Tag Archives: Christ

Reconciling Jesus’ human Nature with His divine Nature during His Incarnation

28 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Christ, Difficult Questions, Hypostatic Union, Incarnation, Jesus

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

“if Jesus is God, why would Satan bother to tempt him; how can God be tempted with food and power?

Furthermore, why did Jesus not want to take the “cup that was given” aka the crucifixion?

Jesus also said his followers would do greater works than his. How is that possible?

Jesus said not to call him good for only God is good. But isn’t he God?”

I got this cluster of questions from a very old friend of mine, from adolescence and younger. This is certainly more than just one question to be sure, but all of them, except for the question about “greater works than these,” can be answered in one sentence. Although I intend to give this short answer, I’ll elaborate a bit on that one sentence for the sake of interest. I have given the philosophy of science’s definitions for an absurdity in distinction to a mystery in another post. By way of review, an absurdity is something that is logically impossible, contradictory, or unintelligible. A mystery is something that has a logical base and hence is intelligible, but its full understanding extends beyond human capacity. To explain the mystery in full would be to deny it the status of a mystery. Therefore, I will give a simple answer, but this is not to say that this answer does not entail mystery or that “I’ve got it all figured out.” I do not want to give that impression. A long treatise could be written on these questions without exhausting the mysteries. I, however, want to note that the answer I give has been covered many times over the ages, maybe the best short treatise on the God-man issue in Jesus was done by Pope Leo the Great in 449 c.e. in his Tome of Leo. It is worth the read: https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac1.htm. The answer is that Jesus is both wholly God and wholly man — this is, in technical and historical theological lingo, the hypostatic union. We must be careful not to think that Jesus would just use his divine capacities whenever he willed (Phil. 2:6). The many prophecies, especially from Isaiah (11:1–5, 42:1–2, 48:16, 49:1–7, 59:20–21, & 61:1–3), show that this “servant,” Jesus, was to act in certain ways and was especially to be dependent upon the Holy Spirit’s leading like a human. This is not to say that Jesus never uses His divine capacities, but it is to say that he wouldn’t use them just as He wanted because such would be in violation of the very prophecies He came to fulfill. Hence, being human, Jesus could be tempted; it was the Spirit, who “drove” Jesus out to be tempted in the first place (Mark 1:12). The divine nature of Jesus cannot be tempted, but since the text presents the temptation as real, and Jesus handles it like a human would by quoting the truth of Scripture back at Satan, it is not an illicit inference to say that the Spirit led Jesus there to be tempted as a man, and, as such Jesus did not function at that time according to His divine nature, but according to His human nature. Remember, I am not saying that Jesus was not divine at that time; I am saying that the capacity to which Jesus functioned in his divine nature was determined by the Spirit, and Jesus followed. As an aside, if Jesus just used His divine capacity often or whenever He wanted He could not be an example to us since none of us have that capacity like Him to just use a divine nature. On a practical point, then, it is imperative to note that Jesus’ living mostly according to His human nature and being led by the Spirit sets the basis for understanding Him as an example that we should mimic: we too should live by the Spirit, relying on God to direct us in our human capacity. It is Jesus’ dual nature, wholly divine, wholly human, that answers all of the questions except for the one about “greater works.” What can be said of this? Although it is fashionable to think or speak of Jesus “raising Himself” to life, and Scripture certainly affirms this, it is perhaps more important to make plain that the Spirit was the Enlivener and God the Affirmer of the resurrection as Romans 1:4 makes plain: according to the Spirit God declared Jesus the Son of God in power . . . . Hence Jesus teaches His disciples that if they have the faith of a mustard seed they could say to the mountain, be picked up and planted in the sea, and the mountain would obey. It may be too obvious but “greater” can refer to either quality or quantity: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:12 – 13). Two comments are needed on this text: 1) if greater means quantity (Greek term for “greater” is megas), then we can stop because this sufficiently answers our question, and 2) even if megas (“greater”) means quality or degree — although it is hard to imagine a miracle greater than eschatological resurrection life entering the middle of history — then it is not to be missed that the performance of the disciple owes to Jesus anyhow. The text makes this plain as day: “and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” The greatness of the works of any disciple first depends on Jesus’ successful ministry and work of redemption; hence the vitality and capacity of the “greater works” owe to Jesus’ work, and they owe to Jesus’ blessing in the moment as well, as Jesus says above, “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do.”

So it is rather obvious that Jesus is behind all the works, whether His or ours.

