On The Reliability Of Oral Tradition And The New Testament Text

Our earliest Christian literature, the letters of Paul, gives us glimpses of the form in which the story of Jesus and his teaching first circulated. That form was evidently an oral tradition, not fluid but fixed, and evidently learned by all Christians when they entered the church. This is why Paul can say, "I myself received from the Lord the account that I passed on to you," I Cor. 11:23. The words "received, passed on" [1] reflect the practice of tradition—the handing-down from one to another of a fixed form of words. How congenial this would be to the Jewish mind a moment's reflection on the Tradition of the Elders will show. The Jews at this very time possessed in Hebrew, unwritten, the scribal interpretation of the Law and in Aramaic a Targum or translation of most or all of their Scriptures. It was a point of pride with them not to commit these to writing but to preserve them

[1] paradidonai = tradere, traditio

unwritten but unaltered.[1] In such circles it would be entirely natural to treat the earliest account of Jesus' deeds and words in just this way. It is to this practice that Paul unmistakably refers, quoting from the Christian tradition our oldest account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, I Cor. 11:24, 25. It will be noted that he speaks of having previously passed this account on to the Corinthians. He speaks in a similar way in I Cor. 15:3-7 of the resurrection accounts which he had communicated to them: "I passed onto you as of first importance, the account I had received."

Acts similarly speaks of "remembering the words of the Lord Jesus," 20:35, and quotes words of Jesus that have never been found in any written gospel. Clement of Rome, in writing to the Corinthians about A.D.95, in two places—13:1 and 46:7, 8—quotes sayings of Jesus not quite like any in our gospels, admonishing his readers in both passages to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus." Polycarp of Smyrna in his letter to the Philippians, about A.D. 107-17, does the same, introducing the quotation with the words, "Remembering what the Lord said," Phil. 2:3. It seems clear that all four are quoting an Oral Gospel.[2]

This is internal evidence. Is there any external evidence,

[1] This attitude is clearly reflected in the story that Gamaliel the First, about A.D. 50, seeing a written copy of an Aramaic translation of Job, immediately had it destroyed. The Targum was not to be written but remembered; cf. Meyer Waxman, History of Jewish Literature (New York, 1930), II, p. 113.

[2] All these writers quote written documents in quite another way: I Cor 7:1; Gal. 3:13; Acts 1:20; I Clem. 47:1, 2; Pol. Phil. 3:2.

any possible reference to such a work, in out earliest Christian writings? It was, of course, the Jewish practice to preserve in oral form the sayings of the great rabbis, as the Pirqe Aboth ("The Sayings of the Fathers") shows. Conditions among the earliest Christians, who thought of Jesus as among other things a "rabbi"—Mark 9:5; 10:51; 11:21; 14:45, etc.—or a "teacher" (twelve times in Mark), favor such a way of preserving his teaching; it would, in fact, have been inevitable; and subsequent quotations seem to show its use, as we have seen. But is there anything that looks like an actual ancient mention of it by name?

In the early years of the second century there lived in Hierapolis, in Asia, a Christian bishop named Papias, who made it his business to interview any Christian of the previous generation who came near and to record these memorabilia in a book, which he called Interpretations of the Lord's Sayings. Though the book existed in convent libraries in Europe until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, [1] it seems now to have disappeared, except for a few fragments of it quoted by ancient or medieval writers. One of these was Eusebius, who in his famous Church History, finished in A.D. 326, quoted this sentence from Papias:

"So then Matthew composed the Sayings in the Aramaic language and each one translated them as [best] he could."[2]

[1] A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur: Die Ueberlieferung, und der Bestand (Leipzig, 1893), p. 69.

