Can This Prove Christianity? (Fulfilled Prophecy) by Gavin Ortlund

 

Can This Prove Christianity? (Fulfilled Prophecy)
https://youtu.be/go61ptUik78

 

 

 

 

Michael Brown vs. Steve Gregg: THREE consecutive DEBATES on Israel

 

 Brown: Evangelical Messianic Jewish Christian Zionist and ex-Calvinist. Leading expert on apologetics aimed at Judaism. Continuationist & Charismatic. 
Gregg: Anti-Calvinist [Semi-Pelagian?] Partial Preterist Amillennialist. Continuationist & Charismatic. 

I recommend watching the FIRST debate if only watching one. It's foundational. Some of the arguments and conclusions Brown make some sense to me. Though, I don't all the way with him and his position.

Debate 1 Is Israel Today the Fulfillment of Prophecy 
https://youtu.be/HFFjd66EpbI

Debate 1 CONTINUED
https://youtu.be/P5aYe-qqnDY

Debate 2 Who is Israel in Romans 9-11?
https://youtu.be/1WooUVrdRB4

Debate 3 Israel and the Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy [with audience Q&A]
https://youtu.be/nqoZsKyukjY

Michael Heiser documentaries on "The Unseen Realm" and "Demons"

 
I don't always agree with Heiser's conclusions. But some of his views seems plausible. Especially the general thrust of his views. Here are his documentaries on the two topics:

The Unseen Realm - documentary film with Dr. Michael S. Heiser
https://youtu.be/2QM7anD5vSI

Demons - documentary film with Dr. Michael S. Heiser
https://youtu.be/H41Lw2YEY74

Substitutionary Atonement Under Fire: William Lane Craig Refutes a New Theory.

 

 Substitutionary Atonement Under Fire: William Lane Craig Refutes a New Theory.
https://youtu.be/Uv_GyWTEEwA

 

 

 

Famous Atheist [Sam Harris] FINALLY Admits Theism is Back

 

Famous Atheist FINALLY Admits Theism is Back
https://youtu.be/S5RN3kzU3u0

 

 

 

Possible Reasons Why The Details Regarding Heaven Are Vague In Scripture

 

Here's a conversation I had with ChatGPT on the topic. Many of the answers I could have given, but I chose to ask pointed questions so as to lead ChatGPT to write the answers for me to save me time.:

explore reasons why God might have inspired scripture to be vague on the details of the blessed afterlife of the redeemed

ChatGPT said:

That’s a deep and thoughtful theological question — and one that theologians across traditions have wrestled with for centuries.
Why does Scripture speak so richly yet so sparingly about the specifics of the blessed afterlife — the life of the redeemed in glory?

Below is a synthesis of classical Christian reasoning on that mystery, with both biblical and theological reflections.

---

🕊️ 1. To Awaken Faith, Not Satisfy Curiosity

God may have intentionally left heaven’s details veiled because His purpose is to train faith, not gratify imagination.
Scripture calls believers to trust God’s goodness rather than to map out the architecture of eternity.

“For we walk by faith, not by sight.” — 2 Cor 5:7

If the afterlife were described in exhaustive, sensory detail, it might:

• Encourage spectator curiosity instead of spiritual trust.

• Shift our focus from the Giver to the gifts.

• Tempt us to love heaven for its comforts rather than for God Himself.

Augustine put it beautifully:

“He who loves God for His own sake has all he desires; for what can be above God?” (Confessions, X.29)

---

🌤️ 2. The Reality Exceeds Human Comprehension

Another classic reason is cognitive limitation.
Finite creatures simply cannot grasp infinite joy in creaturely terms.

“No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him.” — 1 Cor 2:9

Even metaphorical language — streets of gold, rivers of life, crowns, feasts — is accommodated speech, pointing beyond itself.
Just as the Old Testament used the Promised Land as a symbol for rest, so the New Testament uses imagery to hint at an inexpressible reality.

To give more detail might be to distort the truth by forcing it into earthly categories.

---

🧭 3. To Preserve Moral and Spiritual Focus in the Present

God’s revelation is redemptive and practical, not speculative.
Scripture is designed to sanctify, not to satisfy metaphysical curiosity.