Dr. Scalise

Refuting Claims that the Resurrection of Christ is a Legend or Copycat of other ancient Accounts: Licona and Wright’s Critiques

23 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Apologetics, Copycat, Defending Resurrection of Jesus, Historical Issues with Resurrection, Legends

≈ Comments Off on Refuting Claims that the Resurrection of Christ is a Legend or Copycat of other ancient Accounts: Licona and Wright’s Critiques

Tags

, , , , ,

Some say that the Resurrection of Jesus is merely a legend or a copy of other ancient material. If it were a legend, as the logic goes, it would suggest that something far less miraculous occurred that developed into, over time, the teaching that Jesus rose again never to die. St. Paul states, however, that if Christ is not raised, then the Christian faith is dead. If the Resurrection is only a legend, then Christianity comes crashing down in its most fundamental claim. Others claim that the Resurrection is just a copy of earlier religious or stories. Although this is the genetic fallacy, we should still look at some of these earlier stories to see if they really are much like Jesus’ resurrection. The genetic fallacy is the false conclusion that explaining where something came from or how it developed over time counts against its truthfulness. The historical events of the Resurrection would still have to be investigated in their own right to determine the accuracy of what they report because tracing earlier stories to show that the Resurrection supposedly borrowed from them is not enough to falsify the event itself.

1) Legends or elements of legends could, hypothetically, have crept their way into the Gospel material, but this does nothing to alter the legitimacy of the historical bedrock; Historical bedrock are uncontroversial historical facts that nearly all scholars studying in the field of historical Jesus accept. If the bedrock passes critical scrutiny — multiple attestation, criterion of embarrassment, eyewitness, etc. — and a case can be built on this bedrock for the resurrection, then much in the NT could be said to have certain elements of myth or legend without Christianity become false (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 585). Multiple attestation is a way to validate a fact by relying on multiple testimony to establish that fact. Criterion of embarrassment is a way to test some fact because, as the argument goes, it would not be included in the Gospel narratives unless it were true since it embarrasses someone or something that would want to be revered. For instance, Peter’s denials of Jesus, as the leader of the early church, would be quite the embarrassment.

2) Evidence of legends may hypothetically embellish facts, but the central fact would remain (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 585).

3) Homer says dead men do not rise: Illiad 24:549 – 51, 756. Thus, the Resurrection of Jesus is not borrowing from Homer (NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 32).

4) Dead men rising was not allowed in myth either: Zeus punishes Apollo with a lightening bolt for attempting to raise a child (NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 33).

5) Much of ancient literature denied existence to the dead at all (Illiad 9:413; Polybius Hist. 6:53.9 – 54.3; Sall. Cat. 51.20 (NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 34).

6) Egyptian Mummification was more about ongoing life and fulfillment of life than about the negation of life requiring a rebirth (NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 46).

7) Mummification implies that the person is still alive (NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 47).

8) Apotheosis of Alexander the Great and later Roman emperors implied one of two things:

  1. that the body was destroyed and the soul passed to become a god.
  2. that the body and soul were taken up to become a god (NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 55-57).  The Resurrection is about a dead body coming back to life in this world and history never to die again, so Jesus’ Resurrection is clearly not an example of apotheosis.

9) Continuing with the last two points, this new god was added to the pantheon of gods, not isolated as one with a monotheistic God (Ibid.).

10) Apollonius of Tyana lives on but not in a body (no bodily coming back from the dead) (NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 75).

Dr. Scalise

Refuting the Theory that the Disciples had Hallucinations of the Resurrected Christ: Licona, Habermas, & Collins’ Critiques

22 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Apologetics, Defending Resurrection of Jesus, Hallucinations, Historical Issues with Resurrection, Resurrection

≈ Comments Off on Refuting the Theory that the Disciples had Hallucinations of the Resurrected Christ: Licona, Habermas, & Collins’ Critiques

Tags

, , , ,

Some have tried to deny the truth of Jesus’ resurrection by claiming that the apostles hallucinated. There are many problems with such a claim, not least among them the fact that multiple groups at multiple different times claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Those who would claim such are forced not only to claim that an apostle hallucinated, but that groups of people hallucinated, that groups of people hallucinated the same thing, and that groups of people hallucinated the same thing at different times. Is this sounding plausible? It is not, but let’s look at problems with the hallucination theory of explaining away the apostles and others’ claims to have seen the risen Christ more closely.

1) There is very little evidence—if any because collective hallucination accounts are not currently well researched enough, because of lack of occurrences, to have any real credibility—that collective hallucinations occur (Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 11).

2) Hallucinations are private accounts stemming from an individual’s mind (Gary Collins cited in The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 11, by Habermas).

3) Belief, expectation, and excitement are the underpinning psychological conditions for hallucinations. The disciples were distraught and disappointed after Jesus’ death by crucifixion and so the hallucination of him alive when Jesus reportedly appeared to them is improbable (Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 11).

