WHERE WE ARE
In Part 4 of this series I showed that Kreeft's Objection #3 against the Myth Theory FAILS because the argument constituting that objection is INVALID and ILLOGICAL. Specifically, the final inference from premise (B) to the conclusion (C) is INVALID.
Then I began to argue that Kreeft's Objection #3 also FAILS because all three premises given in support of premise (B) are DUBIOUS:
1. The Gospels (i.e. the four Gospels in the New Testament) portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
A. IF the authors of the Gospels invented the following four elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead, THEN we would find evidence of an earlier account of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT include those four elements.
2. There is no evidence whatever of an earlier account (prior to the Gospels) of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
Therefore:
B. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels invented the following elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
In Part 4 of this series, I argued that we can set aside fifteen of Kreeft's twenty-one points about "Scriptural Data" that supports the claim that Jesus was viewed as being God and that Jesus claimed to be God, because (a) some points are not supported by any Gospel passage, (b) some points are only supported by Gospel passages from the Gospel of John, and (c) some points clearly apply to people who are NOT divine and thus fall short of giving a sufficient reason for concluding that a person is divine. We were then left with just six points from Kreeft's list of twenty-one points to consider.
In Part 5 of this series, I showed that three of Kreeft's six remaining points FAIL (point #6, point #7, and point #21), and that another point depends on point #2 (if point #2 FAILS, then so does point #18). So, Kreeft's case for premise (1) at that point rested upon only two points of his original twenty-one points (point #2 and point #12):
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
12. Rightly worshiped...
In Part 6 of this series, I showed that Kreeft's point #2 FAILS to provide solid and adequate support for premise (1), and so does point #18, which is also based on the questionable assumption that the title "son of God" in Matthew implied that Jesus was God.
It is now time to consider Kreeft's only remaining point in support of premise (1) of his argument for Objection #3 against the Myth Theory.
KREEFT'S POINT #12: THE GOSPELS PORTRAY JESUS AS HAVING BEEN RIGHTLY WORSHIPED
There is now only one more point remaining out of Kreeft's twenty-one points of "Scriptural Data" in support of Jesus being God (or being portrayed by the Gospels as being God) and/or in support of Jesus being portrayed by the Gospels as claiming to be God:
12. Rightly worshiped...
("Was Jesus Worshiped?" by Christian apologist Greg Koukl.)
("Was Jesus Worshiped?" by Christian apologist Greg Koukl.)
DOES THE GOSPEL OF MARK PORTRAY JESUS AS BEING RIGHTLY WORSHIPED?
Kreeft provides no reference to any passage from the Gospel of Mark in support of his point #12, because there are no passages in the Gospel of Mark that talk about Jesus being "worshiped". Thus, Kreeft FAILS to show that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as being rightly worshiped.
DOES THE GOSPEL OF LUKE PORTRAY JESUS AS BEING RIGHTLY WORSHIPED?
Although Kreeft provides no reference to any passage from the Gospel of Luke in support of his point #12, there is ONE passage in Luke that appears to say that Jesus was "worshiped" by some of his disciples:
50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them.51 While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.52 And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy;53 and they were continually in the temple blessing God.
(Luke 24:50-53, NRSV, emphasis added)
The author of Luke does not say that these disciples were RIGHT to worship Jesus, but there is no condemnation of the action of the disciples, and there is no hint of any such condemnation, so it is reasonable to infer that the author of Luke thought the actions of his disciples here were appropriate.
However, as we have just seen, the Greek word translated as "worshiped" in Luke 24:52 is AMBIGUOUS. It can refer to bowing down as a sign of honor, respect, or deference in a way that was considered appropriate for an imperfect human being. So, the translation of this Greek word in Luke 24:52 as "worshiped" can be reasonably challenged and reasonably doubted.
There are no details in this passage about HOW or WHY the disciples did what they did, and the author of Luke provides no comments about HOW or WHY the disciples did what they did. So, we have no good reason to rule out the alternative translation of this passage. Therefore, this evidence for the claim that the Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as being rightly worshiped is WEAK and DUBIOUS and FAILS to establish point #12 with respect to the Gospel of Luke.