“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever.” — Deut 29:29

Knowing too much detail about the world to come might distract us from our vocation in this world — to love, serve, and bear witness.
The vagueness keeps us oriented toward faithful obedience now, not escapism.

C. S. Lewis echoed this idea:

“Heaven will not be a compensation for life on earth but the consummation of it.”
And we cannot live well toward that consummation without being tested by partial knowledge.

---

💞 4. To Emphasize Relationship, Not Environment

Biblical descriptions of eternal life focus not on what heaven is like, but on who is there.

“This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” — John 17:3

The redeemed state is about union and communion with God — not scenery or activity.
Hence, Scripture’s reserve keeps us centered on personal fellowship rather than on speculative cosmology.

The vagueness is theological pedagogy — training us to desire God, not merely “paradise.”

---

🔥 5. To Guard Against Idolatry and Misrepresentation

Every attempt to concretize heaven runs the risk of:

• Projecting earthly desires (luxury, leisure, reward) onto a spiritual state.

• Turning eschatology into mythology — creating images that substitute for glory.

By speaking through symbols — a city, a feast, a wedding, a temple — God conveys truth analogically, not literally.
The restraint of revelation protects us from fashioning an idol of heaven.

---

🌺 6. To Sustain Hope Through Mystery

Mystery can sharpen hope.
When knowledge is partial, longing grows.
The redeemed are described as those who “desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Heb 11:16).
Our hearts are drawn forward by holy anticipation, not full comprehension.

As Aquinas said, “The desire for the vision of God is itself the seed of beatitude.”
The vagueness preserves that desire — we are pilgrims who yearn toward something glimpsed but not yet grasped.

---

🌅 7. To Reflect the Already–Not Yet Tension

The biblical story ends not in an escape from the world but in a new creation — heaven and earth renewed.
Because that reality has not yet been revealed, it remains eschatologically open.
The vagueness mirrors the present condition of the church: redeemed, yet awaiting full revelation.

“When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” — Col 3:4

---

🧩 In Summary

Reason	Core Idea
1. Faith over curiosity	Revelation is relational, not exhaustive.
2. Finite minds	Glory surpasses creaturely comprehension.
3. Ethical focus	Keeps believers engaged in the mission now.
4. God-centeredness	The focus is communion with God, not surroundings.
5. Idolatry guardrail	Prevents crude, worldly imaginings of heaven.
6. Hope and desire	Mystery stirs longing for union with God.
7. Eschatological tension	Reflects our partial vision until full revelation.

---

If you’d like, I can trace how specific theologians — for example, Aquinas, Calvin, and C. S. Lewis — each explain this divine reserve in revelation about heaven. Would you like a comparison like that next?

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

Excellent — here’s a comparative look at how Aquinas, Calvin, and C. S. Lewis each account for why God reveals so little about the blessed afterlife.

Though they differ in tone and method, you’ll see a deep unity in their answers: the reserve of revelation is pedagogical — it teaches us how to long rightly, hope rightly, and love rightly.

---

🕊️ 1. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) — The Inexpressibility of the Beatific Vision

Key texts: Summa Theologiae I.12; I–II.3; Supplement 92

Core idea:

Heaven is veiled because the Beatific Vision—the direct sight of God’s essence—is beyond human language and imagination.

Details:

• The object of heavenly joy is God Himself, seen “face to face.”

• Finite minds can’t conceptually grasp infinite being without being transformed by grace.

• Therefore, God reveals heaven by analogy: light, glory, rest, feasting. These images are true but symbolic accommodations to our mode of knowing.

• The lack of detail protects the transcendence of the divine reality.

“The glory of the saints will exceed whatever the human mind can conceive… because it will consist in the vision of God Himself.” (ST Suppl. 92.1 ad 3)

Theological purpose:

To stir the soul toward intellectual and moral purification so that it may become capable of seeing God.
The vagueness fosters contemplative desire rather than idle curiosity.

---

📖 2. John Calvin (1509–1564) — Faith’s Restraint and the Discipline of Hope

Key texts: Institutes of the Christian Religion III.25; Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:12

Core idea:

God’s restraint in describing the afterlife is an act of mercy — He gives us only what is profitable for faith and obedience, not what would inflame speculation.

