"Who do you say that I am?" -- The Gospel of Mark

This is pre-written as a second post of the day. There was also an earlier one posted around noon. 

I have had discussions with people who believe that the Gospel of Mark portrays a simply human Jesus. I am not quite sure where that perception comes from. The Gospel of Mark starts by introducing John the Baptist and his mission. John the Baptist is important enough to have a prophecy about him. His job is to "Prepare the way of the LORD," where that last word is in all-caps here in keeping with the typographical conventions of some translations because, in the original language, the original word was the unique name of God, considered too sacred to speak. John the Baptist says he's not even worthy to be a servant to who is coming next, which the author uses as a transition to introduce Jesus. 

Here is a sketch of early passages in the Gospel of Mark, and their bearing on Jesus' identity: 

Mark 1:2-11: already summarized above; there are details that different groups claim as supporting their own views

Mark 1:22: Jesus teaches as one who has authority, contrasted with the religious leaders of the day. 

Mark 1:25-28: Jesus has authority even over unclean spirits

Mark 1:1:29-34: Jesus has the authority to heal illnesses

Mark 1:35-39: Jesus came to preach/announce/proclaim (depending on your translation)

Mark 1:40-45: Jesus has the power to heal leprosy

Mark 2:1-12: Jesus claims authority to forgive sins, leading directly to a confrontation with religious leaders who accuse Jesus of claiming authority that belongs to God alone. He heals a paralyzed man as demonstration of his authority. In this scene the healing is almost a side-note compared to questions about his authority. 

Mark 2:13-17: Jesus and Levi: following immediately on his claim to have authority to forgive sins, he says "It is not the healthy who have need for a doctor but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners." 

Mark 2:18-22: Jesus answers a question about fasting by saying his presence is equivalent to a wedding celebration where it is inappropriate to fast. 

Mark 2:23-28: Jesus' comments about the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. 

... And we're only on chapter 2. As the text is so familiar, I won't make a complete catalog so much as sum up: 

The action in Mark is largely driven by the question of Jesus' identity and Jesus' authority, with lines between Jesus and God becoming at least blurred, to the outrage of the religious leaders. But in Mark, there is no visible sign of an interest in the Trinity as such. So far there is only that blurred line, without any clear resolution to how that could be. 

The value of primary sources -- and of hearing both sides -- applied to the current political mess

My next entry in the Trinity series is scheduled to post at 10pm tonight. This post is more about current events, which I'll occasionally write about when it seems warranted or simply decent to do that. 

Anyone who is familiar with this blog will know that I have a strong, long-standing preference for primary sources. Why should I get information from a middleman if I can get information from the same place that they got it? I can skip the delay and the filter/bias risks that comes with a middleman. When I use secondary sources, it's typically for the purpose of identifying primary sources.

Likewise, anyone familiar with this blog will know that I have a strong, long-standing distrust of commercial news outlets, and not only because of their role as middleman. Is there any major commercial news outlet that has never promoted possibly-doubtful stories or hidden possibly-important stories by editorial choice? Beyond that, it often comes with a certain amount of emotional manipulation, or cultivating biases that will perpetuate themselves once established. My ideal news outlet would make a point to avoid biases, not cultivate them.

For those on the right, consider: How much have you heard about Trump's tax returns on any Team(R) news outlets? How about any potential financial complications about things he's done while in office? For those on the left, consider: Remember in October when all the Team(D) outlets were saying that the Biden family was not involved in any shady business deals, and in fact the whole story was Russian disinformation? Recently, since the election, there's been a quick reversal to acknowledge that at least one is in fact under federal investigation for shady business deals and has been for a long time. There are some news outlets that prey on their viewers' distrust of the other side to avoid accountability for what looks like intentional dishonesty with a political motive. For stories like these, I usually take a Schrodinger's-cat view unless I have a way to get to the underlying information (or unless one side reverses its story so that now everyone is in much closer agreement). What people believe generally falls under "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward with questions." The first person that someone hears is generally the side that treats them with respect rather than contempt. We are so polarized that we tend to miss that step where we hear the other side of the story. And I think it's not always intentional on the part of news consumers; it takes some serious intention to get the other side, and the result is often less clarity (if more empathy). 

