Pints With Aquinas - 40: Is Jesus just a copy of pagan gods? Was his incarnation necessary?

Starting point is 00:00:00 If Pints with Aquinas has helped you and you'd like to support the show, well, you can now do that. Go to pintswithaquinas.com and click the big Patreon banner up the top. By supporting the show, even for as little as $2 a month, which amounts to 50 cents an episode, you'll get some neat thank you gifts. you'll get some neat thank you gifts. Gifts include things like a free Pints with Aquinas sticker posted to your front door, access to an ever-growing library of exclusive in-depth interviews between me and philosophers, converts and apologists, a new e-book that I've written on Aquinas' metaphysical jargon,

Starting point is 00:00:41 and another one of the gifts is perhaps me interviewing you for Pints with Aquinas. Look, there's other gifts as well. I won't go into them all here. And the thing is, I know that people don't support the show just to get a sticker or an ebook or more audio content. People support the show because they actually appreciate it. And I appreciate you appreciating it. I don't want this show just to continue. I want it to go from good to great, and I'm honored by your support. Again, go to pintswithaquinas.com and click the Patreon banner to learn more. Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 40. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of

Starting point is 00:01:28 beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? Today we'll ask St. Thomas this question. Was it necessary for our salvation that the second person of the Blessed Trinity should become incarnate. Thanks for joining us once again here at Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor and discuss theology and philosophy. Well, we have officially ended the season of Christmas, and I hope you had a great one. And I thought it might be helpful if we discuss the incarnation of Jesus Christ. So I want to do two things in this podcast. I want to ask that question, which I mentioned in the intro,

Starting point is 00:02:25 was it necessary that Christ should become incarnate, necessary for our salvation? And then I would like to talk about a popular objection to Christianity these days, which has to do with the incarnation of Christ just being a spinoff of ancient, you know, perhaps pagan gods like Horus and that sort of thing. So, those are the two things we want to do. So, let's do them in order. The first thing we'll do is look at what Aquinas has to say. And this comes from the third part of the Summa Theologiae, question one, article two. And I'll be sure to put this answer in the description of this podcast. So if you're sitting down, you might decide to read along. If not, you can go back later and read it.

Starting point is 00:03:19 Now, I love St. Thomas Aquinas. This dude is the bomb. And one of the reasons I love him is how simple, how simply he explains things. He explains things, you know, with bullet points. And today we certainly see that. I'll get into what he says, but just real quickly, one of the things that he does, two of the things that he does in this answer is he gives us five reasons, you know, five reasons the incarnation was useful for the furtherance in good. And after he gives us those five reasons, he then gives us five reasons it was useful for withdrawing us from evil. So, it's all very easy to follow. But let's see what he has to say. Was the incarnation

Starting point is 00:04:07 of Jesus Christ necessary for our salvation? Well, before we hear what Thomas has to say, what do you think? Don't be embarrassed. No one else will know if you get the wrong answer. It's not like one of those things where people say, raise your hand if you think this, and then you feel like an idiot. And they're like, you're wrong. You're a heretic. Don't worry, you wouldn't be a heretic either way. But what do you say? Was it necessary or not? And why do you think that? I think it's really important that we don't just sort of passively engage with Aquinas, but we try to think through our answers. Will we say yes, it was necessary? Will we say no, and why not? Well, here's what Aquinas says. He says, quote, a thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it, as food is necessary for the preservation of human life.

Starting point is 00:05:07 Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way, are you ready? He's going to give you the answer here. Are you listening? In the first way, it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Interesting, huh? So, those two ways a thing can be necessary. First, when the end cannot be without it. So, if the end is the preservation of human life, okay, well, yeah, it's strictly necessary that I take in food. And there's that second way when we say that the end is attained more conveniently. So it's necessary to catch a plane to go to Australia if you want to visit there. But of course, there are other ways to visit. I could take a boat, a ship.