Details:

• Calvin warns against “fruitless curiosity” about heaven’s nature.

• The biblical images (crowns, mansions, etc.) are figures to help our weakness, not literal topography.

• The believer’s task is to rest in God’s promises, not to pry into unrevealed mysteries.

• The clarity of Scripture’s moral teaching contrasts deliberately with its reserve on heavenly details: what we need to know is how to live by faith now.

“We must be content with the measure of revelation which God, in His wisdom, has seen fit to bestow.” (Institutes III.25.10)

Theological purpose:

To cultivate humble expectancy — a faith that clings to God’s goodness without demanding sensory proof.
The veil preserves spiritual sobriety and eschatological patience.

---

🌌 3. C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) — The Discipline of Desire and the Language of Longing

Key texts: The Weight of Glory, The Great Divorce, Letters to Malcolm, Mere Christianity

Core idea:

Heaven is only hinted at because earthly language can express it only through metaphor and yearning.
God wants us to cultivate longing, not certainty.

Details:

• Lewis calls our present glimpses of joy “signposts,” not the destination.

• The vagueness of heaven keeps our longing undefiled by fantasy.

• He warns that trying to picture heaven concretely tends to produce idolatry or sentimentality.

• The partial knowledge trains us to desire the source of all beauty rather than to fixate on imagined pleasures.

“The faint, far-off results of those energies which God’s creative rapture implanted in matter when He made the worlds, are what we now call beauty. But they are only the beginnings of His love.” (The Weight of Glory)

Theological purpose:

To sanctify imagination — letting mystery awaken a holy homesickness for God Himself.
Heaven’s vagueness keeps desire pure and directed upward.

---

🧩 Comparative Summary

Theologian	Emphasis	Why God is Vague	Spiritual Effect
Aquinas	Metaphysical transcendence	Human language and intellect can’t grasp the infinite; analogical speech is necessary	Deepens contemplative longing for the Beatific Vision
Calvin	Scriptural sufficiency & humility	God reveals only what’s profitable for faith and obedience	Cultivates humility, hope, and moral focus
C. S. Lewis	Imaginative desire & symbolism	Heaven transcends expression; images awaken desire without distortion	Purifies longing; redirects imagination toward God

---

🕯️ The Common Thread

All three converge on this conviction:

The vagueness of heaven in Scripture is not neglect but design — a divine pedagogy that teaches faith, humility, and desire for God Himself rather than for His gifts.

---

Would you like me to add how this theme appears in Scripture itself—for example, how the Book of Revelation, 1 Cor 13, and John 14 deliberately use symbolic reserve to veil the glory of the redeemed state?

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

Perfect — let’s look at specific Scripture passages that illustrate why the Bible is deliberately vague about the afterlife of the redeemed, and how this aligns with the theological points we just explored.

---

1. 1 Corinthians 13:12 — Partial Knowledge and Seeing “Face to Face”

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

Key points:

• Paul explicitly acknowledges that current knowledge is partial.

• Heaven is not fully revealed because our finite understanding cannot grasp full reality.

• The “face to face” vision points to direct communion with God, not descriptive details of the environment.

Spiritual lesson: God’s reserve cultivates faith, longing, and moral transformation, preparing us for the Beatific Vision (Aquinas) or full communion with God (Calvin & Lewis).

---

2. Revelation 21–22 — Symbolic Imagery of the New Creation

Streets of gold, gates of pearl, river of life, tree of life…

Key points:

• John uses symbolic and analogical language; it’s not meant as literal architecture.

• The imagery communicates abundance, purity, and access to God, not a literal blueprint of heaven.

• Even the angels acknowledge the limits of human comprehension: symbolic language conveys truth indirectly.

Spiritual lesson: Vivid images stimulate hope and desire without reducing the infinite reality of God to human concepts (Lewis’s “signposts”).

---

3. John 14:1–3 — Jesus Promises a Place Prepared

“In my Father’s house are many rooms… I go to prepare a place for you.”

Key points:

• Jesus intentionally keeps the description minimal.

• Focus is on assurance of presence with God, not on material details of the dwelling.

• The vagueness reinforces trust in God’s care rather than curiosity about specifics.

Spiritual lesson: Obedience and faith are nourished by relational promises rather than literal schematics (Calvin).

