Questions on What Jesus Knew, Crucifixion, and Artificial Intelligence

KEVIN HARRIS: Welcome to Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig. It’s Kevin Harris. Today, a great podcast coming up. Questions from all over the world. But let me give you a sneak preview of something we’ve got coming up. There is a view of the atonement that some are calling a new view of the atonement that is making the rounds right now. You just know that Dr. Craig has something to say about this. Does he think there is anything new about it, and does he agree with this version of the atonement? We have that podcast coming up. Today – your questions. As always, please go to ReasonableFaith.org. Any donation that you can bless us with is greatly appreciated as we reach out with the firm foundation of the Christian faith and the love of Jesus all over the world. Thank you so much. ReasonableFaith.org.

Next question.

Hello, Dr. Craig. In one of your recent videos on YouTube^[1], you said the following:

“. . . it does seem to me very plausible that Jesus of Nazareth believed that Adam (the Adam in the literary story) did exist. Therefore, even if his teaching doesn't imply the existence of a historical Adam, I think the fact that Jesus believed that Adam was a historical person would entail that Adam is historical because as a divine being Jesus must be omniscient and therefore cannot hold any false beliefs.”

However, I think I've heard or read you say once that it's safe to assume that Jesus probably believed that the Earth was flat (or something like that) but that doesn't mean that he wasn't omniscient because we can ascribe false beliefs like that to his human nature. That seems fine, but then why can't we ascribe his belief in the historical Adam to the same human nature that he had? Thanks. Leo from Armenia

DR. CRAIG: Well, it's wonderful to get a question all the way from Armenia. I don't think I've ever said what Leo says I said. I don't think that it would be unproblematic for Jesus to hold false beliefs because we can attribute false beliefs to his human nature rather than his divine nature. I think that that's unacceptable because beliefs are held by a person not by a nature, and there is only one person in Christ and that person is divine. It is the second person of the Trinity. So even though that person has two natures (one human and one divine), there is only one person. To say that there were two persons (a human person and a divine person) is the ancient heresy of Nestorianism which divides the person of the Son. So if there is only one person in Christ, I don't see how that person can be divine and yet hold false beliefs. So I think that the problem of believing in a flat Earth or believing in historical Adam – if these statements are false, I don't think Jesus would have held these beliefs. Now, in the In Quest of the Historical Adam book I do try to explore an escape route for the person who doesn't believe in the historical Adam. How can he get out of this problem without denying the deity of Christ? I mean, I would much rather some theologian deny the historicity of Adam than deny the deity of Christ. So I explore ways in which he might do this. And I suggest we could draw a distinction between what Jesus believed and what he accepted. And that, although he accepted, say, that the Earth was flat or that the sun goes around the Earth or things of that sort, he didn't actually believe it. So that would be my best attempt to explain how Jesus of Nazareth might have accepted these falsehoods even though, in fact, he didn't believe them. But I do not think that you can save the day by saying Jesus had false beliefs and these were believed by his human nature.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dr. Craig, to what degree can we read the past events of our life as personal evidence of God's intervention? I recently heard a sermon on Psalm 88 and The Dark Night of the Soul. One piece of advice was to remember God's faithfulness in your life from the past during these times where God's presence seems more distant. In addition, I see this idea of remembering God's faithfulness in the past advocated in Scripture. However, for a while now it's bothered me that this seems to assume we can to some degree correctly read the past circumstances of our life and see God's hand. As I look at my past, I've had experiences that I take to be God's providence in my life; however, I also have had experiences where I expected God to act a certain way and he didn't. I have had experiences where God's hand seemed to be absent. It seems somewhat hypocritical to quickly attribute the positive cases as weight to God's care and intervention in my life yet take the negative cases as me just not being able to see clearly because I am finite. If I can't see clearly then shouldn't I question whether I'm viewing the positive cases correctly, too? Using this logic, couldn't God be sadistic and I'm just viewing the positive cases incorrectly because I can't see the bigger picture because I am finite and he is really out for my harm? I feel I do have some properly basic understanding of his goodness, but the question above often plagues me during my own Dark Nights of the Soul. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Bryce in the United States

DR. CRAIG: Yeah. I sympathize with Bryce's anguish. We have all had experiences such as he describes. But I think that Bryce's doctrine of providence is inadequate. He seems to think that we should attribute the good things in our lives to God's providential direction and the bad things in our life as being our own fault or problem. But I think we should see all things as under God's providential direction, the good and the bad. It's just that in Scripture God is to be praised for the good things that happen. We're to be thankful and grateful to him for the benefits that he accords to us. I think that doing so can help us then during those times of absence or spiritual dryness or when we're struggling against disease or failure or failing marriage or other things like that it can help to remember those times of blessing that God has given you. But that's not hypocritical to do that. Bryce is completely mistaken when he says, “Couldn't God be sadistic and he's really out for my harm?” No! Absolutely not! God is morally perfect by definition. He is the greatest conceivable being, and moral perfection is part of that greatness. So God could not be a cosmic sadist who is really out for your harm and just gives you some good times so that he can then strip them away and make you feel all the more miserable. Not at all. We have a loving heavenly Father who is taking us through the trials and tribulations as well as through the good times until he brings us home to be with him. And, like Job, our duty is to trust him as we go through these difficult times knowing that he is good and that our good is his ultimate goal. And that's not blind faith or foolishness because we have very good reasons to believe that God exists and has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. So I think when we have a better understanding of divine providence it can help us to deal with those times of trial and difficulty that so often attend our lives.

