Speaker 1: Welcome to the gods View Podcast. I am your host, Trevor.
Speaker 1: How's everybody doing out there in the world wide world.
Speaker 1: Sorry for the weird like slowing of the audio last week.
Speaker 1: It sounded like some of the clips we were playing
Speaker 1: it sounded like the guy was drunk or something. The
Speaker 1: only thing I could figure out at least what my
Speaker 1: hypothesis is I just had way too many things running
Speaker 1: on my computer at once, which is crazy because this
Speaker 1: is a brand new MacBook Pro. But I literally had
Speaker 1: like thirty different I have like MRI imaging processing software going,
Speaker 1: and I had our studio statistics, you know, a million
Speaker 1: browser tabs word Excel. It was just it was a
Speaker 1: nightmare just trying to like save a file froze my computer.
Speaker 1: So I've managed to destroy another perfectly good laptop, but
Speaker 1: I've closed everything. I've deleted about two hundred gigabytes worth
Speaker 1: the stuff, and I think we're back in business anyway.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you all again. This will be
Speaker 1: part two of our did Jesus Claim to Be God? Series,
Speaker 1: which is really just a you know, hijacking of Alex
Speaker 1: O'Connor's great content and adding some commentary which kind of
Speaker 1: brings me to a show housekeeping thing I want to
Speaker 1: bring up before we get started. You know, I've been
Speaker 1: recording like an episode a day for quite a while
Speaker 1: because it's kind of nice. I know, I've said many
Speaker 1: times before that the show is sort of really it's
Speaker 1: just for my own mental health. But you know, I
Speaker 1: am feeling the instinct waning. You know, it's because I,
Speaker 1: within the context of like science and philosophy and religion,
Speaker 1: I've kind of like said everything that I know, you know,
Speaker 1: so I'm kind of I'm feeling I'm starting to feel repetitive,
Speaker 1: so I'll probably slow down the frequency. But one thing
Speaker 1: that I thought would be kind of cool, and this
Speaker 1: is a long shot, is it would be nice, you know,
Speaker 1: because I've always recorded shows in the past with the
Speaker 1: co host, you know, in my different failed podcast experiments,
Speaker 1: it would be nice to maybe have like an occasional
Speaker 1: guest co host show up. So if you're sitting out
Speaker 1: there listening and you're like, dear God, that's me, I'm
Speaker 1: the guy or the gal, and you're like, I am
Speaker 1: the one, and I will rise to the challenge, shoot
Speaker 1: me an email. I know it'd probably be a little
Speaker 1: bit awkward the first couple of times, but uh, I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's just nice, Like if I say something
Speaker 1: that isn't clear, it's nice to have somebody else say like, wait,
Speaker 1: can you re explain that? Or if we're reacting to clips,
Speaker 1: you know, there's things I might miss, So it would
Speaker 1: be cool. You don't necessarily have to be like an
Speaker 1: expert in anything. I mean, it would be welcome. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're out there listening and you're a you're a
Speaker 1: physicist or a or a theologian or a philosopher, like yeah,
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong, that'd be sick. But you also
Speaker 1: don't have to be that. We could just sort of
Speaker 1: react to stuff. So really, really, no matter where you're
Speaker 1: at in the intellectual spectrum, I think it is just
Speaker 1: nice to have a second perspective, you know, someone who
Speaker 1: someone who's either sometime can be like a foil or
Speaker 1: a sounding board or represent people who maybe don't know
Speaker 1: as much about the topic and ask sort of basic
Speaker 1: but important questions. I think that's all good. So shoot
Speaker 1: me an email at God's I view book at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com if you're interested. Now back to the show.
Speaker 1: Last episode we listened to Mark, we talked about an
Speaker 1: argument from Mark, which is that Jesus forgave sins and
Speaker 1: only and God alone can forgive sins. It's so fact though,
Speaker 1: you know Jesus is God. And I, I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know about you, but I found the I found
Speaker 1: the take pretty compelling. I mean, maybe maybe I'm saying
Speaker 1: that because I've seen Alex make people look dumb on
Speaker 1: this point, and he certainly did not make this guy
Speaker 1: look dumb. I need to figure out what his name
Speaker 1: is so he can plug his book. It's not in
Speaker 1: the title or the description. But anyway, he certainly didn't
Speaker 1: make this guy look dumb. I didn't think. And then
Speaker 1: Alex brought up a point that, well, you know, Matthew
Speaker 1: told the same story, but he made it even let
Speaker 1: he made Jesus making even less of a divine claim.
Speaker 1: And I think the counter argument was, yeah, but it
Speaker 1: still is a divine claim. And Matthew is just a
Speaker 1: shorter book so there's less detail. And yeah, I grant that,
Speaker 1: of all the verses to remove, those two are not
Speaker 1: ideal for my argument, but I agree it doesn't really
Speaker 1: like fundamentally change anything. So now we're moving into the
Speaker 1: next part, and this looks like It's about twelve minutes long,
Speaker 1: and the title of this chapter is Jesus as a
Speaker 1: disciple of John the Baptist. And if you could make
Speaker 1: this argument, then that be pretty you know, bad for
Speaker 1: Jesus's divine claim because it's sort of it would sort
Speaker 1: of be odd for God to be a disciple of
Speaker 1: a man. But again, I think I think like the
Speaker 1: atheists or the non Christians kind of press the point
Speaker 1: too far here. What's what's the word I'm looking for?
