All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Did the early church invent the divinity of Jesus over a long period of time?

How early is the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus? When I answer this question, I only want to use the earliest, most reliable sources – so I can defend them on historical grounds using the standard rules of historiography. The 4 sources that I would use are as follows:

  • The early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and 1 Corinthians 1
  • A passage in Philippians 2
  • Two passages from Mark, the earliest gospel
  • A passage from Q, which is an early source of Matthew and Luke

So let’s see the passages.

1 Corinthians

I’ve written before about the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which skeptical scholars date to 1-3 years after the death of Jesus, for a variety of reasons I covered in the previous post. Here’s the creed which definitely makes Jesus out to be more than an ordinary man. Ordinary men don’t get resurrection bodies after they die.

Here’s the passage: (1 Cor 15:3-8)

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 1:21-25 talks about Jesus being “the power of God and the wisdom of God”. Paul is identifying Jesus with the divine.

21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,

23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

But it gets even stronger! You all probably already know that the most important passages in the Old Testament for Jews is the famous “Shema“, which is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The Shema is a strong statement of Jewish monotheism.

Here’s the passage:

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.

7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.

9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

So how does Paul fit Jesus in with this strong statement of Jewish monotheism?

Paul alludes to the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.

5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),

6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Holy mackerel! How did that get in there? Paul is splitting the roles of God in the the Shema and identifying Jesus in one of the divine roles! Jesus is not an ordinary man. That passage “through whom all things came” foreshadows John identifying Jesus as “the Word of God”, which “became flesh and dwelt among us”. Holy snark – did you guys know that was all in here so early?

The date for 1 Corinthians is 55 AD. It should be noted that skeptical scholars like James Crossley accept these passages, and you can check it out in the debate audio yourself.

Philippians

Check out Philippians 2:5-11.

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The date for Philippians is 60-61 AD. Still within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, and written by an eyewitness who was in contact with the other eyewitnesses, like Peter and James, whom Paul spoke with numerous times on his journeys to Jerusalem.

Mark’s gospel

Mark’s gospel is the earliest and atheists like James Crossley date it to less than 40 AD, which is 10 years after the death of Jesus at most. When you read the gospel of Mark, you are getting the earliest and best information available about the historical Jesus, along with Paul’s epistles. So what does Mark say about Jesus? Is Jesus just a man, or is he something more?

Check out Mark 12:1-9:

1He then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey.

2At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard.

3But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed.

4Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully.

5He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.

6“He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

7“But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

8So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

9“What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.

And Mark 13:32, talking about the date of the final judgment.

32“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

And again, this passage is establishing a hierarchy such that Jesus is being exalted above all men and the angels, too. And the passage is embarrassing to the early church, because it makes Jesus look ignorant of something, so they would not have made this passage up. Jesus is not an ordinary man, he is above the angels – God’s unique Son.

The “Q” source for Matthew and Luke

Here’s Matthew 11:27, which is echoed in Luke 10:22:

27“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

22“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

Since this passage is in both of Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, scholars believe that it is in the earlier “Q” source used by both Matthew and Luke. Q predates both Matthew and Luke, and so it is also fairly early (maybe 67-68), although not as early as Mark and Paul. Bill Craig writes that this passage is also embarrassing because it says that no one knows Jesus.

New study: gender-affirming surgery associated with suicide attempts

My understanding of how the secular left pushing transitioning kids onto parents is that the teacher, the guidance counselor, the health care workers, etc. tell the parents “would you rather have a dead girl than a live boy?” This approach is in keeping with the compassionate “don’t judge” worldview, which emphasizes emotions over moral standards and truth. But does it work?

Here is the latest study that I found on Pubmed, entitled “Risk of Suicide and Self-Harm Following Gender-Affirmation Surgery“. (archived)

The Abstract says:

Introduction

With the growing acceptance of transgender individuals, the number of gender affirmation surgeries has increased. Transgender individuals face elevated depression rates, leading to an increase in suicide ideation and attempts. This study evaluates the risk of suicide or self-harm associated with gender affirmation procedures.

