m talking about the historical Jesus, we don’t know what happened at the trial of Jesus, how would we know that? Jesus would have known.

Dr. Pitre asks an excellent question. He notes that Jesus quotes a passage the Book of Daniel. In this passage, Daniel describes a vision he has:

“’ I was watching in the night visions, “And with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him. To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. His authority is eternal and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed.’”
Daniel 7:13-14

There are many other places in the Old Testament where one is cloud imagery is used to describe divine action or presence, such as Exodus 34:5, Psalm 68:4 and Isaiah 19:1. One might be able to find some wiggle room, as Dr. Ehrman initially tries to, but after reading Psalm 110, you might be inclined to switch your opinion, just like Dr. Ehrman does above:

‘ Here is the Lord ’s proclamation to my lord: “Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!” The Lord extends your dominion from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies! Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you. The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: “You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.” O sovereign Lord , at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes his anger.’
Psalm 110:1-5

It’s clear that the person signified in this Psalm shares the authority/power of God. This person is above David (note the two ‘lords’) and can ‘rule’ over [their] enemies. This person is also ‘eternal’ and sits at the ‘right hand’ of God, which is an honor. The NET comments tell us that, in Ugaritic myth, the artisan god Kotharand Khasis is described as sitting at the right hand of the storm god Baal.

Dr. Pitre also notes that Jesus quotes Mark 12, and I’m guessing he’s referring to Mark 12:35-37:

‘ While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he said, “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is David’s son? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘ The Lord said to my lord, “ Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet. ”’ If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight. ‘

It’s quite clear that Jesus did not see the character of the Messiah in the same light that the ‘experts of the law’ (Scribes) did, after all, that seems to be the only interpretation that makes sense his questioning of the experts’ calling the Christ ‘David’s son’. In Jerusalem, the king’s palace was located to the right of the temple as a declaration of honor – it seems quite clear that Jesus wants the listeners to reflect on how great the Messiah is, as one who is able to take his place at the side of God.

The hook-line-and-sinker (that I’m not sure is even needed) comes in the form of Dr. Pitre’s question about pre-existence. Dr. Pitre quotes Psalm 110:3. In the NET, it reads:

‘ Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you.’

Not that impressive, right? However a brief introduction is in order before I make the fullness of my point. The below aside relies on material taken from Dr. Brant Pitre and Dr. John Bergsma’s “Catholic Introduction to the Old Testament”, pages 28-29.

Aside:

The Masoretic Text

The NET is a more Protestant translation of the Bible. It relies on the Masoretic Text which is the standard Hebrew form of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible) – a collection of 24 books including the Torah (Genesis, Exodus…Deuteronomy), the Nevi’im (generally prophetic literature), and the Ketuvim (generally wisdom literature). The text takes its name from the Masoretes, a school of Jewish scribes that flourished between the 8^th and 11^th centuries AD, but some sources ^[¹^] reckon its writing began as early as the 6^th century AD.

The Septuagint

The Septuagint is what Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches tend to rely on when it comes to biblical translation. Jewish scribes brought from Jerusalem to Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II (283-246 B.C) were tasked to translate the sacred books of the Jews into Greek for the Library of Alexandria. The name (Greek for ‘seventy’) originates from the seventy scholars commissioned to make the translation. The Septuagint carried enormous prestige in the ancient world, with Jewish scholars such as the philosopher Philo and the historian Josephus regarding it as virtually inspired, but as Christianity grew and became the leading religion of the Roman Empire Jews began to reject the Septuagint, calling it inaccurate and misleading.

Which one is better?

I would argue the Septuagint is. As Dr. Pitre and Dr. Bergsma write – “For the millions of Greek-speaking Jews living in the Roman Empire outside of Palestine, [the Septuagint] was the only form of the Scriptures they used. The majority of the Old Testament quotations are taken from the Greek Septuagint, since the apostles and other New Testament authors typically wrote for a broad audience, rather than just the Jews of Palestine”. Jews in Palestine primarily spoke Aramaic, a semitic language closely related to Hebrew, whereas Jews outside of Palestine predominantly spoke Greek.

Though the Masoretic Text shows greater fidelity to Jewish custom and older understandings of the Messiah, the Septuagint seems to cohere better with the prevailing understanding of the Messiah in first-century Palestine, based on its use in the New Testament.

The Masoretic Text translates Psalm 110:3 as:

“Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours.”