KEVIN HARRIS: Yeah, that's so good. I want to add to that. Perhaps Bryce should just say, “I think.” He's trying to be careful not to attribute things to God that God didn't do. It'd be rather blasphemous: “I had this car wreck because God wanted me to ...” It may or may not be true. So maybe you can just say, “I think God was trying to show me this” or “I think that God was intervening here.” That might be a little more humble than making this pronouncement.

DR. CRAIG: Yes, that's a good point. In my work on the problem of evil, particularly the emotional problem of evil, I've stressed that our goal in going through difficulties is not to answer the question, “Why did God permit this?” Rather, our goal in going through these is to ask the question, “What is God teaching me through this? What can I learn from this negative experience?” But in most cases, we'll never know why he allowed us to go through that. God's providential purposes are so much wider than our individual lives that a question like that is really unanswerable.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question says,

Hi there, Dr. William Lane Craig. I am a Muslim and a long time viewer and have watched your debates on kalam cosmological arguments. Now, my question relates to the crucifixion of Jesus and the denial in the Quran as it is taken as a universally attested historical fact and hence the Achilles’ heel for Islam. My question is: who saw it? The disciples were not at the crucifixion scene. Mark 16:8 ends without women telling what they saw. In John 20:24-25, the famous doubting Thomas story, suggests people were still questioning crucifixion. And in Luke 24 Jesus opens disciples to fulfillment passages in the Old Testament after all was said and done. Paul famously said in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 that Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture, not some universal event they all saw. So the majority of these passages seem to suggest the crucifixion was long open to discussion, disputed, and argued over – far from certain or established fact. Therefore, my question is how is this event deemed unquestionable when from your own Scriptures it is far from certain. The story of doubting Thomas makes no sense in the Gospel of John in 90 to 95 A.D. if people were all on the same page but they heavily contested the issue. Thank you and hope to hear your reply on this. Whipton in Finland.

DR. CRAIG: Thank you, Whipton, for joining us at Reasonable Faith in discussion. The crucifixion of Jesus is the one historical fact about the historical Jesus that no historical scholar denies. The evidence in favor of it is in fact overwhelming. There is nothing in our earliest sources about Jesus to suggest that there was ever any doubt or dispute that Jesus of Nazareth had died by Roman crucifixion. Mark 16:8 where the women did not say what they saw is talking about the discovery of the empty tomb, not about the crucifixion of Jesus. John 20:24-25 about the doubting Thomas story is about the resurrection appearances of Jesus. It doesn't suggest in any way that people were doubting the crucifixion. In fact, you remember what Thomas said? “Unless I can put my finger in the prints of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” The crucifixion was all too real and certain for Thomas, and he would not believe given that Jesus had been crucified publicly. In Luke 24 when Jesus opens the eyes of the Emmaus disciples to understand the Old Testament Scriptures, it's to show that the Christ – the Jewish Messiah – had to suffer these things before entering into his glory. So Jesus was explaining to them that this was all prophesied in the Old Testament. Again, why were the Emmaus disciples so discouraged? Because Jesus had been crucified, and this was completely foreign to the Jewish concept of Messiah. When Messiah came, he was going to cast off the enemies of Israel and re-establish the throne of David in Jerusalem where he would command the respect of Jew and Gentile alike. And now here with Jesus, he'd been crucified. He was dead. This put a question mark behind everything that they might have believed about him being the Messiah. And so the purpose of Luke 24 is to show that: “Don't be surprised at this. This was prophesied in the Old Testament and had to come to pass.” Again in 1 Corinthians 15 verses 3 to 4 when it says “Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture,” the emphasis there is that it was for our sins. The crucifixion of Christ was a public event that was widely known, but that it was “for our sins” is not publicly available. That's a theological interpretation. And so, again, Paul is appealing to Scripture to say it was for our sins. This was a redemptive death, and so the theological interpretation that early Christians were putting on the death of Jesus was justified scripturally. So the answer to the question, “Who saw the crucifixion of Jesus?” I want to invite Whipton to read the four Gospel narratives of the crucifixion. Everybody practically saw it! It was a public event in Jerusalem. Criminals were publicly crucified as an object lesson not to oppose the Roman state lest you end up like this. So the crucifixion was observed by not only the people in Jerusalem but also particularly by the chief priests, the elders, the scribes – these Jewish authorities who had every reason to oppose Christianity. And yet never in the earliest documents do you find any hint of a suggestion that Jesus wasn't crucified. They all saw it. The women followers who came with Jesus from Galilee – they were there at the cross. They saw it. The beloved disciple was there. He saw the crucifixion. So the idea that Jesus was not in fact crucified is – honestly – it's historical nonsense. Muhammad had never had first-hand acquaintance with the New Testament. He thought it was probably unworthy of God's Prophet to be crucified in this way, and so the Quran says, “They did not crucify him, neither did they kill him.” And that is the Achilles’ heel of Islam because it is the one historically undeniable fact about the historical Jesus.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dear Dr. Craig, I have planted and pastored churches for 22 years in Honduras and in my native England. I have immense respect for Bill and the ministry of Reasonable Faith. It has been so very helpful especially in our extensive ministry amongst young agnostics and atheists. Bill’s answer to Question of the Week #828 has encouraged me to ask about a theological matter which I have long pondered. Bill rightly points out that because we sin we are not deserving of reward and we are deserving of punishment. Yet this truth is very, very often internalized and presented within the church as “We do not deserve God's love, but he loves us anyway” (or, as Bill worded it, “God owes us nothing”). I find this kind of statement difficult to reconcile with the Bible to say the least. Every human being is made in the image of God. He is the Father of our spirits, and we are all his offspring. It seems to me that it is therefore his responsibility to love us. It is not an option. My offspring deserve my love and deserved it before they could even do right or wrong for the simple reason that I brought them into the world. If I didn't love my children, I would be an irresponsible father at best. I owe it to them to love them. Far from meaning I must reward them for sin, it means that I must do all within my power to help them live rightly. Similarly, God has to love us and he demonstrated this by taking responsibility for our whole lives including our sin via the cross and giving us the Holy Spirit so we can live rightly. I would be very grateful if you can correct me if I am wrong. God bless, and may he continue to prosper your ministry. Peter in the UK.