CONCLUSION ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF MARK
In Part 6 of this series, I showed that only six of Kreeft's twenty-one points had the potential to establish his claim that all four Gospels portray Jesus as being God and as claiming to be God:
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
6. Omnipresent...
7. Omnipotent...
12. Rightly worshiped...
18. The Father testifies to him...
21. Is Lord over the Law...
Kreeft provides references to passages from the Gospel of Mark only for point #2:
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
I have previously argued that the title "son of God" means basically the same as the title "messiah", and that Jews in the first half of the first century did NOT generally think of the promised messiah as being God. So, Kreeft would need to provide a solid argument showing that Jesus' original disciples held this non-standard view about the messiah before Jesus was crucified.
Kreeft made no attempt to show that Jesus' disciples held such a non-standard view, so Kreeft has given no good reason to believe that the title "son of God" as used in the Gospel of Mark implies that Jesus was God. Given that the belief that the messiah would be God was a non-standard view at that time, we have good reason to interpret the title "son of God" as used in Mark as NOT implying that Jesus was God.
Thus, Kreeft's evidence that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as being God and as claiming to be God is very limited, and the little bit of evidence that he does provide is WEAK and DUBIOUS. Therefore, Kreeft FAILS to show that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as being God and as claiming to be God. This, by itself, is sufficient reason to conclude that premise (1) is DUBIOUS.
CONCLUSION ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
In Part 6 of this series, I showed that only six of Kreeft's twenty-one points had the potential to establish his claim that all four Gospels portray Jesus as being God and as claiming to be God:
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
6. Omnipresent...
7. Omnipotent...
12. Rightly worshiped...
18. The Father testifies to him...
21. Is Lord over the Law...
Kreeft provides references to passages from the Gospel of Luke only for points #2 and #21:
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
21. Is Lord over the Law...
Although Kreeft provides no references to any passage in Luke in support of point #12, there is ONE such passage, which I have shown to be WEAK and DUBIOUS evidence for point #12 with respect to the Gospel of Luke.
I have previously argued that the application of the title "son of God" does NOT imply that Jesus was God, at least not in Matthew, Mark, or Luke, so Kreeft's point #2 FAILS to show that the Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as being God or as claiming to be God.
I have previously argued that the ONE passage in Luke provided by Kreeft in support of point #21 FAILS to show that the Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as being God or as claiming to be God.
Thus, because the two (or three) points of Kreeft's that apply to Luke all FAIL, Kreeft FAILS to show that the Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as being God or as claiming to be God. This, by itself, is sufficient reason to conclude that premise (1) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #3 is DUBIOUS.
Furthermore, since Kreeft also FAILS to show that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as being God or as claiming to be God, it is abundantly clear that premise (1) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #3 is DUBIOUS.
Four key implications of premise (1) are FALSE or DUBIOUS:
- The Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as being God.
- The Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as claiming to be God.
- The Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as being God.
- The Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as claiming to be God.
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
6. Omnipresent...
7. Omnipotent...
12. Rightly worshiped...
18. The Father testifies to him...
21. Is Lord over the Law...
Kreeft does a better job of providing passages from the Gospel of Matthew in support of these points than he does of providing passages from Mark or Luke in support of these points. He provides passages in support of five out of these six points, all except for point #21.
I have previously argued that Kreeft FAILS to show that Matthew portrays Jesus as being God or as claiming to be God in terms of point #2, point #6, point #7, and point #18. That means that the only point remaining that could potentially be used by Kreeft to support premise (1), is point #12, about Jesus being rightly worshiped.
Because I have already shown that premise (1) is clearly DUBIOUS, I will not carefully analyze each of the passages from Matthew that are provided by Kreeft in support of point #12. Even if the evidence supports his claim that Matthew portrays Jesus as being rightly worshiped, this will not be enough to rescue premise (1) from being DUBIOUS.
However, I have examined each of the three passages that Kreeft provides from Matthew in support of point #12 (namely: 2:11, 14:33, and 28:9), and my conclusion is that, as with ALL of his other claims about Matthew, Kreeft FAILS to show that Matthew portrays Jesus as being rightly worshiped. Thus, I have concluded that Kreeft FAILS to show that the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as being God or as claiming to be God.
No comments:
Post a Comment