This is more or less what you will find in every Protestant bible translation, and it’s pretty close to the NET translation I gave before. The Septuagint reads slightly differently:

“From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you.”

Dr. Pitre’s quotation makes sense now. God begets a ‘lord’ which is greater than David before the “creation” of anything else. Considering the New Testament authors’ use of Septuagint scriptures, it’s reasonable to believe that Jesus was also referencing the Septuagint translation when he made this quote, and therefore is affirming the following:
1. Pre-existence (Psalm 110:3)
2. Greater than David (Mark 12:35-37)
3. The power of God (Psalm 110, Daniel 7:13-14)
4. Eternal authority, honour and sovereignty (Daniel 7:13-14)
Kudos to Dr. Ehrman, it’s not easy to change your opinion live, in front of hundreds of people.

Divinity on a Spectrum?

The last thing that Dr. Ehrman can do is claim that Ancient Monotheism was seen on a spectrum – i.e., was in some way henotheistic, and therefore that Jesus’ claim, if anything, doesn’t amount to much. This is something he has done on one of his blog daily post podcasts, and here are parts of the transcript from 3:13 onwards for those interested in exactly what he said:

“Most of the Bible assumes there are indeed other gods in the world.…Now, you might be tempted to think that just because the Israelites worshipped other gods, it doesn’t mean these gods really existed…my point is that many Israelites thought so. So, they weren’t monotheists. There is very solid evidence that ancient Israel, for many centuries, did not even claim to be monotheistic.

Israelites regularly acknowledged that there were indeed other gods in the world. Their religion did not deny the existence of these other superhuman beings; it simply claimed that the Israelites were not supposed to worship them. Yahweh was the only god to be worshipped—but that didn’t mean he was the only god. He was the only god for the Israelites…a favourite passage for many people who argue this point is a rather important one for other reasons as well: the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2–17)….In Jewish reckoning, the first of those “words” is not a commandment but a statement of fact meant to ground and justify the commands that follow:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Exodus 20:2).

The second commandment in Jewish reckoning is the first in most of the Protestant Churches and in the Orthodox Tradition. The two are put together with the Protestant second commandment in the Catholic and Lutheran traditions, just to keep all of us confused:

“You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3).

Notice how it is worded. The commandment is not, “You shall not believe or even think for a second that there is another god besides me.” Yahweh…is to be the top god in the pantheon. No other god should take precedent…Thus, the view found most widely in the Old Testament tradition is that there are other gods, but they are not to be worshipped—either instead of or alongside Yahweh. That is not monotheism. It is known as henotheism. Henotheism is not polytheism because it does not worship other gods or even value them. It simply acknowledges that other people have valued and worshipped them…Even Jews who later became monotheists recognized other divine beings. Sometimes these beings are called “gods.” Sometimes they are good beings, and sometimes they are worshipped.“

To be fair, in the above transcript, Bart is not completely wrong. John Walton, who I depended on heavily in parts of my previous series corroborates Dr. Ehrman’s points regarding initial henotheism in the Ancient Israelite religion. In page 234 of “The Lost World of the Torah” he notes about the first commandment:

“The availability of the ANE literature brought an increased recognition that the commandment dictated only monolatry or henotheism rather than what we now call monotheism—relating as it did to the question of whom the people worshiped rather than to whether other gods existed 10 Earlier interpreters had made this same point, but the ANE material tended to push interpretation more firmly in this direction”

Therefore, we can agree that the early Israelites were likely not strict monotheists, but henotheists. Dr. Ehrman and I also agree that by the time of Jesus, the Jews were strict monotheists. Ehrman states this, along with some more controversial comments in his book How Jesus became God and arguably, pushes his points further than he should and makes some strange mistakes:

“It may not have come as a huge surprise to learn that pagans who held to a range of polytheistic religions sometimes imagined that humans could be divine in some sense. It is more surprising, for most people, to learn that the same is true within Judaism. It is absolutely the case that by the time of Jesus and his followers most Jews were almost certainly monotheists. But even as they believed that there was only one God Almighty, it was widely held that there were other divine beings—angels, cherubim, seraphim, principalities, powers, hypostases. Moreover, there was some sense of continuity—not only discontinuity —between the divine and human realms. And there was a kind of spectrum of divinity: the Angel of the Lord, already in scripture, could be both an angel and God. Angels were divine, and could be worshiped, but they could also come in human guise. Humans could become angels. Humans could be called the Son of God or even God. This did not mean that they were the One God who created heaven and earth; but it did mean that they could share some of the authority, status, and power of that One God. Thus, even within a strict monotheism, there could be other divine beings and the possibility of a graduation of divinity. And even among Jews at the time of Jesus there was not a sense of an absolute break, a complete divide, an unbridgeable chasm between the divine and human.”
How Jesus Became God, Ehrman, p.83