[2] Church History iii. 39, 15.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 126-128

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch10.html

Roman Catholic Religious Iconography Is Irreverent Toward The Biblical God

        The Roman Catholic Church contends that its followers are not guilty of idolatry but simply giving appropriate honor to Jesus Christ, Mary, and various saints. Religious iconography is said to have no power in and of itself and that only the person whom a particular image represents is the subject of veneration (CCC # 2132). One problem with such provisions is that God does not approve of us making images to convey His glory:

        "To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him? The workman molds an image, The goldsmith overspreads it with gold, And the silversmith casts silver chains. Whoever is too impoverished for such a contribution chooses a tree that will not rot; He seeks for himself a skillful workman To prepare a carved image that will not totter. Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. He brings the princes to nothing; he makes the judges of the earth useless. Scarcely shall they be planted, scarcely shall they be sown, Scarcely shall their stock take root in the earth, When He will also blow on them, And they will wither, And the whirlwind will take them away like stubble. “To whom then will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal?” says the Holy One." (Isaiah 40:17-25)

        The Prophet Isaiah articulates a sharp contrast between the living God and powerless idols carved by the hands of men. It is irreverent to the utmost for us to even compare His unfathomable glory to relics which are the product of our fragile and fallen minds. These works are the antithesis of God's majesty. It is thus not proper for Roman Catholics to use religious iconography to worship Jesus Christ. He is God in the flesh (Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3). Trying to represent God by physical means degrades His glory and honor. To bow before a statue of Christ with the intent of offering up prayer in His name is to make a mockery of Him.

        One argument made to justify the use of images to worship Jesus Christ is His incarnation (CCC # 2129-2131), although it is difficult to see how or why such validates this practice. "Saints" are human beings, just like the rest of us. The Law emphatically condemned making statues of them for the purpose of religious devotion. The Lord became angry with the Israelites who had urged Aaron to make a golden calf as a result of their desire to have a visible manifestation of God (Exodus 32:8). Why would things be different this time around?

Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit

        The Jewish anticipation for a Messiah was deeply rooted in their scriptures, with prophecies that painted a vivid image of a savior endowed with divine power. These prophecies, like Isaiah 35:5-6, spoke of miraculous healings and transformative acts that would herald the Messiah's arrival:

        "Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the wilderness and streams in the Arabah."

        These verses encapsulate the hope for a new era marked by divine intervention and restoration. However, when Jesus Christ performed such miracles, some Jewish leaders, particularly the Pharisees, responded with skepticism and hostility. They accused Him of deriving His power from demonic sources, as recorded in Matthew 12:24:

        "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.'"

        This accusation was not merely a denial of His miracles, but a profound rejection of His divine identity. According to Christian theology, this deliberate and persistent denial of the Holy Spirit's work through Christ constitutes the unpardonable sin. It reflects a hardened heart that refuses to acknowledge God's manifest truth.

        Today, this specific form of blasphemy cannot be replicated. Jesus is no longer physically present performing miracles. He sits at the right hand of the Father. Therefore, the direct and public rejection of His miraculous works, as witnessed in the first century, is not possible. However, the principle behind the unforgivable sin remains relevant. A person who consistently rejects the Holy Spirit's conviction, remaining in a state of voluntary unbelief until death, commits a sin that, by its very nature, separates them eternally from God. The remedy, as underscored in John 3:16, is repentance and faith in Christ's redemptive work:

        "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Can Astronomy Explain The Biblical Star Of Bethlehem?

"To understand the Star of Bethlehem, we need to think like the three wise men. Motivated by this “star in the east,” they first traveled to Jerusalem and told King Herod the prophecy that a new ruler of the people of Israel would be born. We also need to think like King Herod, who asked the wise men when the star had appeared, because he and his court, apparently, were unaware of any such star in the sky.

These events present us with our first astronomy puzzle of the first Christmas: How could King Herod’s own advisors have been unaware of a star so bright and obvious that it could have led the wise men to Jerusalem?

Next, in order to reach Bethlehem, the wise men had to travel directly south from Jerusalem; somehow that “star in the east” “went before them, ‘til it came and stood over where the young child was.” Now we have our second first-Christmas astronomy puzzle: how can a star “in the east” guide our wise men to the south? The north star guides lost hikers to the north, so shouldn’t a star in the east have led the wise men to the east?