Speaker 1: They're they're kind of they're fighting an argument that even
Speaker 1: really Christians themselves I don't think would make. Which is
Speaker 1: not that the word Jesus and the word God are synonyms.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's true. Jesus is one aspect of
Speaker 1: a triune God. He's not the Father, he's not the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit. He was sent by the Father. However, he
Speaker 1: is God. Not again, not synonymous with God, but he
Speaker 1: is an aspect of my favorite, my favorite analogy of
Speaker 1: the Trinity, because there's like this whole joke around theology
Speaker 1: that like, no matter how you try to describe the Trinity,
Speaker 1: you commit the heresy like saying like ice, water and steam,
Speaker 1: like is the heresy of X you know, there's all
Speaker 1: these named heresies that the Catholic Church has come up with,
Speaker 1: and pretty much every analogy you can come up with
Speaker 1: is a heresy, except maybe one, which is Neopolitan ice cream,
Speaker 1: which is that you know, it's all the ice cream,
Speaker 1: you know, but you have three different aspects chocolate, vanilla, strawberry.
Speaker 1: I just think it's funny that probably is the best
Speaker 1: analogy for the trinity. So when you say, like in
Speaker 1: that example, if you said chocolate is ice cream, that
Speaker 1: would be correct, right, But it's not the same as
Speaker 1: the whole carton of ice cream. It's like a specific
Speaker 1: flavor of the triune ice cream. Okay, I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to be sacrilegiously. I think it is legitimately probably a
Speaker 1: good analogy. But curious what you think. Okay, here we go, Jesus,
Speaker 1: as a disciple of John the Baptist.
Speaker 2: I should lay out what my position is here, what
Speaker 2: my understanding is to help here, and maybe you can
Speaker 2: lay out yours. Two, I think you might have betrayed
Speaker 2: yourself as a Catholic given your use of Latin. I
Speaker 2: think you know it's out in the open now for
Speaker 2: our listeners.
Speaker 3: Yes, for what it's worth.
Speaker 2: I'm quite attracted to the idea that Jesus, historically speaking,
Speaker 2: is essentially a follower of John the Baptist, a disciple
Speaker 2: of John the Baptist. And there's some evidence in this
Speaker 2: in the fact that Jesus is of course baptized by
Speaker 2: John the Baptists, and John is preaching a baptism of
Speaker 2: repentance for the forgiveness of sins. A lot of people
Speaker 2: think that John was a type of June known as
Speaker 2: an Esscene, because there are sort of three major Jewish
Speaker 2: groups in this time. There's the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and
Speaker 2: the Essenes, and of course a lot of people might
Speaker 2: not have heard of the latter group because Jesus is
Speaker 2: constantly battling with the first two, never battles with third.
Speaker 1: There's a lot that Alex sort of sneaking in another
Speaker 1: atheist talking point, which again I'm not saying talking point
Speaker 1: like a stupid atheist. It's it's valid, it's you know,
Speaker 1: I think we should contend with all this stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: most people haven't heard of the a scene. Most Christians
Speaker 1: haven't heard of the Ascene, because Jesus most likely was
Speaker 1: in a scene jew you know, an Aramaic speaking Galilean,
Speaker 1: a scene Jew and the religious authority in in the
Speaker 1: major the major cities and stuff was were the Pharisees
Speaker 1: and the Sadducees, and they have different beliefs, like the
Speaker 1: Sadducees did not believe in an end time resurrection, the
Speaker 1: Pharisees did, you know, And compared to the scene, they're
Speaker 1: probably more like legalistic. But I don't know if we
Speaker 1: actually know that for sure. That's just how it to portrayed.
Speaker 1: And so Jesus was not a part of that group.
Speaker 1: John the Baptist was most likely not a part of
Speaker 1: that group. And so this is sort of positioned as
Speaker 1: like this makes this text almost sort of like political.
Speaker 1: You know, this is a almost like a political figure
Speaker 1: trying to usurp the current religious authority. I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: it's not a totally unreasonable hypothesis. I just don't think
Speaker 1: it really finds a ton of support. I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: One thing about the scenes that are interesting is that
Speaker 1: they are very I think. You know, again, I don't
Speaker 1: know a ton a ton about this stuff. I think
Speaker 1: I represent like an educated layman maybe, but my impression
Speaker 1: is that the scene were pretty mystical, and they were
Speaker 1: pretty focused on the apocalypse, and they were excellent record keepers.
Speaker 1: And you know the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, that's
Speaker 1: in a scene library that was discovered, so he kind
Speaker 1: of snuck that in there. It's completely unrelated to the
Speaker 1: brighter point. I just wanted to clarify a lot of bit.
Speaker 2: It's a barely sort of you know, well trodden power
Speaker 2: to people who suggest this means Jesus is an ess
Speaker 2: scene in the tradition of John the Baptist, John the
Speaker 2: Baptist dies. John is constantly talking about having a successor.
Speaker 2: There's one coming who's going to be greater than me.
Speaker 2: Jesus is that man. Jesus sort of continues the ministry
Speaker 2: of John the Baptist, and then what we see is
Speaker 2: Jesus preparing to pass on that ministry to his own
Speaker 2: disciples and singling out Peter as his sort of main successor.
Speaker 2: And of course this is very unorthodox for Christians, but
Speaker 2: I'm speaking historically here. There are some clues here. Jesus
Speaker 2: is saying things to his disciples like, you know, one
Speaker 2: day you'll do greater things than I will. He talks
Speaker 2: about teachers and students and how the students will surpass
Speaker 2: the teacher. And of course the main thing and the
Speaker 2: reason I bring this up is to say that whenever
Speaker 2: I'm confronted with evidence of Jesus's actions, things that he
Speaker 2: can do that only God can do, Jesus forgive since
Speaker 2: in John chapter twenty he ends up giving that authority
Speaker 2: to his disciples. Jesus walks on the water. A lot
Speaker 2: of people also forget that Peter also walks on the water,
Speaker 2: you know, and he starts sinking because he doesn't have
Speaker 2: enough faith. But the implication there is that if he
Speaker 2: had enough faith, he'd be able to walk on the water,
Speaker 2: just like Jesus did. Who meaning, Jesus is presented as
Speaker 2: this idyllic figure with perfect faith in the Father, and
Speaker 2: if only Peter has the same faith, he could have
Speaker 2: walked on the water too.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Jesus judges mankind, well, he delegates judge.