Starting point is 00:06:13 And Aquinas says it's not necessary that Christ should become man in that first sense in which we use the word necessary. That kind of, I think, surprises a lot of people. Well, why? Well, he says this, for God, with his omnipotent power, could have restored human nature in many other ways. Okay. But it is necessary, he says, in the second way. In the second way, it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence, Aquinas says, Augustine says, we shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to whose power all things are equally subject, but that there was not a more fitting way of healing

Starting point is 00:06:58 our misery. Okay? Incidentally, I did an episode. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't even tell you the number. But the question was, was the crucifixion of Christ necessary for our salvation? Something to that effect. Go listen to that one, because, of course, the answer is going to be the same. And I speak a lot about how, if we can say the cross was necessary for our salvation, in that second sense, we can say the same thing and perhaps more so about the Blessed Mother, not to freak anyone out, but yes, the Blessed Mother was necessary for our salvation in that sense too. I make the case that an inanimate object cannot choose the will of God, but Mary had the choice. She could have chosen or not chosen to respond to God's invitation, and she did. Anyway, here are five reasons Aquinas gives

Starting point is 00:07:49 that the incarnation was useful for the furtherance in good. He says, first, with regard to faith, which is made more certain by believing God himself who speaks. Hence, Augustine says, in order that man might journey more trustfully towards the truth, the truth itself, the son of God, having assumed human nature, established and founded faith. That's a good point, right? If a prophet says something, I might believe him, especially if he can display certain acts which show me that he's a prophet. But if the Son of God should tell me something, then my faith is made more certain. Secondly, he says, with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened. Hence, Augustine says, nothing was so necessary for raising our hopes as to show us how deeply God loved us.

Starting point is 00:08:57 And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature. Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly enkindled by this. Hence, Augustine says, what greater cause is there of the Lord's coming than to show God's love for us? And he afterwards adds, If we have been slow to love, at least let us hasten to love in return. Fourthly, the incarnation was useful with regard to well-doing, in which he, Christ, sets us an example. Hence, Augustine says in a sermon,

Starting point is 00:09:50 Man who might be seen was not to be followed, but God was to be followed who could not be seen. And therefore, God was made man that he who might be seen by man and whom man might follow might be shown to man. And fifthly, the incarnation, Aquinas says, was useful with regard to the full participation of the divinity, which is the true bliss of man and the end of human life. And this is bestowed upon us by Christ's humanity. For Augustine says in a sermon, God was made man, that man might be made God.

Starting point is 00:10:33 And of course, made God, we might say with a lower case g, that we get to participate in the divinity of God. That's what we'll be doing in heaven. Can we just stop for a second and point out how often Aquinas quotes Augustine? We just went through five reasons the incarnation was useful for the furtherance in good, and each of those points, you'll notice Aquinas quotes Augustine. In the next five points he gives us for why the incarnation was useful for withdrawing us from evil, he's going to quote Augustine again. So, we often say that Aquinas baptized Aristotle, you know, which he did. However, he quotes Augustine far more than he quotes Aristotle. And I think one of the reasons for this, apart from the fact that he agreed with Augustine, is that Augustine was the authority of

Starting point is 00:11:34 the day. So whereas today, perhaps in Catholic theological discussions, in order to make a point, we might appeal to Aquinas for backup. I think Aquinas was doing the same thing, especially since there was a lot of controversy around the writings of Aristotle at the time. By appealing to the main authority in Catholic theology, you get to have backup, as it were. Okay, let's look at these five reasons Aquinas now gives us for why the incarnation was useful to withdraw us from evil. Okay. First, because man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself, nor to honor him who is the author of sin. Hence, Augustine says,

Starting point is 00:12:25 Secondly, because we are thereby taught how great is man's dignity, lest we should sully it with sin. Hence, Augustine says, God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures in as much as he appeared to men as a true man. And Pope Leo says in a sermon on the nativity, learn, O Christian, thy worth, Learn, O Christian, thy worth, and being made a partner of the divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness. Thirdly, because in order to do away with man's presumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ through no merits of ours,

Starting point is 00:13:28 sorry, let me say that again, though no merits of ours went before, as Augustine says in De Trinitate. Fourthly, because man's pride, which is the greatest stumbling block to our clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so great, as Augustine says in the same place. Fifthly, in order to free man from the thralldom of sin. If you've never heard the word thralldom before, it just means subjugation, right? So the subjugation of sin, which as Augustine says, quote, ought to be done in such a way that the devil should be overcome by the justice of the man, Jesus Christ, end quote. And this was done by Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere man could

Starting point is 00:14:21 not have satisfied for the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy. Hence, it behooved Jesus same mediator of God and men might die in one and rise in the other. For this was our fitting remedy. Unless he was God, he would not have brought a remedy. And unless he was man, he would not have set an example. And there are very many other advantages which go beyond man's apprehension. All right, there is the main bulk of the answer. This is why it wasn't strictly necessary that Christ should become man for the salvation of the human race, since God and his omnipotence could have forgiven us in all sorts of ways. But that secondly, it was certainly necessary in the second sense, most conveniently, better attained.