And we have yet a third first-Christmas astronomy puzzle: how does Matthew’s star move “before them,” like the taillights on the snowplow you might follow during a blizzard, and then stop and stand over the manger in Bethlehem, inside of which supposedly lies the infant Jesus?The adoration of the Magi, after they followed that ‘star in the east’ to Jesus.

What could the 'star in the east’ be?

The astronomer in me knows that no star can do these things, nor can a comet, or Jupiter, or a supernova, or a conjunction of planets or any other actual bright object in the nighttime sky. One can claim that Matthew’s words describe a miracle, something beyond the laws of physics. But Matthew chose his words carefully and wrote “star in the east” twice, which suggests that these words hold a specific importance for his readers.

Can we find any other explanation, consistent with Matthew’s words, that doesn’t require that the laws of physics be violated and that has something to do with astronomy? The answer, amazingly, is yes.

Astronomer Michael Molnar points out that “in the east” is a literal translation of the Greek phrase en te anatole, which was a technical term used in Greek mathematical astrology 2,000 years ago. It described, very specifically, a planet that would rise above the eastern horizon just before the sun would appear. Then, just moments after the planet rises, it disappears in the bright glare of the sun in the morning sky. Except for a brief moment, no one can see this “star in the east.”

We need a little bit of astronomy background here. In a human lifetime, virtually all the stars remain fixed in their places; the stars rise and set every night, but they do not move relative to each other. The stars in the Big Dipper appear year after year always in the same place. But the planets, the sun and the moon wander through the fixed stars; in fact, the word “planet” comes from the Greek word for wandering star. Though the planets, sun and moon move along approximately the same path through the background stars, they travel at different speeds, so they often lap each other. When the sun catches up with a planet, we can’t see the planet, but when the sun passes far enough beyond it, the planet reappears.

And now we need a little bit of astrology background. When the planet reappears again for the first time and rises in the morning sky just moments before the sun, for the first time in many months after having been hidden in the sun’s glare for those many months, that moment is known to astrologers as a heliacal rising. A heliacal rising, that special first reappearance of a planet, is what en te anatole referred to in ancient Greek astrology. In particular, the reappearance of a planet like Jupiter was thought by Greek astrologers to be symbolically significant for anyone born on that day.

Thus, the “star in the east” refers to an astronomical event with supposed astrological significance in the context of ancient Greek astrology.Was the star visible just briefly before dawn?

What about the star parked directly above the first crèche? The word usually translated as “stood over” comes from the Greek word epano, which also had an important meaning in ancient astrology. It refers to a particular moment when a planet stops moving and changes apparent direction from westward to eastward motion. This occurs when the Earth, which orbits the sun more quickly than Mars or Jupiter or Saturn, catches up with, or laps, the other planet.

Together, a rare combination of astrological events (the right planet rising before the sun; the sun being in the right constellation of the zodiac; plus a number of other combinations of planetary positions considered important by astrologers) would have suggested to ancient Greek astrologers a regal horoscope and a royal birth.

Molnar believes that the wise men were, in fact, very wise and mathematically adept astrologers. They also knew about the Old Testament prophecy that a new king would be born of the family of David. Most likely, they had been watching the heavens for years, waiting for alignments that would foretell the birth of this king. When they identified a powerful set of astrological portents, they decided the time was right to set out to find the prophesied leader.

If Matthew’s wise men actually undertook a journey to search for a newborn king, the bright star didn’t guide them; it only told them when to set out. And they wouldn’t have found an infant swaddled in a manger. After all, the baby was already eight months old by the time they decoded the astrological message they believed predicted the birth of a future king. The portent began on April 17 of 6 BC (with the heliacal rising of Jupiter that morning, followed, at noon, by its lunar occultation in the constellation Aries) and lasted until December 19 of 6 BC (when Jupiter stopped moving to the west, stood still briefly, and began moving to the east, as compared with the fixed background stars)...

Matthew wrote to convince his readers that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. Given the astrological clues embedded in his gospel, he must have believed the story of the Star of Bethlehem would be convincing evidence for many in his audience."

https://theconversation.com/can-astronomy-explain-the-biblical-star-of-bethlehem-35126

What Is The Meaning Of "Justify" In The Writings of Paul?