Speaker 1: I have to say, and again, I'm sorry if I'm
Speaker 1: committing heresy here, but this kind of is the natural reading.
Speaker 1: And you know, when I first read the Gospel like
Speaker 1: this is how I interpreted it, I didn't know enough
Speaker 1: to know that this is sort of you know, it's
Speaker 1: sort of maybe semi problematic with Catholic and Orthodox tradition,
Speaker 1: but no, I mean I actually I think I would
Speaker 1: say it's very problematic. You know, if you interpret this
Speaker 1: as saying that basically we could all be like Jesus
Speaker 1: literally through faith, I mean, that is a pretty problematic belief,
Speaker 1: you know, for sort of mainstream Christianity. So anyway, so
Speaker 1: to Alex's point, I mean that is how it reads
Speaker 1: to an uninformed person reading it for the first.
Speaker 2: Time, richment of the Twelve Tribes of Israel to the disciples.
Speaker 2: So as we talk about some of these examples, I
Speaker 2: want you to I want my listeners, our listeners, to
Speaker 2: recognize in my responses that that is kind of my
Speaker 2: rough understanding that in these instances where Jesus is doing
Speaker 2: something extraordinary and yeah, he is obviously doing something amazing
Speaker 2: and something that at least common understanding would have it
Speaker 2: that only God can do, Jesus is sort of saying, no, watch,
Speaker 2: I can do this too, but only in a way
Speaker 2: that one day you will also, and that the most
Speaker 2: sort of the greatest summary of this is in John
Speaker 2: chapter seventeen, where Jesus is praying for his disciples and
Speaker 2: the wider Christian community, and he prays that one day,
Speaker 2: you know, they will be in me just as I
Speaker 2: am in you the Father, and will all sort of
Speaker 2: be one together, seeming to imply that the special relationship
Speaker 2: pieces house with the Father is something that will hopefully
Speaker 2: be passed on to other people. So that's basically my
Speaker 2: broad position. Just I thought it's worth laying that out
Speaker 2: as we go through these.
Speaker 3: No, that's really helpful, So let me let me let
Speaker 3: me try to lay out just in a brief way
Speaker 3: mine and then I'd like to point to some things
Speaker 3: that I might that might be intention with that reading,
Speaker 3: just or emphasize how I basically let me say I
Speaker 3: agree with you, because actually one of the amazing things
Speaker 3: about Christianity is that it makes very exalted claims for
Speaker 3: the gifts that it professes. Both the apostles, their disciples
Speaker 3: and other believers will be able to share it. It's
Speaker 3: a very high claim, and this is where the whole
Speaker 3: Christian tradition of theosis or demonization comes from, even though
Speaker 3: that's not very well known and contemporary Christian circles and discourse.
Speaker 3: I think. So my basic position, or the couple of
Speaker 3: positions that I want to try to lay out in
Speaker 3: this book. Number one is that on the level of
Speaker 3: the gospel narratives, I'm trying to undo what I believe
Speaker 3: to be a very erroneous position that Jesus is only divine,
Speaker 3: only depicted as divine in John and not in the parotics. Okay,
Speaker 3: So I actually think that the that the when it
Speaker 3: comes to the four sources from the first century about Jesus,
Speaker 3: he acts and speaks as if he's divine in all
Speaker 3: four Marthy, Mark, Luke, and John, not just not just
Speaker 3: the fore call a second. I actually think that in
Speaker 3: addition to the passages that you just listed about him
Speaker 3: performing divine actions or having divine power to forgive sins
Speaker 3: or to judge right, in addition to those, there are
Speaker 3: other passages where Jesus does things that I, at least
Speaker 3: I think he doesn't give to his disciples. So let
Speaker 3: me let me give you a couple of examples. Is
Speaker 3: that fair? Please just do that?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 3: So for example, let's look at the walking on the seat.
Speaker 3: So I have the chapter called the Epiphanic Miracles in
Speaker 3: the book. This is the second chapter, and one of
Speaker 3: the main points of this chapter is actually to just
Speaker 3: demolish what I think is actually a myth, the myth
Speaker 3: that he's only divine in John he's not really divine
Speaker 3: in the Synoptics. I just think that doesn't hold up,
Speaker 3: and it's worked in the modern period, primarily because in
Speaker 3: the modern period there's been a tendencyy to bracket the
Speaker 3: miraculous out as if these aren't even part of the Gospels.
Speaker 3: It's almost kind like a cannon with and cannon. So
Speaker 3: lots of books on Jesus just ignore what are known
Speaker 3: widely as the Epiphanic miracles. Now, epiphantic miracles already suggest
Speaker 3: to you that something is being unveiled or revealed, and
Speaker 3: it's not just a merely human quality.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: This is why King Antikas the Fourth, when he wants
Speaker 3: to claim divinity he mints coins and tiacas epifondos right
Speaker 3: and tiacus God manifest right. He's he's making a divine claim.
Speaker 3: But the epiphanu miracle that I think is really crucial
Speaker 3: here in Mark six, the walking on the sea takes place.
Speaker 3: In it, Jesus does something you're right, that he enables.
Speaker 3: In Matthew's version, he enables Peter at least to walk
Speaker 3: briefly on the sea, but before he begins to sing.