The mistake that Ehrman makes, though, is confusing ‘spirituality’ with ‘divinity’. The ‘angels, cherubim, seraphim, principalities, powers, hypostases’ that Bart refers to count as spiritual – that is, non-material beings, but they do not count as divine beings – which are beings that (I would argue) bear the characteristics of the God of Classical Theism (omnipotence, omniscience, pure actuality, necessary existence etc). God can materialise as an angel as Ehrman notes, but the reverse doesn’t follow. The only time angels do not explicitly rebuke what could possibly be counted as worship (Genesis 19:1-3), as I argued in the third section on Matthew, is at a time when the action in question, bowing, does not necessarily constitute worship. In fact, there was a strong Jewish prohibition about the worship of angels in the Old Testament, such as in Tobit 12:16-22.

Therefore, and quite simply, Ehrman’s theory of ‘divinity on a spectrum’ is decidedly wrong, and Chris Tilling – lecturer in New Testament Studies at St Mellitus College, puts it quite well:

“All Ehrman has done is deploy this problematic notion of monotheism in the garb of an imprecise wordplay with terms “divine” “God,” and so on. The game has worked to put all exalted language about Jesus in the New Testament in the “divine” box, all the while separating Jesus from “God Almighty.” But the effect is a misleading rhetorical trick, not a position that sheds light on the data.”
“Problems with Ehrman’s Interpretative Categories” – How God became Jesus, p128

Mark 2:5-8

‘ When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the experts in the law were sitting there, turning these things over in their minds: “Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” ‘

Here, Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic he had just healed. Some sceptics have claimed that since Priests offered sacrifices on behalf of the Jewish population that Jesus’ claim here isn’t necessarily a divine one, but it doesn’t seem like Mark’s telling of the story gives that representation. After all, the experts of the law note that it doesn’t make sense for a mortal man to pronounce the forgiveness of a man’s sins.

Overall, the point to be made regarding Mark (specifically 14:62) is that when Jesus is in a situation that he knows is orchestrated to frame him in a distasteful light with the intention to have him killed, why does he answer the question in such a way that almost certainly will cause those accusing him to label him with the capital crime of blasphemy? Why does he quote two passages that would very easily identify him as divine – when his identity is exactly that which is in question? Further, as the experts of the law said, “who can forgive sins but God alone?”

John’s next 🙂

Type your email…
He is Risen – 2.4: the last to the party… John.

Mar 16th, 2025
It’s rational to believe John wrote John…

Despite many accusations, the author of John’s gospel is not strictly anonymous. After all, he refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. We have less certainty for the author of John’s gospel than the others, but textual and traditional evidence suggests the author is the Apostle John, son of Zebedee. Clues that suggest this are:
- He is clearly an Israelite – the author’s knowledge of biblical feasts and institutions is detailed, along with Palestinian geography.
- The “beloved disciple” is present at the last supper (13:23) and with the apostles after the resurrection (21:4-7)
- “Beloved” suggests that he was in Jesus’ inner circle (this would be Peter, James and John, who were the only three that were renamed (Mark 3: 16:17))
  - Peter is distinguished from the beloved disciple in 20:2 and 21:20. James was martyred too early to be considered an author.
- There is a close association between Peter and the “beloved disciple” (20:1-9), which is also mirrored in Luke 22:8 and Acts 3:1.
- The attention to detail suggests that the author was an eyewitness –
  - “filled up to the brim” (2:7) at the wedding in Cana.
  - “barley” in 6:9.
  - “aroma filled the house” (12:3).
- Lastly, early Christian writers testify with one voice that the author is John the son of Zebedee, such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria
Some even claim that John was written by a community of believers, but the details given above suggest that there was at least one primary author.

…but a lot of scholars tend to date him later

We have a fragment of John’s gospel dating as far back A.D. 120, telling us that the gospel was written at least this early, but probably much earlier given that it would have needed to have time to gain popularity and circulate.