• Discussion:

          -Catholic Nick published an article in which he explains his understanding of what it means for God to justify sinners and how that allegedly undermines the doctrine of justification by faith alone. His comments are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "To begin, the Greek word "justify" appears in about 36 verses in the New Testament. Of all these occurrences, the only time it is used in an explicitly forensic (legal, courtroom) context is in four verses: Mt 12:37; Rom 3:4; 8:33; 1 Cor 4:4. So how do Protestants come to the conclusion that it must mean "declare legally righteous by a judge"? Certainly not from the New Testament evidence, especially since 'forensic terms' don't really appear in places like Romans 3-4 and Galatians 2-3. Turning to the 40 verses of the Old Testament that use the term "justify," there were more occurrences in a legal context than in the New Testament, but still not enough to form any concrete conclusion: Ex 23:7; Deut 25:1; 2 Sam 15:4; 1 Kings 8:32 (same as 2 Chron 6:23); Ps 19:9; 51:4 (quoted in Rom 4:3); Ps 143:2; Prov 17:15."

          The meaning of "justify" should be determined by the context in which that word is used. When Jesus speaks of people being acquitted or condemned by their words in Matthew 12:37, the term clearly means "to declare righteous." This understanding is consistent with how the term is used in other passages, such as Romans 3:4 and 8:33, where God is said to be justified in His words, meaning "shown to be righteous." The Protestant interpretation that "justify" means "declare legally righteous" is well-founded, given its consistent use in a forensic sense within these contexts.

          Protestants argue that Paul's writings in Romans and Galatians emphasize that God declares believers righteous through faith alone, not by their own works. This understanding of justification by faith ties back to the consistent theme in the Bible, where faith is credited as righteousness, as seen in Genesis 15:6. The broader message of the Bible supports this in several ways: Abraham's faith being credited as righteousness (Genesis 15:6), the emphasis on grace over Law (Romans and Galatians), the significance of Christ's sacrificial atonement, and the universal need for divine righteousness due to human sinfulness (Romans 3:23). So, even if the term “justify” is not always used in a legal sense, the broader message supports a legal declaration of righteousness by God.

          "So for a Protestant to say that "justify," especially as Paul uses it in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 2-3, means "declared to be a perfect law keeper by a judge" is by no means an established fact at all."

          Paul speaks of both Jews and Gentiles being justified by faith and refers to God's covenant with Israel as a relationship of promise. He pits attempts to be justified by the Law against hearing with faith, highlighting the life-and-death outcomes of these relationships. These themes support the forensic understanding of justification as a declaration of righteousness, as Paul consistently emphasizes faith over works of the Law.

          "Matthew 12:37, 1 Corinthians 4:4, and (arguably) Romans 8:33, are speaking of the final judgement, not something that takes place at the moment of conversion.Romans 3:4 (Psalm 51:4) and (arguably) Psalm 19:9 are speaking of God being justified, thus it cannot mean "declare righteous by a judge," for no judge is above God. So despite being in a forensic context, "justify" here can really only mean vindicate."

           This does not undermine the usual meaning of "justify." To be vindicated means to be shown as right or innocent, which is closely related to being declared righteous in a forensic context. Romans 8:33 clearly presents forensic categories such as charges, accusations, and advocacy, supporting the interpretation that justification involves the declaration of righteousness.

          "Ex 23:7, Deut 25:1, Rom 8:33, 1 Cor 4:4, (and likely) Prov 17:5; Mt 12:37 are not speaking of "declaring righteous" - as in declaring that someone has done his duty like keeping the commandments perfectly - but rather of "acquittal," meaning being found not guilty, i.e. innocent. For example, if I'm on trial for speeding, the Judge can either find me guilty (condemn), or he can acquit me (find innocent), but he cannot declare me to be a perfect driver and worthy of a reward."