Starting point is 00:15:33 Okay. Well, if you're still with me, let's take a quick break. And when we come back, we'll discuss this whole idea that Jesus is just a spinoff of pagan myths. This whole idea that Jesus is just a spinoff of pagan myths. My name is Gomer and I'm the co-host of Catching Foxes. Foxes. Foxes. Catching Foxes. Foxes.

Starting point is 00:15:57 I would like to tell you about something more important than my podcast. What? Pints with Aquinas. Pints with Aquinas. Matt Fradd actually wrote a book on 50 plus deep thoughts from the angelic doctor. Pints with Aquinas. Here's the deal. Beer is easily lovable, but medieval monastic philosophers, they can be quite intimidating.

Starting point is 00:16:20 Yet in this short pithy book, and I don't use that word often. In fact, I never use the word pithy, but I'm going to use it here and you're going to agree with me. often. In fact, I never use the word pithy, but I'm going to use it here and you're going to agree with me. Matt Fradd made the greatest mind in the history of the church as easily accessible as your favorite beer. You'll laugh, you'll cry. Well, you won't cry, but you'll laugh and you'll discover that this old school philosopher's wisdom is just as relevant today as it was back then. So do yourself a favor. Get a copy of this enlightening pithy little book from Amazon right now. And when it arrives, pour yourself a frothy pint and dig in. You'll be glad you did. All right. Welcome back. Good to have you back with us. I hope you're ready for another round because I think that this part, even though Aquinas doesn't address this issue, I think it's really helpful, especially in this day and age where we have many new atheists who want to say certain things.

Starting point is 00:17:12 And this is one of them. Basically, the claim is that many different religions tell myth stories, some about gods being incarnate, right? And even dying and rising gods. And therefore, the idea is that Jesus is just a spinoff of these pagan myths. Now, before we look at some of these alleged parallels between Christianity and paganism and why they're false, it's important to note this fact. This is the first thing I think we should say when dialoguing with someone who says, look at these similarities, you know, therefore Jesus is a spinoff. We have to point out that similarity does not imply dependence. Similarity does not imply dependence. What do I mean? Well, even if Christianity did have

Starting point is 00:18:07 beliefs and practices similar to those of earlier religions, it wouldn't follow from that, that there must be a causal connection between them. In a sense, I think C.S. Lewis talked about this somewhere, you know, We should expect similarities between religions. These things shouldn't surprise us. Why? Well, most religions are trying to answer the same fundamental questions in life, right? Questions like questions of origin. Where do we come from? Questions about the future. Is there an afterlife, questions about how we should live. And most religions have rituals and sacred stories and these sorts of things, moral codes. So I think the first thing we should point out is it would be surprising if there weren't some similarities among them. In fact, you might say that the similarities are actually a sign

Starting point is 00:19:02 that God does exist. You might expect different religions and different eras and cultures to reach many similar conclusions. And this is one of the things I think that I came to an understanding of after my conversion to Christ in the year 2000. You know, this idea that virtually every civilization in the history of mankind has believed in God or something like God. And far from that being an argument against the existence of God, maybe it's a proof that something like God exists, namely God. All right, but what about specifically these claims that Christian beliefs about Jesus are adapted from pagan cults? They're definitely popular today, but they're nothing new. A school of 19th century German theologians were basically seeking to interpret Jesus,

Starting point is 00:19:56 and this shouldn't surprise us, I don't think, against a pagan background rather than a Jewish one. background rather than a Jewish one. All right. Probably, I shouldn't say probably, but perhaps for anti-Semitic desires, right? Wanting an Aryan Jesus instead of a Jewish one. Now, this movement continued into the early 20th century, which writers who sought to deny, with writers who sought to deny basically just the historicity of Christ. And they were drawing upon the work of liberal German theologians. But here's the thing, mainstream scholarship didn't take these critics seriously. And that's why you probably haven't heard about them today. Their work fell into relative obscurity. It wasn't until the 19, I think it was the 1970s when a British professor, his name Wells, translated these works into English. And when he did that, this whole idea of mythicism began to rise to prominence again.