Speaker 3: But one of the things he does that at least
Speaker 3: I don't see Peter or any other disciple doing anywhere else,
Speaker 3: is take the divine name as his own from the
Speaker 3: Old Testament.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: So, just to give you example, in Mark chapter six,
Speaker 3: right when he comes walking on the sea and they
Speaker 3: see him, they think he's a ghost, he says to them,
Speaker 3: this is a Mark six, verse fifty, take heart, Ago
Speaker 3: a me, do not be afraid, right So take heart
Speaker 3: I am, do not fear, do not be afraid right now,
Speaker 3: as I show in Jesus of my Christology, it's not
Speaker 3: just Christian apologists I've got. It's Jewish scholars, unreligious scholars, Protestants,
Speaker 3: Catholics alike, recognizing that on the narrative level, at the
Speaker 3: very least, Okay, the ago of me here is not
Speaker 3: just an identification. It is doing that, okay, Because he's
Speaker 3: just told you they think he's a ghost. There is
Speaker 3: a mistaken identity element taking place, and he is saying
Speaker 3: Ago and me it is I. That's not an illegitimate translation.
Speaker 3: But that's not all that's happening, because the context is Theophanic, right,
Speaker 3: it'd be one thing to just.
Speaker 1: Say, Okay, guys, this is really cool and I'm nervous
Speaker 1: because my computer's glitching, so hopefully it's coming through normal
Speaker 1: on the recording. The I am statement is important, you know,
Speaker 1: because this is how Yahweh tells Moses I believe, like,
Speaker 1: who should I tell sent me? And he says, tell
Speaker 1: tell them that I am sent to you, like tell
Speaker 1: them that being itself sent to you. This is this
Speaker 1: is how God communicates his name to people in the
Speaker 1: Old Testament. And so this is why in John when
Speaker 1: he says, you know, before Abraham was I am. You know,
Speaker 1: everyone basically understands that this is the vine claim. However,
Speaker 1: he doesn't act actually technically use the same word son.
Speaker 1: You heard him say ago ami you know I am.
Speaker 1: This is not actually and I don't know the Hebrew word.
Speaker 1: Now it's a little tricky because like we don't you know,
Speaker 1: Jesus wasn't speaking Hebrew, so we don't actually know what
Speaker 1: word he used. This is being written in Greek most likely,
Speaker 1: so it could just be a translation thing I believe.
Speaker 1: But the atheist claim is he's actually using a slightly
Speaker 1: different word. However, you can kind of settle this argument,
Speaker 1: which is the point he's about to make, because if
Speaker 1: he's making the divine claim in the context of something
Speaker 1: that only God can do, it seems to suggest that
Speaker 1: he's making a divine claim. Right, So in this case,
Speaker 1: he's walking on water. So let's uh, he'll he'll do
Speaker 1: a much better job explaining. I just wanted to set
Speaker 1: you up a little bit.
Speaker 3: It's me if you know, you stumble across someone in
Speaker 3: the dark and you don't know who it is, and
Speaker 3: he says, I am okay, fine, no numinous divine implications.
Speaker 3: But he's walking on the water when he says ago
Speaker 3: and me, and he adds to it. And this is important.
Speaker 3: The standard Theophanic statement mayfol based that Greek, do not
Speaker 3: be afraid. Don't be afraid. This is what happens over
Speaker 3: and over again the Old Testament when a he.
Speaker 1: This is so key man, this is so to me.
Speaker 1: This just totally undercuts the argument. You know, he's saying,
Speaker 1: do not be afraid. This is the standard thing that
Speaker 1: heavenly beings say to humans the first time they encountered
Speaker 1: a human, kind of suggesting that they're terrifying. So he says,
Speaker 1: do not be afraid I am he says God's name,
Speaker 1: and you could say, okay, really he's saying it is I,
Speaker 1: because both of those are appropriate translations of ago em.
Speaker 1: But he just said do not be afraid, an angelic greeting,
Speaker 1: and he's literally standing on water when he says it.
Speaker 1: It's like, come on, like how like okay, you can
Speaker 1: argue about whether or not you believe this happened. But
Speaker 1: to argue that Jesus isn't even implying you know that
Speaker 1: he is God or he is at least an aspect
Speaker 1: of God, to me, I think that's like a little petulant, maybe,
Speaker 1: like you're being like a little stubborn.
Speaker 3: Heavenly being comes down, whether it's the Lord or whether it's
Speaker 3: an angelic figure, the normal human response is fear and trembling. Right,
Speaker 3: So in this case, Jesus both identifies himself allays their fears.
Speaker 3: But then also, in my opinion and an opinion of
Speaker 3: lots of scholars, takes the numinous divine epithet Aegoimi I
Speaker 3: am or I am he who is, which is an
Speaker 3: allusion to Exodus three, the kind of paradigmatic theophany in
Speaker 3: the Old Testament in which God reveals his name to
Speaker 3: the Israelites. It's a revelation of not just what he is,
Speaker 3: but who he is, uncreated creator, the one who has
Speaker 3: no beginning, who has no end. He's not just the
Speaker 3: God of the mountain or the god of the river's
Speaker 3: he's He's the God who is. And so he takes
Speaker 3: that name as his own. That is something that I
Speaker 3: think you see not only Mark six, but also in
Speaker 3: John eight aty eight when Jesus says or Abraham was
Speaker 3: a go a me same thing a a declaration that
Speaker 3: has no predicate, right, doesn't say I am God. It's
Speaker 3: just non predicted.
Speaker 2: The trial as well in Mark's version, right.
Speaker 3: In Marx version, although it's not in the other. So
Speaker 3: I didn't make too much day out of that. In
Speaker 3: the I was trying to focus on the triple tradition.