          We agree that justification means acquittal, the verdict of "not guilty." However, it is difficult to see how the Roman Catholic Church could even affirm such given concepts like purgatory and the treasury of merit. The imputation of Jesus Christ's righteousness takes place through us being united with Him (1 Corinthians 1:30).

          "I made a distinction between vindicating and acquitting because it seems acquitting fits best in situations where a person is being found 'innocent' of a charge, where as vindicating means more to show someone is in the right. But that said, I would argue that acquitting is a form or subset of vindicating, so the terms are conceptually not that different. With that in mind, all vindication/acquittal framework, meaning this is how we should most probably view it as well, especially in the key texts of Romans and Galatians. This approach to rendering the term term "justify" as vindicate/acquit has the devastating effect of rendering the Protestant definition not only dubious, but completely without precedent."

          This seems to be quite a leap of logic, hairsplitting distinctions are made and no explanation is given as to how these points are "devastating" to the "Protestant" argument. The author actually seems to contradict himself, since he says that the term "justify" as meaning "declare righteous" is "completely without precedence" while earlier acknowledging and citing certain passages of Scripture that definitely are to be understood in that same forensic sense.

Comments On The Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation Rendering Of Hebrews 1:6

        Hebrews 1:6 was translated in the following manner in the 1961 edition of the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation:

        "Let all God's angels worship him."

         This is how that same passage is rendered in modern editions of the New World Translation:

        "And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

        The Greek word translated into English as "worship" is proskyneo. When employed in a religious context, it goes beyond giving somebody honor. That is indeed the case with Hebrews 1:6. Consequently, the rendering of proskyneo as "do obeisance" rather than "worship" in the New World Translation is wholly inappropriate. This is a clear example of the Watchtower Society taking liberties with the text to avoid saying that Jesus is God.

Do Occurrences Of Brain Damage Refute The Immateriality Of The Soul?

        Critics of mind-body dualism, which is the position that the mind is immaterial and the body is physical, argue that changes in brain function rule out the existence of a soul. It is believed that the mind cannot be separated from the brain, which, if true, would make it material like the rest of our internal organs. They are equated with each other. It has been asserted that instances of the brain influencing our behavior prove consciousness to be illusory. A common assertion made in neuroscience is that the mind and the brain are one and the same.

       There is a relationship between the mind and brain, but that does not mean both are the same. The brain is the instrument by which we access our consciousness. Thus, the mind is dependent in a sense on the brain. Organic brain damage may hinder our overall performance. Just as a broken computer which is unable to access the internet does not prove such to be nonexistent, so a damaged brain does not disprove the immateriality of the soul. The following excerpt is from an author that expressly rejects mind-body dualism, but argues the mind transcends the brain:

        "...neuroimaging studies may not be as objective as some would like to think. There are still large gaps between observation and interpretation – gaps that are ‘filled’ by theoretical or methodological assumptions. It is then no surprise that researchers have difficulty replicating experimental findings, and that one lab may often find results that contradict those found in another lab where researchers have slightly different biases and make different methodological assumptions (Miller, 2010). This is not to dismiss neuroimaging studies altogether, but rather to suggest that there needs to be more skepticism about what grandiose conclusions we draw from them." (http://modernpsychologist.ca/the-mind-does-not-reduce-to-the-brain/)

        The nature of scientific study is limited. It cannot touch on the matter of the soul. Human consciousness cannot be sliced and diced like a piece of meat. It cannot be dissected. The findings made by scientists are inevitably influenced by their underlying assumptions about life, so it should not come as a surprise to us if secular scientists reject the immateriality of the soul. In their minds, there is no such thing as life beyond the grave.  

        "...The brain plays an incredibly important role. But our mind cannot be confined to what’s inside our skull, or even our body, according to a definition first put forward by Dan Siegel, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA School of Medicine and the author of a recently published book, Mind: A Journey to the Heart of Being Human." (https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/)

        Even though the mind is not something that can be verified empirically in the traditional sense, we know that it exists. There is something more to man than his flesh and bones, a life principle that underlies the very essence of his being. At the very least, the immateriality of the soul opens the door to belief in an afterlife. It has implications for discussions on the existence of God. Dr. Steve Taylor writes the following: 

        "...the mind is not just a product of brain activity. If it were, it would be impossible for changes in psychological functioning to bring about changes in the brain, in the same way that it would be impossible for changes in the images on a computer screen to bring about changes to the circuitry of a computer. This highlights the fact that the psyche is a phenomenon in its own right, with its own features, its own structures and patterns. It can’t be entirely reduced to neurology. It has to be studied in its own terms."