Methods

This retrospective study utilized de-identified patient data from the TriNetX (TriNetX, LLC, Cambridge, MA) database, involving 56 United States healthcare organizations and over 90 million patients. The study involved four cohorts: cohort A, adults aged 18-60 who had gender-affirming surgery and an emergency visit (N = 1,501); cohort B, control group of adults with emergency visits but no gender-affirming surgery (N = 15,608,363); and cohort C, control group of adults with emergency visits, tubal ligation or vasectomy, but no gender-affirming surgery (N = 142,093). Propensity matching was applied to cohorts A and C. Data from February 4, 2003, to February 4, 2023, were analyzed to examine suicide attempts, death, self-harm, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within five years of the index event. A secondary analysis involving a control group with pharyngitis, referred to as cohort D, was conducted to validate the results from cohort C.

Results

Individuals who underwent gender-affirming surgery had a 12.12-fold higher suicide attempt risk than those who did not (3.47% vs. 0.29%, RR 95% CI 9.20-15.96, p < 0.0001). Compared to the tubal ligation/vasectomy controls, the risk was 5.03-fold higher before propensity matching and remained significant at 4.71-fold after matching (3.50% vs. 0.74%, RR 95% CI 2.46-9.024, p < 0.0001) for the gender affirmation patients with similar results with the pharyngitis controls.

Conclusion

Gender-affirming surgery is significantly associated with elevated suicide attempt risks, underlining the necessity for comprehensive post-procedure psychiatric support.

This reminds me of how doctors in gender-bender clinics see their work. Are they helping children? Or are they virtue-signaling to parents about how much more moral they are than parents?

Here is a story from Daily Wire about that:

“It’s a lot of money,” VUMC Clinic for Transgender Health’s Dr. Shayne Sebold Taylor said at one Medicine Grand Rounds lecture, video reveals. “These surgeries make a lot of money.”

Taylor noted that a “chest reconstruction” can bring in $40,000 per patient, and someone “just on routine hormone treatment, who I’m only seeing a few times a year, can bring in several thousand dollars … and actually makes money for the hospital.”

Citing the Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery, Taylor said vaginoplasty surgeries can generate $20,000, gushing that it “has to be an underestimate,” since hospital stay, anesthesia, post-op visits, and other add-ons are not included in the total.

“And the female-to-male bottom surgeries, these are huge money makers,” the doctor continued, adding that such surgeries could bring in “up to $100,000” for the hospital.

Some clinics are “entirely” “supported” financially by such phalloplasty surgeries, Taylor boasted.

“These surgeries are labor intensive, there are a lot of follow-ups, they require a lot of our time, and they make money,” she emphasized. “They make money for the hospital.”

The interesting thing about these stories is how often it’s white progressive women doing the virtue-signaling, and collecting the money for their new cars, traveling and cosmetic surgeries.

I recently spoke to my doctor about my concerns that medicine was becoming too politicized, and that their motivations seemed to be to follow the priorities of politicians and special interest groups. He actually lost his temper, and insisted that doctors are guided by “evidence” in every respect, and that people who oppose doctors are guided by “social media”. He was quite upset.

That might be the case for him, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for patients to ask their doctors what’s guiding their decisions.

William Lane Craig lectures on the historical Jesus at Columbia University

One of the other software engineers at work is always finding interesting sermons and lectures to listen to. On Friday afternoon, things were a bit slow, so she messaged me a lecture featuring Dr. William Lane Craig, talking on “Who Was Jesus?” at Columbia University. I wanted to encourage her, so I put it on to listen as well. I liked it so much, I wrote out a summary below to go with it.

Here is the lecture:

Description:

Dr. William Lane Craig unpacks questions surrounding Jesus’ resurrection and the historical accuracy of the biblical claims.  Columbia University, 2009.