With the current question about "Was there large-scale election fraud in 2020?" I made a firm decision basically from Day 1 that I would not to take the word of any news outlet, all resolutely partisan as they are. Instead I have studied charts and tracked what underlying data that I could; as time went by I read some court filings where claims are backed by sworn affidavits, and (more recently, as they become available) I have read hundreds of pages of affidavits as my primary sources. I've listened to some video statements of witnesses with direct knowledge. And as an IT professional, I have also spent some time analyzing the election results data that is publicly available for download, focusing on some specific cases where the data is more readily available and the nature of the claim is easier to fact-check.

So among the literally hundreds of pages of affidavits that I've read so far, some are more relevant than others. For the lower-impact ones, I want my time back. (I am not doubting that the person is making a true report, but not all the complaints are at the same level of relevance. The stack of affidavits could benefit from some culling.) For others, I found them an excellent sleep aid regardless of the hour when they were read. But to my surprise, among them I found a series of affidavits that were specific, well-documented, and on a scale that would clearly have affected the outcome in the affected states. For those affidavits that are well-documented, verifiable, and on a significant scale, I think it is a disservice to the public to bury the affidavits rather than respond to them. I think the general position has been that acknowledging the complaints and responding to them would leave a cloud over the election. After reading the statements (good and bad alike), I find that there are several where I believe that failing to respond will leave a cloud over the election, where the claims are so well-documented that they should be easily verifiable (or falsifiable). If they can be refuted, it would definitely be a public service to do so. If no response is made to specific, well-documented claims of that scale, it will inevitably leave doubt. 

The reader may notice that I have described the claims as "well-documented" and left aside the question of whether any given claim is "credible" because that is a subjective measure. All of the large-scale claims -- and there are several different ones -- are disturbing (subjectively). It would be tempting to dismiss them if they weren't well-documented.

Where does that leave me? Back to my touchstone: "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward with questions." I'm aware that the hundreds of pages of affidavits tell only one side of the story and so it is still possible that there might be answers, even if we have not yet heard them. Ethically, I see a procedural obligation to get those answers. It disturbs me that well-documented, sworn affidavits are getting the brush-off rather than a proper response. That reinforces certain groups in their perception that they will not be given a fair hearing, or accorded due process and equal protection. For the record, I believe the perception of equal protection is ultimately the problem that lost Hillary the election 4 years ago: her "deplorables" speech was hostile and callous toward a rather large group of American citizens and left many people reeling, firmly of the belief that they would not be accorded equal protection under the law if she were in charge. Four years later Hillary is not on the political stage much but her legacy lives on: many in the DNC have added "deplorables" to their talking points, and there was an uneasy amount of politically-motivated violence against "deplorables" even before the election. According to some public figures who are heavily involved in the lawsuits, one of the witnesses who came forward was physically attacked, seriously injured, and had to be hospitalized as a result; I don't have the primary source for that specific claim so I put it in the "Schrodinger" stack in my mind. That is not a situation that inspires confidence in the system. To restore my own confidence in the elections, I want to see answers to the well-documented affidavits that are of a scale that they would affect the outcome of the states in question. To restore my confidence in equal protection, I would need to see far deeper changes than those.

To end on a lighter note, I'd like to leave you with my thoughts as they stood before the election, my private assessment of the likelihood of fraud as I saw it at the time. My premise focuses on Antifa and its involvement in the coordinated riots in many of our large cities this year, which left me in no doubt that there was widespread coordination among anti-Trump groups who were willing to break the law. My thoughts ran: "If they can find hundreds of people willing to attack other human beings, if they can find thousands of people willing to destroy property, how many do you think would be willing to stuff a ballot box? There's probably a wait list." 

My basic position is: Check the facts. Hear the facts. Address the well-documented claims regardless of who is bringing them. Too many people have lost faith in the integrity of the elections, and mocking or ignoring well-documented affidavits actively makes the situation worse. Seriously, wherever there is an honest answer, it would be a public service to provide it. 

"Why did David call him 'Lord'?"

One of the big questions surrounding the life of Jesus is, roughly, "What just happened?" We understand that whatever just happened is large, out-of-the-ordinary. We understand that the answers will affect our view of God, of morality, of whether life after death is a pipe dream or if it's real. We understand that it will take us awhile to wrap our minds around what has happened. And we start with: Who exactly is this Jesus? It's a question that Jesus himself raised with his disciples. 