Starting point is 00:21:02 However prominent it might seem to us, you know, maybe we've seen the Zeitgeist movie and that sort of thing, or we've heard others talk about it a lot. It's still relatively a fringe movement. And what's interesting is even Wells abandoned it, admitting that there is a historical basis for the stories of Jesus. And then this is something that even agnostics such as, you know, Bart Ehrman, right, who's become popular for his arguments against the reliability of the New Testament, people like him admit that Jesus obviously was a real historical figure. Here's a quote from him. He says, the view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet. But certainly the popular impact of mythicism continues

Starting point is 00:21:54 and we should probably address it somewhat. So let's do that. Among the most ancient pagan deities of which people say that Christ is a copy of, the Egyptian god Horus seems to get the most attention. And we could say a heck of a lot about the alleged parallels between Jesus and Horus, but since we're kind of, you know, this is a shortish kind of podcast and you probably don't have the attention span to listen to all of it and I might not have the attention span to say it all, let's limit the alleged parallels to three things, okay? Number one, we'll talk about Horus's quote-unquote virgin birth. Number two, some talk about his crucifixion. And three,

Starting point is 00:22:43 his resurrection. So, let's go through those one at a time. First of all, this idea that Horus was born of a virgin mother. Not true. First of all, several different and contradictory stories about Horus have developed gradually over the last 3,000 years. But the most common one, the most common story of his conception that mythicists often talk about today involves his father, whose name was Osiris, and his mother, Isis. And it goes like this. Basically, Osiris, this gets really weird. And if you've got little kids listening, you probably should listen to this later. Okay. There's my warning. Osiris, okay, Horus's dad, was murdered and his body was cut up into, I think it was 14 different pieces and spread all over Egypt. Then his mother, Isis, went around

Starting point is 00:23:41 collecting them. Now, are you ready for this? This gets kind of funny. She was able to find 13 pieces of her husband's body. What was the one piece she couldn't find? His penis. Why? Because it was eaten by catfish at the bottom of the Nile. Ah! You heard that correctly. I knew catfish were disgusting. Okay, so what happens next? Isis, forgive me. Again, if you've got children, you might want to turn this down. Isis, Horace's mother, creates a wooden dildo and impregnates herself with this dildo. impregnates herself with this dildo. Sorry, that's how it went down. Now, the idea that this was a virgin birth hardly seems, well, it's not at all a virgin birth. Okay. But the second idea that Horace was crucified, well, first of all, how did he die? Well, just like we talked about earlier with his birth,

Starting point is 00:24:45 it depends on which account you go by. There's at least three ways that I've read that Horace died. One, it says he didn't die at all. Two, he died as a child after having been stung by a scorpion. And three, the third way people say he died is that his death is usually conflated with Osiris's, which I mentioned above, right? Being cut up and spread over Egypt. Now, have you guys seen the popular mythicist film Zeitgeist? When you watch it, it seems

Starting point is 00:25:19 incredibly convincing. You've got that guy reading in the very dry academic style, and you're like, oh my goodness. But guys, if you just go through this step by step, you see how ridiculous it is. And here's one of the ways in which it's ridiculous. This video claims that Horus was crucified. Now, that's interesting since crucifixion was a Roman invention. There was no Egyptian equivalent. That's the first thing to point out. So, why would they say it? Why would they say that Horus was crucified. Are you ready for this? They say that because there are images of Horace standing with outstretched arms. That's it. And you might be thinking, come on, that's not why they say it. Yeah, it is actually. When you read their film's study guide, which I had to read, unfortunately, for this podcast, it explains this.