And my outline:

Different views of Jesus:

  • Jewish view of Jesus
  • Muslim view of Jesus
  • skeptical historian view of Jesus
  • what did Jesus think about himself?
  • Jesus didn’t write anything of his own
  • best sources are the records of Jesus followers
  • problem: how do we know these records are accurate
  • maybe stories of Jesus’ divinity emerged over time

New tools from the Renaissance:

  • historiography
  • textual criticism
  • investigate Jesus as a historical figure
  • same tools are used for other historical figures

Sources:

  • Christian
  • Jewish
  • Roman
  • Many more sources than other figures of antiquity

External sources:

  • confirm what the gospels say, but don’t say anything new

Treating the Bible as a collection of ancient documents

  • not using the Bible to prove the Bible is divine
  • just treating the books as historical documents

New Testament

  • a collection of the earliest documents
  • much later documents about Jesus not included
  • later documents not written by eyewitnesses

Skeptical scholars:

  • ignore the earliest sources
  • focus on the later sources
  • result is a more radical left-friendly Jesus

Burden of proof

  • are the gospels assumed reliable until proven unreliable?
  • are the gospels assumed unreliable until proven reliable?

Five reasons to assume the New Testament is reliable

1. Insufficient time for legendary influences to erase the historical core

  • the gap between the events and the sources is much shorter than other comparable sources
  • Greek and Roman sources are at least 1-2 generations from the events they record
  • Gospels written down and circulated within first generation after the events they record
  • the eyewitnesses were alive at the time they were written down

2. Gospels are not the same genre as folk tales or urban legends

  • Gospels talk about real people who actually lived
  • Gospels talk about real places excavated by archaeologists

3. Oral tradition in first century Jewish society

  • Jewish culture valued reliable transmission of religious tradition
  • Memorization of long passages and entire books

4. Restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus

  • The apostles and other eyewitnesses could correct embellishments

5. Gospel writers make testable statements that are found to be true

  • Luke is the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts
  • In Acts, Luke accompanies with the eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus
  • Acts contains many historical details accurate to the times and places he writes about
  • Luke’s gospel is in accord with archaeological discoveries made since

It’s reasonable to accept the general reliability of the Gospels, unless they are found unreliable

Historical basis for facets of Jesus

1. Unique Son of God

  • historical critics claim that the divinity of Jesus developed over time
  • why would monotheistic Jews contradict their monotheism by inventing a divine Jesus?
  • the only reasonsable answer is that Jesus claimed divinity for himself
  • His followers accepted it because Jesus provided reasons to believe
  • Mark 12:1-8
    Earliest gospel reveals Jesus’ self-understanding as God’s “only beloved son”
  • Matthew 11:27
    “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” This story is also in Luke. Source is “Q”, an early set of traditions common to Matthew and Luke
  • Mark 13:32
    Jesus sees himself as above humans and angels, but subordinate to God the Father

Why would anyone take Jesus seriously, unless he was able to provide evidence?

2. Jesus’ miracles

  • Jesus’ miracle stories are in all four sources
  • The only reason to reject them is because of a philosophical bias against the supernatural

3. Trial and crucifixion

  • Crucifixion narrative is in the Gospels, Paul’s letters, Acts
  • Also confirmed by Josephus and Roman historians
  • Historians across the ideological spectrum affirm the crucifixion

Why was Jesus crucified?

  • Doesn’t fit with the skeptical view that Jesus was uncontroversial and had few followers

4. Jesus’ resurrection

  • Jesus resurrection is the best explanation for historical facts accepted by diverse majority of historians
  1. Burial location known to friends and enemies, and corpse would refute the resurrection
  2. Tomb was found empty by a group of Jesus’ women followers
  3. Post-mortem appearances to individuals and groups, friends, skeptics and enemies
  4. Original disciples became convinced that Jesus rose from dead counter to their own interests
  • The facts are accepted by a majority of scholars across the ideological spectrum
  • Dr. Craig’s debate with a scholar who invented an unknown, identical twin brother who was separated from Jesus at birth
  • Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide affirms the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event

Then there is a period of question and answer, which I did not find useful, because the questions seemed to be more about the needs and feelings of Christians, rather than about the facts presented by Dr. Craig, or about how these facts survive in debates on university campuses. Facts don’t care about your feelings.

It never hurts to listen to William Lane Craig. If you listen enough, you can remember his points when you get the opportunity. In college, all of my friends at Crusade could do his opening speech from his debates on God’s existence from memory.