Speaker 3: So you're right though, But that's the answer to a question, right,
Speaker 3: So that's also important. Like the meaning a go a
Speaker 3: me I am is going to have is going to
Speaker 3: be determined by context. It would be wrong for, for example,
Speaker 3: Christian apologist to say whenever someone says a go amy,
Speaker 3: they're claiming to be divine. Because the blind man says
Speaker 3: it in John chapter nine or ten, that's right, it's nine, yeah,
Speaker 3: because they're asking, hey, is this the same guy or not? Right,
Speaker 3: he's different than he was, and he says I am,
Speaker 3: which clearly means yes, it's me.
Speaker 2: But the context also warns warns his followers, like in
Speaker 2: March chapter thirteen, he says, beware that no one leaves
Speaker 2: you astray. Some many will come in my name and
Speaker 2: say I am he like ego amy and will lead
Speaker 2: you astray. So clearly, just the usage of this name
Speaker 2: is not necessarily an invocation of divinity, just to be
Speaker 2: clear for our listeners here, right, So, so ego amy
Speaker 2: is is a Greek phrase which is used in the Gospels.
Speaker 2: The Gospels a written in Greek. The Old Testament is
Speaker 2: written in Hebrew. Ego Amy translates roughly as I am
Speaker 2: ego as an ego you know, yeah, so it's so,
Speaker 2: it's I am. But it is also sort of used
Speaker 2: more colloquially to say something like it's me.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 2: A good example is the blind man in chapter in
Speaker 2: John nine, they say, you know, is this not the
Speaker 2: man who was born blind? And he goes ego amy, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's it's right. But the difficulty is that in the
Speaker 2: Book of Exodus, when Moses asks God what his name is,
Speaker 2: God says, what would it be like asher yet.
Speaker 1: Commercial? But yeah, he's getting ready to make this the
Speaker 1: same point. But the thing is that these are different languages,
Speaker 1: so I don't know how key this is, you know,
Speaker 1: like how big? But maybe I don't remember, and he's
Speaker 1: about to destroy the argument. Let's find out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I am, I was, I will be who
Speaker 3: I will be? Like it is a it is a
Speaker 3: put it. It's an enigmatic Hebrew phrase in itself, like
Speaker 3: it bears multiple translations and.
Speaker 2: Means which would again kind of means something like I
Speaker 2: am who I am, or I am that I am right,
Speaker 2: And then he says, so go and tell them that
Speaker 2: I Am has sent you, and so he gives his
Speaker 2: name as I am. Of course the new Tessim's written
Speaker 2: in a different language, but I am in Greek is
Speaker 2: ego amy. So sometimes it does seem like when Jesus
Speaker 2: says it, especially in like John chapter eight, when he
Speaker 2: says weirdly with a weird grammar, you know, before Abraham
Speaker 2: was I am. It seems like such a sort of
Speaker 2: intentional usage of that phrase that people say it's a callback,
Speaker 2: but it's complicated by the fact that it is also
Speaker 2: a phrase that people do sometimes just use to identify themselves.
Speaker 2: So here importantly the Gospels themselves. If you read John
Speaker 2: chapter eight fifty eight.
Speaker 1: I just want to point something out. You know, Alex
Speaker 1: will have these conversations with people who don't know much
Speaker 1: like this guy, and you can imagine him crafting like
Speaker 1: a much more devastating critique of Jesus's divine claim if
Speaker 1: there's not a very intelligent theologian to be like, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: you know, like, yeah, people say I am all the time,
Speaker 1: but it's also a border to remember that God's name
Speaker 1: is I am. And when you are using the word
Speaker 1: I am in a strange way, like before Abraham was
Speaker 1: I am, you know that's clearly a divine claim. When
Speaker 1: you're saying it as you walk on water after you
Speaker 1: said do not be afraid, you're clearly using it in
Speaker 1: the divine what you know what I mean. But you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't know anything about like the gospel story
Speaker 1: and stuff, which is often who Alex is being interviewed by.
Speaker 1: I've seen I've seen clips of him on other people's
Speaker 1: shows and I'm like, Oh, like, I guess, I guess
Speaker 1: Jesus never claimed to be God, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: So I would encourage you if you have like a
Speaker 1: lot of preconceived notions, like if you kind of feel like,
Speaker 1: you know, the story of Jesus has been thoroughly debunked,
Speaker 1: Like I don't necessarily there's certain things that can neither
Speaker 1: be proven or not proven, right, but there are other
Speaker 1: things that perhaps could be disproven. You know, it could
Speaker 1: be that, you know, Moses is writing about Abraham and
Speaker 1: he's describing cities that didn't exist. Yet someone could have
Speaker 1: told you that you could watch a video and you'd go, oh,
Speaker 1: this is completely discredited, not knowing that there are other
Speaker 1: very legitimate scholars who have very good rebuttals and arguments
Speaker 1: against this. So again, I would encourage you if you
Speaker 1: feel like things have been debunked, maybe just accept like
Speaker 1: an intelligent person trying to make a point without an
Speaker 1: intelligent counterpoint maker sitting next to them can really like
Speaker 1: do a lot of damage on your knowledge of a subject,
Speaker 1: like this is what happens with flat earth all the time.
Speaker 1: You know, you get some guy who knows a lot
Speaker 1: about the flat earth argument, says things no one else
Speaker 1: is around to be like, well, actually no that's not true.
Speaker 1: You know what you just said isn't true. You know,
Speaker 1: someone just speaks with authority. It can be pretty convincing.