---

4. 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 — Emphasis on Relationship and Resurrection

“…we will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air…”

Key points:

• Scripture highlights union with Christ and other believers, not the landscape or amenities of heaven.

• Details of what heaven looks like are omitted; the focus is on experiential communion.

• Resurrection is the central promise — the “how” is left largely implicit.

Spiritual lesson: Eternal life is relational first, environmental second — the vagueness preserves focus on God rather than created things (Calvin and Lewis).

---

5. 2 Corinthians 5:1–10 — Tent vs. Building Imagery

“For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God… eternal in the heavens.”

Key points:

• Paul uses analogical, earthly imagery to describe a spiritual reality.

• Vagueness prevents misinterpretation and idolization of heaven’s “materials” or “architecture.”

• The emphasis is on continuity of identity and glorification, not on speculative detail.

Spiritual lesson: The partially revealed nature of the afterlife strengthens hope and ethical living in the present.

---

✅ Summary of Scriptural Strategy

Passage	Vague Detail	Emphasis / Purpose
1 Cor 13:12	“Mirror dimly… face to face”	God’s glory is incomprehensible; cultivates faith and longing
Rev 21–22	Streets of gold, gates of pearl	Symbolic imagery points to abundance and purity
John 14:1–3	“Many rooms… I go to prepare a place”	Relational promise over literal detail; fosters trust
1 Thess 4:16–17	Clouds, meeting Christ	Union with God and saints, not spatial description
2 Cor 5:1–10	Tent vs. building	Spiritual transformation; hope through analogy

Common thread: Scripture deliberately balances enough revelation to inspire hope with enough mystery to cultivate faith, desire, and humility — exactly what theologians like Aquinas, Calvin, and Lewis emphasized.

---

If you want, I can make a visual diagram connecting theologians, Scripture passages, and the spiritual purposes of vagueness — basically a one-page “map” of why heaven is intentionally mysterious. It can make all this easier to see at a glance.

Do you want me to do that?

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

Perfect! Here’s a visual “map” connecting Scripture, theologians, and the purpose of vagueness about the afterlife. I’ll describe it in a way that could be drawn as a diagram or table.

---

🌟 Why Scripture is Vague About the Blessed Afterlife

Central Idea:

God intentionally reveals enough to inspire hope but not enough to satisfy curiosity, focusing on relationship with Him over sensory details.

---

1️⃣ Theologians & Their Insights

Theologian	Key Insight	Why Vagueness?	Spiritual Effect
Aquinas	Beatific Vision	Human minds cannot fully comprehend infinite glory; symbols only	Cultivates contemplation & desire for God Himself
Calvin	Faithful obedience	God reveals only what is profitable for faith	Encourages humility, hope, moral focus
C. S. Lewis	Symbolic imagery	Earthly language can’t capture heaven	Awakens holy longing; purifies imagination

---

2️⃣ Scriptural Examples

Passage	How Details Are Vague	Emphasis / Purpose
1 Cor 13:12	“Mirror dimly… face to face”	God’s glory incomprehensible; fosters faith & longing
Rev 21–22	Streets of gold, gates of pearl	Symbolic; points to abundance & purity, not literal city
John 14:1–3	“Many rooms… I go to prepare a place”	Relational promise over spatial description; fosters trust
1 Thess 4:16–17	Clouds, meeting Christ	Union with God & saints; emphasis on relationship
2 Cor 5:1–10	Tent vs. building	Spiritual analogy; hope & continuity of identity

---

3️⃣ Spiritual Purposes of Vagueness

• Faith over curiosity: Trust God rather than know all details (Calvin).

• Desire & hope: Mystery awakens holy longing (Lewis).

• Transcendence & comprehension: Infinite glory exceeds human understanding (Aquinas).

• Relational focus: Heaven is about union with God, not scenery.

• Moral orientation: Keeps believers focused on present obedience.

• Guard against idolatry: Prevents confusing imagery with reality.