4) The variety of persons, places, and times, supposing them to all have had the same hallucination stretches credulity to the breaking point. Not only are no collective hallucinations well evidenced to even believe it happened once, but now it is supposed to be believed that it happened in multiple places, to differently composed groups, and at different times, but the hallucinations all agreed with one another. If this is possible, the chances are infinitesimally small. On the principle of analogy, that is, that present experiences are the same as those same experiences in history, collective hallucinations become even more dubious. At least with Jesus’ resurrection, the principle of analogy provides resuscitations as a pale event analogous to resurrections; analogous because renewed life comes forth but the quality of that renewed life differs: i.e., Jesus’ recreation/renewed life takes life (back) to its original dimensionality achievable in the garden (eternal; “tree of life”) whereas resuscitation is renewed life but only for limited time (until death takes them again) (Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 11; this mixed with my extended thought on the matter).

5) Hallucinations are not well documented to transform lives (Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 11). Why did the disciples live radically different from their depressed state after the crucifixion? It is unlikely that a hallucination would produce the kind of vigor and commitment the disciples had in the proclamation of the Gospel if they knew that it was false. This is very important. Many people will die for what they believe in, but the disciples, if they just had hallucinations, went on to die for what they knew was false.

6) James and Paul were not “believers” and so were certainly not in a frame of mind to hallucinate Jesus raised (Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 11).

7) Other supposed “supernatural events” in the gospels would have to be explained by means of group hallucinations (on naturalistic presuppositions) as well, like the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus’ walking, or even the water turned to wine. But in some of these cases there is a critical realism (e.g., eating fish and bread) so dramatic it would be fantastic to suppose that they did not actual eat anything (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 571 – 572).

Kerygma of 1 Cor. 15:3 – 7 functions as an early creed not only shows what those mentioned in it and the 500 others thought but much broader to be a received tradition among all those in the early church, beginning likely in Palestine shortly after the resurrection (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 573).

8) If hallucinations did occur, why did not the Jewish leaders just point out or produce the body of Jesus to defeat the growth of Christianity?

9) The Marian and source (Belinda Gore, Ecstatic Body Postures) which Pilch cites are more dissimilar than similar to the appearances in the gospel and so fail to account for the appearances there that they claimed to be able to explain (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 574).

10) Neither Craffert or Pilch provide any “reports from the social sciences of a group of individuals” objectively interacting with an individual (i.e., the resurrected Jesus) by means of speaking, eating with, or touching (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 575).

Dr. Scalise

Entitlement: Part 1

08 Friday Jun 2012

Posted by in Christ and the Politico-Economic

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement: Part 1

Tags

, , , ,

It is worth wondering why the majority of the law in the OT ascribes negative rights to people instead of positive ones. Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought about this same thing while his imprisonment during World War II which ending in his death at the command of Hitler.  When I say negative, I simply mean commands which have “not” in them: “You shall not murder, you shall not covet, you shall not commit adultery.”  The Entitlement mentality says, “I am entitled to something, I have a right to . . .”  But having an attitude of negative rights (“I am not entitled to, I do not have a right to”) changes how we receive.  The ramifications of allowing this “negative rights paradigm” to sink in through daily life, whether it be political, economic, or social, will create a brand new way of life, seen most clearly in our attitude about what we receive from others. But is entitlement really that bad a thing?  Are we not due something?  Do we have to define life by what we are not entitled to (e.g., not entitled to kill someone)? Granted, being self-interested is not always to be selfish.  Nevertheless, an entitlement attitude is defined by its concern for self preeminently and not with someone else.  In the negative paradigm, another person enters the conversation: “I am not entitled to murder someone.”  In the entitlement way, the same thought sounds like this with another not entering the thought: “I am entitled to live.”  This is only a small matter of phrasing but how we phrase it is foundational to how we understand our relationships with others.  Does our sense of entitlement damage another?  This is crucial: there can be some self-interested activities which benefit others and there are some which are detrimental to others.  Entitlement, as conceived in what follows, does harm to another and thus is rightly classified as selfish and not merely self-interested.  For instance, if we say that we deserve an education paid for by the government, what have we really said?  We deserve an education paid for by others who have labored through their jobs, risks, stocks, what have you, and then had their money taken through taxation and redistributed by government. And who gets the renown for this? Likely government and not the rightful men or women who earned the money.  Entitlement benefits received through government necessarily involves oppression of those from whom the money is taken in order for their money to be redistributed.  What degree of taxation? Or for what purposes will taxes be used?  How we answer these questions will determine whether taxation is oppressive taxation.  Taxation per se is not evil.  Will Christians, through entitlement and taxation, support enslaving many in this manner?  Bear in mind that I am not saying that Christians should not give; I am saying that Christians should give but taxation, required as it is, for the sake of government-discerned-entitlements is not “giving.”  For one, determining who receives your money is no longer up to the one who is giving the money (in many regards).  For two, giving based on Christ is to be freely done just as He freely gave.  For three, the one giving should receive credit for the gift rather than the one who is redistributing.  We even use different language to describe the difference between paying taxes and giving.  Intuitively we say, when we give the government money through taxation, “I paid my taxes,” rather than, “I gave my taxes”: different words for different actions.

B. T. Scalise