Speaker 1: So I just kind of maybe if you are an agnostic,
Speaker 1: sort of just reflect back on the arguments you've heard,
Speaker 1: the things you've heard it, maybe just like take some
Speaker 1: of it with the grain of salt. Like I'm not
Speaker 1: saying like everything you've ever heard is wrong. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that, but sort of re examine your current prejudicial
Speaker 1: biases and maybe be open to re examining them.
Speaker 2: Eight. You know, verse verse fifty eight. They translate it
Speaker 2: usually as before Abraham was I am right? But on
Speaker 2: the walking in the water, most Biblical translations read the
Speaker 2: NIV or whatever. I'm not sure where the NRSV does,
Speaker 2: but it translates it as it's me, even though it's
Speaker 2: the same phrase.
Speaker 1: I should just point out this is maybe a translation issue.
Speaker 1: The original word is ego at me.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, because contextually it seems like he
Speaker 2: is just identifying himself. But you're saying that in the
Speaker 2: context of walking on the water, it takes on a
Speaker 2: great deal of significance to use that identify.
Speaker 3: I would qualified. I would just say I don't think
Speaker 3: the word just is correct. Yes, he's identifying himself, but
Speaker 3: he's not just identifying himself. And the way you know
Speaker 3: that is from the context, because in this context he's
Speaker 3: walking on the water, which if you look in Job
Speaker 3: chapter nine, for example, this is something that Hebrew scripture
Speaker 3: says only God does. Only God walks on the waves.
Speaker 3: In fact, in the Subtuagen translation of Job nine, it
Speaker 3: says that God walks on the waves as on dry land. Right,
Speaker 3: So this is something that Jewish scripture makes a divine attribute.
Speaker 3: And then this was really cool in the book. I'm
Speaker 3: sure you saw this part. It's also something in a
Speaker 3: Greco Roman context was perceived as a divine power because
Speaker 3: in the first century, when Caligula wants to manifest his divinity.
Speaker 3: This is one of the strange things about Caligula. One
Speaker 3: of the reasons a lot of Romans thought he was
Speaker 3: crazy is because he didn't wait to divinize himself until
Speaker 3: he was dead. That's perfectly acceptable. Once you're dead, you
Speaker 3: can be divinized. But he wanted divine claims and divine
Speaker 3: attributes to be give to him while he was alive.
Speaker 3: So a lot of people said he you know, he
Speaker 3: was crazy. But uh, and Josephus and in Suetonius we
Speaker 3: hear no Stonius Sutonius tells Us about how in order
Speaker 3: to manifest his divinity, he builds a bridge across the
Speaker 3: Bay of Biah and then rides across it on a
Speaker 3: chariot as befitted his godhead. Right, So the idea that
Speaker 3: he that he can cross the sea, and this is
Speaker 3: just one example, there are others as well. Is both
Speaker 3: in Jewish and Greco Roman context, a divine power, a
Speaker 3: divine attribute, it's something superhuman. And so when in that
Speaker 3: context Jesus says, ag a me may fow base it.
Speaker 3: Don't forget to do not fear either too. That's this
Speaker 3: is that language. So you brought up Exodus three, but
Speaker 3: it's not just Sexust three, it's Isaiah forty three. When
Speaker 3: God speaks I am God, there is no other He
Speaker 3: reutilizes the language of I am and I am he,
Speaker 3: the same Hebrew language from from the Book of Exus.
Speaker 3: But then he also says do not fear. So Jesus
Speaker 3: isn't just alluding Exodus three. In the Burning Bush. He's
Speaker 3: also alluding to the most on a theistic passage in
Speaker 3: Isaiah about the power of the One Creator God of Israel.
Speaker 3: So in that and he does it while he's walking
Speaker 3: on the water, right, So that's important, right. Context matters
Speaker 3: when it comes to this, as I like to joke
Speaker 3: with my students whenever we would go through this when
Speaker 3: we talk about this in the In the Gospel John,
Speaker 3: I think I noted this. It says that he that
Speaker 3: they're four miles from the shore, because Steve Galiley's about
Speaker 3: seven miles wide at the widest point. And so I
Speaker 3: would joke with the students and I said, listen, if
Speaker 3: he didn't know he was God by mile one, he
Speaker 3: probably figured it out by mile four, right, Like this
Speaker 3: is this is not just uh, this is not just
Speaker 3: a identification of it's me. It's also a theophanic revelation.
Speaker 3: That's why it's called on an epiphany miracle of the
Speaker 3: mystery of his identity that he is claiming he's using
Speaker 3: the name of the One God from the Book of
Speaker 3: Exodus and from Isaiah. And the context shows that that's true.
Speaker 3: In John aid as well, because the response of his
Speaker 3: contemporaries is to pick up a stone and to stone
Speaker 3: him to death. And they say, we stone you for
Speaker 3: no unrighteous work, because you, though a man, make yourself
Speaker 3: God right.
Speaker 2: Well, he says that, and that's that's John chapter ten.
Speaker 2: When they respond that way.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I say eight. I apologize, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Joe chaps ten. You're talking about whether because they pick
Speaker 2: up stones in John A as well.
Speaker 3: So yes, so the but the stoning in John A
Speaker 3: fifty eight? Uh, John ay fann So they took up
Speaker 3: stones to throw at him. The death by stoning is
Speaker 3: in Leviticus and in Josephus. That is the that's the legal,
Speaker 3: legally prescribed manner of execution for blasphemy. So although the
Speaker 3: word blasphemy doesn't come the the implication is that they're
Speaker 3: stoning him because he's blasphemed and in context blasphemy.