Some of the questions we have about the nature of Christ have fairly clear answers in Scripture. For example, consider the question "Did Jesus believe that the Messiah was simply a human descendant of David?" For the answer, many Christians are content to find their answer in Jesus own challenge to that thought in his own day: "Why did David call him 'Lord'?" That conversation is recorded in all three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 22:43-45, Mark 12:36-37, Luke 20:42-44), indicating that all the writers of the synoptic gospels considered it to be both accurate and important. 

In Acts 2:34-36, we have a record of Peter employing that same line of reasoning and the same quote to demonstrate: "Therefore, let all Israel know: God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ." That seems to be a clear demonstration that Jesus is considered to be above us -- and that Peter attributed Jesus' status to God. It is fairly easy to read that quote from Peter as saying that Jesus is important over all the world, that he is in authority over us, and is the Christ. It is fairly difficult to read that quote from Peter and assume that he thought Jesus was either God or part of a triune God. To complicate matters, I can see how those words -- spoken by David, quoted by Jesus, cited by Peter -- are a direct claim not only to Jesus' special status with regard to God, but also at least a hint of his existence long before the human Jesus was born. Whatever is going on, it's not simple. 

The next direction of this series is to review the New Testament writings that are generally argued both for and against the different understandings of Jesus, whether orthodox or unorthodox. I'll skip the book of Revelation, where I find the symbolic elements too prominent for any argument from it to be logically conclusive. At any rate I am not aware of anyone taking an indispensable proof for their position from Revelation. 

To be continued

The Question of Christ's Relation to God: Sample writings from the 100's AD

There is a question that keeps recurring in Christian thought: "Is Jesus subordinate to God?" Since the question of whether a human is subordinate to God is, at face value, absurd, sometimes the related question is asked instead, "Is the Word of God subordinate to God?" This is considered an equivalent question by those who believe that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God. The second framing of the question may come closer to the point, since the intended question tends to be less about Jesus' humanity and more about the eternal nature of God and of the Word of God.

Here we look at some examples of how the early church came to understand the Word of God in relation to God, focusing on some writers from the 100's AD: 

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him (Justin Martyr, died around 165 AD)

But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave (Nun) (again Justin Martyr, died around 165 AD)

But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (νοῦς καὶ λόγος) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things. (Athenagoras of Athens, died around 190 AD)

In these examples, the idea that the Son is the Word of God is taken fairly literally, in context of some different philosophical and theological ideas about the Logos (λόγος). I have not seen any areas of tension between these writings and the Bible, though as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes there are some areas of tension between these writings and later orthodoxy. 

To be continued ...

The Word of God (Logos) in the ancient church

The "Logos", or Word of God, is an ancient concept that has been used in Christian circles since the days when the New Testament was being written, particularly in the writings attributed to John. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Logos helpfully traces some of its origins before that use so that we have some context for what the word may have meant at that time. 

The same article also traces what the early Christian church understood about that in reference to Jesus. The thinkers and theologians of the church grappled with it for centuries. The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges frankly that there were "subordinationist tendencies found in certain Ante-Nicene writers." That is, many of them saw the Logos -- and consequently Jesus -- as subordinate to the Father. 

The article also notes an interesting contrast between theology in the early church and now. The Christian thought of that day, and now, affirms that the Word was not created but generated (begotten) of God. However, the Catholic encyclopedia views the early church's theology as "less satisfactory as regards the eternity of this generation and its necessity; in fact, they represent the Word as uttered by the Father when the Father wished to create and in view of this creation." 

I have spent some hours over the last few weeks reading up on this, and I find the research going more slowly than I could wish. Still, as any regular reader here knows, I'd rather be thorough than fast. The questions of interest to me are: What were the arguments on each side of that question, and how did we arrive at our current understanding? 

To be continued

Hegelian dialectic can explain why the U.S. is stuck in a rut

U.S. politics has seemed stuck at the same impasses for the longest time. The different approaches have tended to go back and forth like a pendulum depending on the latest election. Each side is generally convinced that the reason their solution hasn't worked yet is because it keeps getting reversed every time the other side is in charge. 