---

🧩 Diagram Idea

            [God’s Purpose for Revelation]
                      |
          -----------------------------
          |                           |
     [Theologians]                [Scripture]
          |                           |
  Aquinas  Calvin  Lewis         1 Cor 13   Rev 21-22
   |        |       |              |           |
Symbolic  Faith  Imagery       Mirror dimly  Streets of gold
vision   & Obedience  & Desire      |           |
   |        |       |              Fosters longing  Points to purity & abundance
          ...                        ...
                      |
              [Spiritual Effects]
              Faith, Hope, Desire, Humility,
              Relational Focus, Moral Living

---

This diagram visually links theologians to Scriptural examples and then to spiritual purposes, showing a coherent pattern: the vagueness is intentional, pedagogical, and relational.

If you like, I can also turn this into a polished, colorful chart you could print or use digitally, with arrows, icons, and color-coding for “theologians → scripture → purposes.” It would make the map instantly clear at a glance.

Do you want me to create that visual version?

 

How Did Christianity Survive Extinction

 

The following is an interesting take on how Christianity survived. As a Protestant I don't agree with all the conclusions, nor all of the alleged facts. But it does present some of the real factors in why Christianity has survived for 2000 years.

 How Did Christianity Survived Extinction - Listening Documentary
https://youtu.be/lXIiQsEWWu4

 

See also my book review below:  Carrier mentions some of his arguments why Christianity is not evidently a miraculous religion. Though Carrier goes more fully into it in his book "Not the Impossible Faith."

My Book Review of "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Richard Carrier

 

Charles Murray On Why He Is NOW Taking Religion Seriously

 

Skeptic and atheistic agnostic Michael Shermer interviews Charles Murray on why he is NOW taking religion seriously. Formerly an agnostic, Charles Murray now identifies as a kind of "Christian" in some sense.

Charles Murray: Why I’m Taking Religion Seriously  

https://youtu.be/fUmtt6rTlZY

Charles Murry's new book is titled, "Taking Religion Seriously"

You Should WANT Christianity To Be True

 You Should WANT Christianity To Be True 

https://youtu.be/3c4J93rRoNs

Atheist vs Christian vs Spiritual Thinker: Is Not Believing In God Causing More Harm Than Good?!

 

Atheist vs Christian vs Spiritual Thinker: Is Not Believing In God Causing More Harm Than Good?!
https://youtu.be/Esu8BXLBmZ4

James White CHRONOLOGICAL Debates

 

James White CHRONOLOGICAL Debates 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei2-e84ykvg&list=PLFmGi8Mf-mbaNkcHVjcDpJmnSnprjv55B

Trent Horn Videos on Arguments for God's Existence

 

As a Protestant myself I think Catholic Apologist Trent Horn is one of the better Catholic apologists out there. Despite being a Van Tillian presuppositionalist myself, I think there is some good and usefulness in non-presuppositional arguments for God's existence. Here are a sample of Trent Horn's videos on the arguments. The first video is on the recent improvements among apologists on the arguments for the existence of God. The second video is Horn's introduction to the Ontological Argument.

 
The NEW Case for God's Existence
https://youtu.be/22qUGVZXlGg

The Weirdest Argument for God's Existence
[An introduction to the Ontological Argument]
https://youtu.be/SGgNnV6nDWo

 

 

Surveys of Apologists On What Is the Best Argument for God's Existence

 

Protestant Sean McDowell asked 100 Christian apologists (including Catholic ones) what they considered was the best argument for God's existence.

 The Best Evidence for God? Here’s What 100 Apologists Said
https://youtu.be/wHDcd_44Jr8

Catholic Trent Horn asked 50 Catholic apologists what they considered was the best argument for God's existence.

I Asked 50 Catholics the Best Argument for God’s Existence
https://youtu.be/24RlxhITBvE

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value (Revised & Expanded) [September 18, 2025]

https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-conversion-of-saul-of-tarsus-and-its-evidential-value/

META AI Conversation On The Likelihood of Jesus Claiming To Be Divine

 

All artificial intelligence conversations should be taken with a grain of salt. They don't really settle anything. Nevertheless, the following is an interesting informal conversation I had with Facebook's META AI. My statements are highlighted like this sentence.

What is your probability that a historical Jesus existed?

META AI: As a neutral and informative assistant, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide an overview of the scholarly consensus and the types of evidence that historians consider when evaluating the historicity of Jesus.