Speaker 1: Can I just realized we have not really addressed the
Speaker 1: disciple of John the baptisting. Although I guess you could
Speaker 1: say this sort of isn't it. You are addressing it, right,
Speaker 1: you know, if you are, if you are showing that
Speaker 1: Jesus is claiming to be God, then clearly he's not
Speaker 1: just a disciple. Although you know Jesus certainly thought very
Speaker 1: highly of John the Baptist. He said, you know, he's
Speaker 1: basically the greatest man there is on earth. So so
Speaker 1: they were close, and they obviously had very similar messages
Speaker 1: than beliefs. But so I'm realizing I introduced this episode
Speaker 1: as a John the Baptist disciple rebuttal, and that's not
Speaker 1: actually what this is. This is much more about the
Speaker 1: ago of me claim. But we have about a few
Speaker 1: minutes left, and uh, I think I'll just let it
Speaker 1: run out and then we'll wrap up.
Speaker 3: I mean a lot of different things, like you can
Speaker 3: speak against the temple, you can speak against the priesthood.
Speaker 3: One soldier got executed by the Rome procubator Kamanis because
Speaker 3: he was ripped up copies of the Torah, so he
Speaker 3: like desecrated a sacred object and they said he had.
Speaker 3: He also said he uttered blasphemies. So blast week and
Speaker 3: have a lot of different meanings. But one of them is
Speaker 3: making a divine claim. And before that, the penalty is death,
Speaker 3: not just death, but death by stone. So again in
Speaker 3: context John eight, and I think Mark six, it's really
Speaker 3: difficult for me to argue that those allusions to Isaiah
Speaker 3: forty three and Exodus three are just coincidental. I think
Speaker 3: they're more more significant, much more significant that they're intended
Speaker 3: to help you see that he's making a divine claim
Speaker 3: about who he is, because remember the name in Judaism.
Speaker 3: It reveals not just your role in salvation history like Abraham,
Speaker 3: you know, father multitude, it also reveals your identity, like
Speaker 3: who are you? And that's something I don't see any
Speaker 3: of the apostles ever saying a goo a me I
Speaker 3: am in that kind of context. So I would say
Speaker 3: that's something that is actually distinctive in addition to the powers.
Speaker 3: Does that help this absolutely?
Speaker 2: Yeah. And there's so much to say that. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's it's really difficult to have this conversation actually because
Speaker 2: especially like on YouTube when my comment section is flooded
Speaker 2: by Christians, It's like, if we spend ten minutes talking
Speaker 2: about the Son of Man, then all the comments will
Speaker 2: say he was literally stoned for blasphemy. It's like, okay,
Speaker 2: then we'll spend half an hour talking about blasphemy, and
Speaker 2: then it's like he said I am, and then okay,
Speaker 2: well let's talk about that. And it's like, but he
Speaker 2: said that he's one with the Father, so we have
Speaker 2: to take these one by one, right.
Speaker 3: Yes, And so it's really important to look at in
Speaker 3: each case what is the nature of the divinity to
Speaker 3: which he's laying claying right. So not every passage that
Speaker 3: I looked at in the book has the same degree
Speaker 3: or kind of divine power or identity as the other.
Speaker 3: So I really tried to be a career divine in
Speaker 3: what sense in this passage, divine in what sense in
Speaker 3: another passage. And it is a cumulative argument. It's not
Speaker 3: just that one passage is kind of settled the whole
Speaker 3: thing that's mine.
Speaker 2: So looking at what you've said about about the walking
Speaker 2: in the water, and of course, although I am of
Speaker 2: my opinion of you know, localstology and all that, sure,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm I'm I'm pretty I've got no skin
Speaker 2: in this game, you know, don't I don't. I don't mind.
Speaker 2: So I think it's interesting, but I'm not gonna die
Speaker 2: on this hill or anything.
Speaker 3: One quick point on that just of course disregard. So
Speaker 3: one of the things I did in the book was,
Speaker 3: like I tried to quote scholars who didn't have skin
Speaker 3: in the game. For example, the famous Jesus seminar from
Speaker 3: the nineteen nineties, that's when I was in school, and
Speaker 3: they were really hot, really popular. Most of the scholars
Speaker 3: are members of the seminar. Not all were either atheists
Speaker 3: or gnostic not they weren't believers in the divinity of
Speaker 3: Christ or the classic Christian creeds. But you know, when
Speaker 3: they come to the Walking on the Sea, they say
Speaker 3: he's alluding to Exos three, he's making a divine claim,
Speaker 3: and they actually say he's acting like he's Poseidon or something.
Speaker 3: I mean, so it's not just a kind of Christian
Speaker 3: apologetic that interprets the text in that way. That's a
Speaker 3: reasonable interpretation, even from a non Christian perspective.
Speaker 2: You know, Yeah, I definitely think that it's a reasonable interpretation.
Speaker 2: I'd never wish to imply otherwise. But there are some
Speaker 2: reasons that give me pulse the thought on this, right,
Speaker 2: I mean crucially firstly, right, like that the main grounding
Speaker 2: for this walking on the water thing is, as you've
Speaker 2: already said in Job chapter nine, he alone stretches out
Speaker 2: the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea
Speaker 2: like God alone treads on the waves. We're sort of
Speaker 2: speaking poetically here, and of course it is Job who
Speaker 2: is speaking and In the very next chapter of Job,
Speaker 2: while Job is sort of shouting to the heavens, he says,
Speaker 2: does it please you to oppress me, to spurn the
Speaker 2: work of your hands while you smile on the plans
Speaker 2: of the wicked? He's angry at God, and he's saying
Speaker 2: all of these things about God which are untrue. Like
Speaker 2: in the very next chapter to God, God is saying
Speaker 2: that God smiles on the wicked. He's saying that he please,
Speaker 2: He pleases in oppressing him. You know, he also says
Speaker 2: that he'd wished he'd never been born. Job is sort
Speaker 2: of this imperfect you know, theological authority at that time.