Maybe. But maybe the country generally goes back and forth between the major parties because each solution, by itself, is incomplete. Consider this possibility: What if Hegel was correct about the development of ideas: First there's an idea or "thesis"; then there's the counter-argument, rebuttal, the other side of the pros-and-cons list, however you want to view that: "antithesis." In politics, the opposing sides seem to be in that kind of relationship. That tension between thesis and antithesis remains stuck until the two sets of ideas interact, their proponents talk to each other, listen to each other, understand each other, and find ways that they can rebuild their views to combine into a new solution: "synthesis." 

If that diagnosis is correct, then going back and forth between two parties that try to dominate each other will never reach a better solution. And either solution by itself -- each ignoring its antithesis -- will never become that next-level solution. It will fossilize in its opposition to the ideas that could have improved it, declaring enmity toward the thing it would most benefit from understanding. But both sides are avoiding that next step -- synthesis -- because that's the step where each side has to treat the other views with serious and respectful consideration. Both sides' views have to become part of the new solution, both sets of ideas are a necessary part of the solution as they come together -- and lose the identity that has, at least in U.S. politics, consisted of devaluing the other side. 

If Hegel was right, then we're stuck in solving our problems until we treat each other with respect, and at least consider the possibility that the other side has an important missing piece of our own puzzle. 

The Son: "Begotten, not made"

When we discuss the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, it is easy for our thoughts to drift to Jesus' birth without human father from the Virgin Mary . But when theologians speak of the Trinity and of the Son being "begotten" of God, they are not speaking of any event in this world or in human history. They refer to the Word of God which existed not only before Jesus' human conception, but before this world was formed. 

When we turn our attention to questions about the Trinity before the world was formed, we find ourselves without direct information either from God or from human witnesses: we are at a disadvantage for solid facts. I would like to review some of the previous thought on the matter, and will quote a section of the online Catholic Encyclopedia (article about the Holy Spirit which considers the bigger picture) : 

The Son is, in the language of Scripture, the image of the Invisible God, His Word, His uncreated wisdom. God contemplates Himself and knows Himself from all eternity, and, knowing Himself, He forms within Himself a substantial idea of Himself, and this substantial thought is His Word. Now every act of knowledge is accomplished by the production in the intellect of a representation of the object known; from this head, then the process offers a certain analogy with generation, which is the production by a living being of a being partaking of the same nature; and the analogy is only so much the more striking when there is question of this act of Divine knowledge, the eternal term of which is a substantial being, consubstantial within the knowing subject. [Note: they credit Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo for the development of thought to that point.]

In the Bible, does "image of God" mean God's self-image? I'm not convinced of that, but for the most part their argument is independent of whether that was an appropriate application of the text. So let's watch the line of thought that is being developed. 

Their starting point is that God has a self-image. That's something we can understand. For example, would King Solomon's self-image have been something like "I desire wisdom" at one point? Did King David's self-image include "I'm a musician"? So we can understand self-image. Does God have a self-image? If we grant that God has intellect and wisdom, if we grant that God is sentient, then it follows that God has a self-image, even they haven't yet demonstrated that's the answer to the question on the table. As for God having a self-image, there are some interesting side-questions there. Does God have infinite capability to decide his own character? Is that a meaningful question for God? And I expect that God's self-reflection is faithful and true to his character. 

I'll also grant that we tend to understand things by producing a model, map, or other image of the object in our minds, though sometimes we also use words or various symbols as tools for understanding. For the sake of evaluating the argument we'll suppose that God's mind did something similar on self-reflection: that God is capable of self-understanding and some sort of self-image. But is God's self-reflection distinct from God who does the reflecting? Does that reflection have existence in a meaningful sense? Is it independent? Is it equal? While I am fully persuaded that the Word of God is eternal, it leaves more to discuss on the questions of whether this Word of God or Image of God is meaningfully distinct from God before the act of creation, before anything existed besides God. 

That question -- "Is it meaningfully distinct?" -- becomes clearer after creation exists, and particularly after people exist. At that point there is someone besides God, and so communication becomes part of the picture. If we continue to grant that we generally understand what is outside us by producing a model or image in our minds, then our human understanding of God depends on how (or if) we form an image of God. An image of God is the source of all idolatry -- and the source of a relationship that is not blind. Christianity is tightly attached to this idea: there is such a thing as a true image of God. 

To be continued