        The human mind is not comprised merely of neurons, tissues, and water. It is something wholly mysterious to us and deserves special analysis in its own right. Here is another excerpt which illustrates the inadequacy of the materialist position on the relationship between the mind and the body:

        "Penfield’s observations bring to light a perplexing aspect of epilepsy — or at least an aspect of epilepsy that should be perplexing to materialists. Seizures always involve either complete unconsciousness or specific activation of a non-abstract neurological function — flashes of light, smells, jerking of muscles, specific memories, strong emotions — but seizures never evoke discrete abstract thought. This is odd, given that the bulk of brain tissue from which seizures arise is classified as association areas that are thought to sub-serve abstract thought. Why don’t epilepsy patients have “calculus seizures” or “moral ethics” seizures, in which they involuntarily take second derivatives or contemplate mercy? The answer is obvious — the brain does not generate abstract thought. The brain is normally necessary for abstract thought, but not sufficient for it." (https://evolutionnews.org/2016/04/wilder_penfield/)

Commentary On John 1:16

"...what does the phrase "grace for grace" actually mean? The preposition translated "for" in Greek is anti, which could readily be translated "in place of." The idea is that when one supply of grace is used, there will be another to take its place. There is constant and uninterrupted replenishment of the grace of God for the believer. Thus his sins are never exposed; they are under the blood of Christ all the time. Let us not hesitate, therefore, to invoke God's grace constantly. God never wants us to be lacking in His grace. We must have His fullness. Let us not be afraid that we shall ever exhaust the grace of God. In Him there is an inexhaustible supply."

Spiros Zodhiates, Was Christ God?, p. 309

Commentary On John 1:12

"The verb translated "gave he" in this verse, edooken in Greek, comes from the same root as the words dosis and dooron, meaning "gift." Therefore edooken in this context has the implied notion of giving freely. There is no restriction to God's giving. Divine authority can become ours freely, without restriction in its outflow and without the necessity of our having to pay for it. And this exactly describes the attitude of God toward us in our sinful state. It is sin which has made us the children of the devil. No matter how great our sin, God's giving of grace is sufficient to meet it."

Spiros Zodhiates, Was Christ God?, p. 236

The Human Mind, Robots, And Self-Awareness

        As artificial intelligence continues to advance, one might wonder if this progress could eventually lead to robots attaining self-awareness. However, this notion is fundamentally flawed. Every question or statement a robot processes is based on pre-programmed answers created by human beings.

        Further, computer systems lack the ability to understand concepts in the same way that human brains do. Humans possess subjective experiences, feelings, and intentions that machines cannot replicate. We experience emotions and have personal intentions, elements that a computer system cannot truly grasp.

        As noted by Michael Egnor in the article "The Brain is Not a Meat Computer," thinking is fundamentally different from computation. Computation, by its nature, lacks inherent meaning, whereas thought is always imbued with meaning. This lack of inherent meaning in computation is what makes it so versatile, as it can be applied to a wide range of tasks without imparting its own meaning to them.

        The essence of consciousness goes far beyond possessing high intelligence and vast memory storage. At most, a computer can simulate a conscious mind, but it cannot be truly conscious. Cognitive neuroscientist Bobby Azarian's reference to the "Hard Problem of Consciousness," coined by philosopher David Chalmers, challenges the understanding of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences and sensations.

        This discussion also has theological implications. Christians argue that true consciousness is not possible for robots because it requires an immaterial soul, a fundamental aspect of human creation by God. The notion that metal and wires could possess consciousness assumes that humans are merely material beings, overlooking the spiritual dimension of human existence.