Speaker 2: Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't sort of
Speaker 2: poetically refer to Job, because people would know that phrase
Speaker 2: isn't there. But I think it's worth pointing out that
Speaker 2: this idea that you know, we have this we often say,
Speaker 2: like it says in the Old Testament that probably God
Speaker 2: does this. But it's important to know who's speaking and
Speaker 2: in what context. In this context, Job is complaining and
Speaker 2: basically basically blaspheming himself by saying all of these things
Speaker 2: about God which which aren't true.
Speaker 3: He's angry, I agree, but I pushed back slightly. I
Speaker 3: don't think you're right in the surrounding chapter or the
Speaker 3: next chapter, that's true. But in John Joeb nine one
Speaker 3: ro Ten in those verses there, one of the things
Speaker 3: he's doing is saying, how can a man be just
Speaker 3: before God? And then he begins a poetic litany of
Speaker 3: all of his attributes as creator. And I don't get
Speaker 3: the sense from that particular context that he's calling any
Speaker 3: of those into question. I actually think he's drawing a
Speaker 3: contrast between the utter transcendence and indipotence of the Creator.
Speaker 2: What's happening to That's that's how I read it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think I think that's the perfect reading. I just
Speaker 2: think it's or plausible reading. I just think it's worth
Speaker 2: worth flagging that.
Speaker 3: That's always dangers. Who just say the Old Testimate.
Speaker 2: Says exactly, It's like, you know Muslims might do the
Speaker 2: same thing. Well, I could say, well, in the Book
Speaker 2: of Job in fact, you know, you know it says
Speaker 2: God is not a man that I might.
Speaker 3: Sasties, right, you know, everything's vanity doesn't have any meaning.
Speaker 2: Like okay, well, like yeah, you knows, do quote that?
Speaker 2: By the way they quote the book of Joe where
Speaker 2: God is not a man that I might question him,
Speaker 2: and it's like, yeah, but this is this is job,
Speaker 2: you know, and he's complaining and he doesn't and it's
Speaker 2: poetic and it means it's obviously means something else in
Speaker 2: that comment.
Speaker 3: And that's why I tell you the examples of like
Speaker 3: of Caligula constructing.
Speaker 1: And I think we will end right there. So the
Speaker 1: reason I think we'll end right there is that my
Speaker 1: computer actually died, so it's now twenty four hours later
Speaker 1: in the future. I was recording that clip with Alex
Speaker 1: and I still don't know the guy's name, the guy
Speaker 1: who's defending the claim that Jesus claimed to be God.
Speaker 1: That last thing you heard about Caliguila right there, that
Speaker 1: was twenty four hours ago. So anyway, we're gonna wrap up.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to record some sort of outro so
Speaker 1: it didn't just end. You know, in the twenty four
Speaker 1: hours since that last episode, I'm thinking this podcasting game, man,
Speaker 1: you know, I think I might be kind of coming
Speaker 1: to the to the conclude usion. You know, at first,
Speaker 1: I recorded like ten episodes and stopped, and the idea
Speaker 1: was just for people who were thinking about buying the book,
Speaker 1: or maybe bought the book and wanted to listen to
Speaker 1: something I'd have like this little companion thing. But after
Speaker 1: episode ten, I was like, I don't know, it's kind
Speaker 1: of a lot of work. Well, we're coming up to
Speaker 1: episode one hundred. Now this is episode I think this
Speaker 1: is like ninety five something like that. I'm kind of thinking, oh,
Speaker 1: kind of getting that feeling again, so we'll see. I
Speaker 1: think if I was going to continue, I would need to,
Speaker 1: you know, invest in a little camera, set up my
Speaker 1: office a little bit better, and do a YouTube because
Speaker 1: YouTube is where all the eyeballs are. But I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I always say like, I'm not doing this
Speaker 1: for people to listen. Really, I'm doing it for my
Speaker 1: mental health so my kids can listen to, you know,
Speaker 1: what I thought about what, you know, my grandkids maybe
Speaker 1: what did what did Grandpa think about? Quantum physics? By then,
Speaker 1: will either be subjugated to our Peter teel overlords or
Speaker 1: will be moved on from quantum physics. Probably it will
Speaker 1: be quantum violent string theory or something. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but that was kind of the motivation, Like why do
Speaker 1: I do this thing that doesn't make any money, and
Speaker 1: that was the reason. But now I'm like, maybe I've
Speaker 1: maybe I've done that, maybe I've accomplished that. So I
Speaker 1: don't know. Maybe it may be a co host to
Speaker 1: make things easier, or maybe YouTube, or maybe we just
Speaker 1: call it a day and maybe I'll come back once
Speaker 1: I write another book or something. I don't know. Let
Speaker 1: me know what you think. So, without further ado, that
Speaker 1: was part two of our Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Series?
Speaker 1: Commenting on Alex Connor's interview, I thought it was pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: I thought the is doing a pretty consistently good job
Speaker 1: of making the case that Jesus did, in fact claim
Speaker 1: to be God. Depending on what you mean by the
Speaker 1: word you know, if you mean did he claim to
Speaker 1: be the Father in heaven, will know he didn't. And
Speaker 1: there's you can find all sorts of quotes of Jesus'
Speaker 1: in the Bible where he specifically distinguishes between himself and
Speaker 1: the Father. But if you take a more trinitarian view
Speaker 1: of God, then yes, absolutely Jesus claimed to be the
Speaker 1: son of God and the son of man, so he
Speaker 1: was a divine figure in the form of a man,
Speaker 1: fully human, fully God. So all right, everybody have a
Speaker 1: good weekend. Please email me at God's I view Book
Speaker 1: at gmail dot com. Until next time, take care, stay safe,
Speaker 1: and God bless