Starting point is 00:26:27 It says, quote, the issue at hand is not of a man being thrown to the ground and nailed to a cross as Jesus is depicted to have been, but the betrayal of gods and goddesses in cruciform, whereby the divine figure appears with arms outstretched in a symbolic context. Okay, well, that's really friggin' different, actually. If you're going to say that Horus was crucified, and by that you mean he was standing with his arms outstretched? I mean, like, come on, not really the same thing. By this line of reasoning, we could also conclude that, I don't know, Barney the dinosaur was also crucified, since I've seen many images of him standing with his arms outstretched. Okay, thirdly and finally, the idea that Horus rose from the dead. Now, though there are many uniform claims flying around that Jesus' resurrection is borrowed from Horus, the fact is that dying and the rivification of Horus is vastly dissimilar to the death and resurrection of Christ.

Starting point is 00:27:46 of Christ. And the general view that ancient pagan religions were filled with dying and rising gods, sometimes you hear people say this, and they would then kind of argue that the New Testament authors borrowed this idea in order to concoct the story of Christ. It just doesn't pass scholarly muster. I'm sorry, it doesn't. Here's a quote from the Encyclopedia of Religion. Here it is. It says, So, as we wrap up this podcast today, I want to just suggest three things to keep in mind. Okay. One. Okay.

Starting point is 00:28:42 So, these are three things. If you're encountering someone, they tell you that Jesus is a spinoff. All right. Here are three things you should do. Number one, ask them, where are you getting your information? You know, is it from a website? Is it from a YouTube video? And if it is, well, that's fine. But where is this website or YouTube video getting its information from? And I think what you'll find is most people won't know. So, that's kind of nice. You be the one asking the question and have them admit, well, I mean, I don't know, just different places. Where? Well, I mean, well, figure it out and get back to me. The second thing you should do is take the parallels one at a time. Now, we just looked at

Starting point is 00:29:26 three, right? The birth of Christ, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ. And you see, as you go through them one by one, that they're really not similar at all. But I think what often happens when we're dealing with mythicists is they rattle off a list of alleged parallels and it appears as they're doing that that the evidence is overwhelming and that it is often how it feels. It's sometimes been called shotgun apologetics where you just throw a whole bunch of stuff out there that no one can possibly process and respond to in one conversation. But as I say, if you take the time to examine each apparent supposed parallel, you'll find, as we found, that they're really not similar at all. The third thing I'd say is study the parallels from authoritative sources for yourself and don't take unscholarly claims

Starting point is 00:30:22 at face value. Let me just grab this book off the shelf. Sorry about that. I have a book here, which you might be interested if you want to learn more, talking of scholarly sources. I had to read some of this when I was writing my little book on atheism. It's called The Oxford Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology. All right. Put out by Penguin. This is great for this podcast, isn't it? No. Put out by Berkeley Books. So you might check that out. Edited by Donald B. Redford. All right, my brothers and my sisters, I hope that that was a helpful podcast.

Starting point is 00:31:06 Couple of things I want to do. Number one, I want to thank everybody. And there's not a terrible amount of you, but there are some, and I'm so thankful for you. Those who have supported this show on Patreon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I hope you're enjoying the thank you gifts that I've been giving back to you. If you're open, even slightly open to the possibility of supporting this podcast, even for two bucks a month, go to patreon.com forward slash PWA, Pines with Aquinas. I'll put a link in the description of this podcast.

Starting point is 00:31:38 And just think about it. Have a look. I'd greatly appreciate it. If you're listening right now and you haven't rated Pines with Aquinas on iTunes, is it okay if i ask you to do that you're thinking no it's not okay well i just did so there you go deal with it but anyway if you could rate the show i'd greatly appreciate it that helps other people to see the podcast when they type things in like horus or penis at the bottle of bottom of the nile not sure who would type that in. All right, guys, God bless you.

Starting point is 00:32:05 Look forward to speaking to you next week. Oh, by the way, do you want to know what next week is about? You're going to love it. You're going to love it. You're going to love it. I interview Dr. Randall Rouser. He's a theologian up in Canada, and I throw five objections to the existence of God at him, and he knocks each of them out of the park. So you're going to love it. All right. God bless. Talk to you next week

Pints With Aquinas - 40: Is Jesus just a copy of pagan gods? Was his incarnation necessary?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.