Secondly, Ignatius of Antioch seems to allude to the teaching of the fourth gospel in a collection of letters written at about A.D. 107. Ultimately, there is no real issue dating the gospel to even the 60s, but scholars tend to date it to the 90s. One clue pushing the date earlier would be the word ‘is’ used in 5:2 to describe the pool of Bethesda which was lost in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem – it wouldn’t make much sense to use the word ‘is’ to refer to something that is no longer intact.

General Hurdles for the skeptic

Why would a false author use the name of a Jewish tax collector (Matthew), or non-disciples (Mark, Luke) in an attempt to permeate a Christian message? Why not use the name of Peter, or James?

You could point to what are known by the Church as the ‘Apocryphal gospels’ as an attempt to provide reason to be sceptical about the authorship of the gospels, however, these were well known to be forgeries by the Church according to their usage, consistency, orthodoxy and authorship.

Further, none of them are known to be earlier than 150AD – as opposed to the synoptics which were penned almost a century before.

Next… is some pretty gruesome stuff.

Type your email…
He is Risen – 2.2: Why name it Mark?

Feb 16th, 2025
…because the author’s name was Mark

The earliest manuscripts of this Gospel are titled ‘According to Mark’ – which summarizes the uniform Church tradition that Mark, a disciple of Simon Peter, wrote the second Gospel. Mark was not an eyewitness of Christ’s public ministry he was a channel of apostolic tradition through Peter.

In the New Testament, Peter refers to his companionship with Mark in an amicable manner ‘my son Mark’ in 1 Peter 5:13. Further, interpreters have noted that the general outline of Mark’s gospel is similar to Peter’s presentation of the gospel in Acts 10:36-43. Outside the New Testament, multiple Church Fathers insist that Peter’s authority lies behind this Gospel. Papias (A.D. 130) describes Mark as the “interpreter” of Peter, while Irenaeus (A.D. 180), Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200) and Tertullian (A.D. 200) echo this tradition.

Few details exist about the life and character of Mark. He is known by his Roman name “Mark” (Marcus in latin), but is sometimes called by his Jewish name “John” (Acts 12:25; 15:37). He is the cousin of the missionary Barnabas according to Colossians 4:10, and he was also an associate of the Apostle Paul (Acts 12:25) and a welcome companion on Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:5). According to Paul’s estimation “he [Mark] is very useful in serving me” (2 Timothy 4:11), and Tradition states that after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, Mark was the first to establish churches in Alexandria and northern Egypt.

These factors held together, especially with the unanimity of voices attributing this gospel make it difficult to contend that some ‘mysterious author’ penned this Gospel.

He was probably the first one to start writing too

Two main factors suggest that Mark completed his Gospel before A.D. 70 – within one generation of the events he records.
1. First, the Gospel itself points us in this direction. In Mark 13, Jesus prophesies the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This was fulfilled in A.D. 70, when the Romans violently destroyed the Holy City. Mark, however, makes no mention of this as a past event, nor does he give detailed information about the catastrophe that would indicate he was writing after the fact.
2. Second, prominent traditions in the early Church date Mark’s gospel in the 60s or even earlier. Both a second-century document, called the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Irenaeus (A.D. 180) state that Mark wrote soon after Peter’s martyrdom (~A.D. 67) – a tradition that still allows for a date in the late 60s. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200) on the other hand, maintains that Mark wrote his Gospel before Peter’s death. Still another witness, Eusebius (A.D. 340), fixes a date for Mark during the reign of Emperor Claudius, between A.D. 41 and 54. Although these varying traditions make it impossible for use to assign an exact date for the Gospel, they together suggest that Mark published his work sometime before A.D. 70. Many modern scholars likewise place the composition of Mark just before A.D. 70, though some put it just after this critical date.
Halfway there now.

Type your email…

Sources are linked throughout. It should be made clear that the arguments in this post are not at all my own and are, as I have said, taken from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (New Testament) by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.

Tag: bible

He is Risen – 5.1.1: A Strange, but Powerful Argument for God, ft. Aquinas, Aristotle, prod. Dr. Feser (1/2)

He is Risen – 4.3: Who does he think he is (John)?

He is Risen – 4.2: Who does he think he is? (Mark) ft. Ehrman, prod. Pitre

He is Risen – 2.4: the last to the party… John.

He is Risen – 2.2: Why name it Mark?