DR. CRAIG: Thank you, Peter, for that question. It's wonderful to hear that you're using our Reasonable Faith tools in Honduras. I think that the failure in Peter's understanding is his assumption that God has moral responsibilities – that it is his responsibility to love us. I think that's incorrect. I don't think God is responsible to anyone. There is no higher authority to whom God is responsible. So I would advocate a view of ethics called divine command theory. According to divine command theory, God's very nature is definitive of the good and his nature expresses itself to us in the form of divine commands that then constitute our moral duties or responsibilities. Moral duties arise as a result of imperatives issued by a competent authority. Now, if that's correct, it follows that God has no moral duties to fulfill because presumably he doesn't issue commands to himself. He is by nature good which means he's loving, fair, generous, kind, just, and so forth. But he doesn't have duties to fulfill. So I would agree with Peter that God has to love us in the sense that it is a necessary expression of his morally perfect nature. As a morally perfect being, God must be loving. So it's true, I think, that God necessarily loves us. But that doesn't mean that God has a responsibility or a duty to love us. I don't think God owes us anything, frankly, especially in light of our sin. But necessarily he does love us and he offers us a pardon for sin.

KEVIN HARRIS: Final question today. It says,

Hey, Dr. Craig. I've really enjoyed your work, and I think it's the best case for biblical Christianity that I've seen to date. For a while it seemed to me that advances in science are not compatible with Christianity. However, I now see that God could have theoretically guided a process of natural evolution that culminates in the creation of human beings created in his image even if these humans only occupy a minuscule amount of space and time in the grand scale of the universe. So while I can acknowledge that scientific knowledge and capabilities of today don't undermine Christianity, is it possible that they do in the not so distant future? What I'm asking is if it is possible that human beings become so advanced scientifically that they no longer need God. I guess the best biblical comparison for this situation is the Tower of Babel in which human beings try to build their way to heaven and ultimately fail. What if human beings are somehow able to download their consciousness into computers and achieve digital immortality? I know there are a lot of researchers actively attempting to achieve this. Or, alternatively, what if human beings get to the point where they no longer die of natural causes due to advances in medicine and are able to triumph over death? Would this not render the Christian God useless if humans are able to defeat death on their own? Huey, United States

DR. CRAIG: Well, these questions posed by AI in our day are certainly au courant. But I think that Huey is looking at things on one hand too much in the short term and then also thinking or looking at the wrong questions. Even if human beings could download their consciousness into computers they would never last forever. Even if human beings were able through advances in medicine to prolong biological life indefinitely, they would never live forever. The universe is doomed to destruction in the heat death of the cosmos. Given enough time, all of the energy in the stars will eventually be used up and the stars will burn out. The stars will then collapse into neutron stars and black holes. Meanwhile, the universe continues to expand and become increasingly dilute. Quantum physics suggests that eventually even the black holes may dissipate into particles and radiation. The universe will become a thin, dilute, cold gas ever expanding into the endless darkness and the infinite recesses of space. This is physically inevitable from an atheistic or naturalistic point of view. So downloading consciousness into machines or achieving biological advances are ultimately futile in terms of finding immortality such as God promises us. Now, that leads to the second aspect. What we need God for is not for immortality so much or for health. We need him for salvation. We are morally in need of God's pardon and forgiveness. We are fallen creatures infected with evil and guilty before God, and we need what the Bible calls redemption. And moral redemption will never come through the advances of science. So no matter how advanced science will become, mankind will always be in need of moral redemption and salvation.

KEVIN HARRIS: Again, go to the Question of the Week feature and look through the archives there. Your question could be in those archives. We’ll see you next time.^[2]