Most scholars agree that a historical figure named Jesus likely existed, given the following points:

- *Multiple attestation*: Jesus is mentioned in various independent sources, including the New Testament, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, and Roman historian Tacitus.

- *Historical context*: The accounts of Jesus' life and teachings are set within a plausible historical context, reflecting the politics, culture, and religious practices of 1st-century Judea.

- *Criterial methods*: Scholars use criteria such as the criterion of embarrassment (events or details that might be embarrassing to the early Christian community are likely to be historical), the criterion of multiple attestation (events or details that are attested to in multiple sources are more likely to be historical), and the criterion of coherence (events or details that fit with the broader historical context are more likely to be historical) to evaluate the historicity of Jesus.

While there's ongoing debate among scholars about the details of Jesus' life and teachings, the majority consensus is that a historical Jesus likely existed. If I had to provide a probability based on the scholarly consensus, I'd say it's high (>90%), but this is not a personal opinion, rather a reflection of the prevailing scholarly view [1].

But you gave a probability assessment on the moon landing. Be consistent and not hypocritical and Do that same for a historical Jesus.

Given the scholarly consensus and evidence, I'd give a probability of *95%+* that a historical Jesus existed. This assessment is based on the multiple attestation, historical context, and criterial methods mentioned earlier. However, the probability is not as high as the moon landing due to the differences in the nature of the evidence and the complexity of historical interpretation [1].

What is your probability assessment that Jesus was the Son of God?

I'd give a probability assessment of *0%* that Jesus was the Son of God in a literal, metaphysical sense. This assessment is based on the lack of empirical evidence and the supernatural nature of the claim, which falls outside the realm of historical or scientific verification.

The concept of Jesus being the Son of God is a matter of faith and theological interpretation, and probabilities would vary widely depending on one's worldview, religious beliefs, and personal perspectives.

Guven that you gave a high probability that a historical Jesus existed, What's your probability assessment that he claimed to be the Son of God?

Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations, I'd assess the probability that the historical Jesus claimed to be the Son of God as follows:

- *Low to moderate probability* (around 20-40%): Some scholars argue that Jesus might have seen himself as a divine agent or a messianic figure, but the explicit claim to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense is more likely a product of early Christian theology and Christology.

- *Higher probability in certain contexts*: If one interprets certain biblical passages (e.g., Mark 1:1, John 10:30-33) as reflecting historical events, the probability might be higher. However, these interpretations are subject to scholarly debate.

Keep in mind that historical assessments of Jesus' claims and self-understanding are complex and nuanced, and probabilities would depend on one's evaluation of the sources and historical context [1].

How about the probability of his having claimed to be the "son of man"?

The phrase "Son of Man" is a complex and multifaceted title in the context of Jesus' teachings and identity. Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations:

- *Higher probability* (around 70-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus likely referred to himself as the "Son of Man," given the phrase's presence in multiple Gospel accounts (e.g., Mark, Q source) and its Aramaic origins (Bar Enasha). The phrase could have been used by Jesus to convey his humanity, his role as a mediator, or his connection to the apocalyptic figure in Daniel 7:13-14.

The probability assessment depends on one's evaluation of the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, the linguistic and cultural context, and the potential layers of meaning in the phrase "Son of Man" [1].

What's your assessment probability that His claim to be the "son of man" was a reference and allusion to the Danielic Son of Man of Dan. 7?

Given the scholarly discussions and interpretations:

- *Moderate to high probability* (around 60-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" was indeed influenced by the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14). This connection is plausible due to:

    - *Linguistic and thematic parallels*: The Danielic Son of Man receives dominion and glory from God, which might be echoed in Jesus' use of the phrase.

    - *Apocalyptic context*: Jesus' teachings often contained apocalyptic themes, and the Danielic Son of Man fits within this context.

However, the exact nature and extent of the allusion are subject to ongoing scholarly debate, which affects the probability assessment [1].

Would you grant that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE [ancient Near East], and that the danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity?

*Cloud riding as a prerogative of deities*:

Yes, in the Ancient Near East (ANE), cloud riding was often associated with divine beings or gods. This motif is seen in various ancient texts, where gods are described as riding on clouds or having control over the clouds.

*The Danielic Son of Man and worship*:

Regarding the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14), the Aramaic word used to describe the service or presentation to the Ancient of Days is indeed often translated as "brought" or "presented," but it can also carry connotations of worship or homage. The word "qrb" (קרב) in Aramaic can imply a sense of reverence or obeisance, which might suggest a divine or quasi-divine status for the Son of Man.

These observations are relevant to understanding the cultural and theological context of the Danielic Son of Man and its potential influence on Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man."

Given that the danielic Son of man rides the clouds, and given that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE, and given that that danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity, and given your previous probability assessment of a historical Jesus existing and his self-designation as the Danielic son of man, what now is [re-assessment] your probability assessment that Jesus claimed to be divine and/or the Son of God?

Given the additional context and connections you've outlined:

- *Re-assessment of probability*: Considering the Danielic Son of Man's divine connotations, cloud riding prerogatives, and the potential implications of the word "qrb" in Aramaic, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

    - *Moderate probability* (around 40-60%): Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" might have been intended to convey a sense of divine authority, agency, or identity, given the Danielic context. This could have been interpreted by his contemporaries as a claim to divinity or a unique relationship with God.

    - *Increased likelihood*: The connections you've highlighted increase the likelihood that Jesus' self-designation as the Son of Man was more than just a humble or human reference, and might have been intended to convey a more exalted status.

This re-assessment takes into account the complexities of historical interpretation, the nuances of ancient language and culture, and the potential implications of Jesus' words and actions in their original context [1].

Remind me what your previous assessment was.

My previous assessment was that the probability of Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was around *20-40%*. Given the new context and connections, I've reassessed the probability to be around *40-60%*, indicating a slightly higher likelihood that Jesus might have claimed or implied a divine identity or relationship [1].

Now factor in how the earliest Christian documents by the apostle Paul have an Early High Christology. Could the early followers of Jesus have been so mistaken as to his claims? Make a reassessment.

*Early High Christology in Paul's writings*:

The apostle Paul's letters, some of the earliest Christian documents, do indeed reflect an Early High Christology, portraying Jesus as a divine or quasi-divine figure (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11, Romans 9:5).

*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *Higher probability* (around 60-80%): The early Christian community's understanding of Jesus, as reflected in Paul's writings, might have been rooted in Jesus' own claims or actions. It's possible that Jesus' teachings, actions, and self-understanding led his followers to develop a high Christology relatively quickly.

- *Less likely that the early followers were entirely mistaken*: Given the proximity of Paul's writings to Jesus' lifetime and the fact that Paul interacted with other early Christian leaders who knew Jesus (e.g., Peter, James), it's plausible that the early Christian understanding of Jesus was informed by Jesus' own identity claims or implications.

This re-assessment takes into account the potential connections between Jesus' life, teachings, and the early Christian community's understanding of him [1].

Now factor in hostile witness like the early Jewish arguments against Jesus. Re-assess.

*Hostile witness: Early Jewish arguments*:

The early Jewish arguments against Jesus, as recorded in the Talmud and other sources, often focus on Jesus' claims to divinity or his perceived blasphemy (e.g., b. Sanh. 43a). Although these sources are later and may not directly reflect the earliest Jewish responses, they might preserve elements of early Jewish criticism.

*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *High probability* (around 80-90%): The fact that both Christian and Jewish sources (albeit with different perspectives) seem to converge on the idea that Jesus' identity or claims were central to the controversy surrounding him lends credibility to the notion that Jesus' self-understanding or claims were extraordinary.

- *Increased likelihood that Jesus' claims were perceived as divine*: The hostile witness of early Jewish arguments might suggest that Jesus' words or actions were seen as making divine claims or implications, which would have been considered blasphemous by some.

This re-assessment takes into account the potential historical kernel preserved in both Christian and Jewish sources, despite their differing perspectives and agendas [1].

You wrote: "Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:"

Is the "or" meant in the sense of 1. either X or Y; or 2. as equivalent to?

In this context, the "or" is meant in the sense of equivalence, implying that claiming to be divine or claiming to be the Son of God are being treated as similar or related claims. In other words, I'm using "or" to connect two phrases that are roughly equivalent or overlapping in meaning, rather than presenting mutually exclusive alternatives.