More Capernwray Questions

In the past few years technical developments such as artificial intelligence have become a thing. Experts talk a lot about what could be possible with these technologies in years to come. Does Scripture give us any hints about how far such developments can go, or where their limits are?

I don't think so, except for the general conclusions you can draw from the Bible's view of the future:

- Machines or computers will never reach the stage where they terminate human existence on this planet

- AI will never nullify human intelligence or creativity; we'll stay responsible to God for the way we treat the Earth

- It is possible that AI will make some baneful developments easier (e.g. the way in which a future world ruler might be able to exclude from power, or from society, those people who don't bear a certain identifying mark) but even so the possibility of human defiance will never be eradicated

We shouldn't make the mistake of believing that an AI-fuelled takeover is imminent, or even likely. There's a good, thoughtful Backchannel article which talks about five myths which people tend to believe on this issue, and five less popular ideas which are more likely to be true:

Intelligence is not a single dimension, so “smarter than humans” is a meaningless concept.
Humans do not have general purpose minds, and neither will AIs.
Emulation of human thinking in other media will be constrained by cost.
Dimensions of intelligence are not infinite.
Intelligences are only one factor in progress.

What do you think: is illness used by God to make something good, therefore God chooses to let the person suffer for a purpose; or do you think illness is evil and God does hate it? If the second, what is the reason for him to allow it in someone's life?

I don't think illness and suffering are ever part of God's plan. He hates everything that disfigures and spoils his creation. But in a world that is flawed and broken, what can he do about it? (Other than to wipe us out and start again, which mercifully he has no plans to do.)

Instead, Romans 8:28 tells us, God is at work in everything for the good of those who love him. So he can and will bring good results out of evil events. It isn't that he wants us to suffer, but instead that he will turn our suffering into something positive and valuable. So he doesn't endorse our suffering, and he doesn't ignore our suffering - he uses it, and one day it will be gone anyway, when God wipes every tear from our eyes and brings us finally into his presence in his kingdom.

In Matthew 27:52 we read about more people who were raised from the dead - can we take that seriously? Why is there not more evidence about that? Why did it not get more attention?

This is referring to those "many holy people" who came to life when Jesus did. " They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people." It wasn't like Lazarus, or the widow's son at Nain, who went back afterward to living a normal life, and were there to be questioned;

Presumably there's no more evidence because this was a brief local phenomenon - some appearances to a few people, which probably weren't well documented or investigated in any way. It wasn't like Lazarus, or the widow's son at Nain, who went back afterward to living a normal life, and were there to be questioned; all you have here are a few sightings at the same time as other unusual phenomena were taking place.

It has been suggested by some New Testament commentators - such as R.H. Gundry. whose commentary in 1982 caused a lot of controversy - that Matthew is different from the other gospel writers because he frequently uses a Jewish technique known as midrash, which allowed an author to embellish historical facts with other extra details, in order to make a theological point. The technique certainly existed; whether Matthew actually used it is open to doubt. But if Gundry is right, the first readers of the Gospel would have understood what Matthew was doing, and wouldn't have been misled by it. "Matthew's intent," he argues, "was to tell the story of Jesus with alterations and embellishments suited to the needs of the church and the world at the time the gospel was written." Not many people have supported Gundry's thinking, but of course if he were right this would be one of those stories where Matthew is expanding the story beyond what actually happened.

Other Christians believe that this verse wasn't genuinely written by Matthew, but has been smuggled in by a copyist somewhere along the line. This site argues for that idea, and certainly does a very painstaking job of showing how many difficulties there are in the claim the verse makes. But there really is no manuscript evidence whatever that this verse wasn't part of the original Gospel written by Matthew.

But there's no need to wish this verse away. It's perfectly possible that at a time when earthquakes were moving tombstones, the sun was going dark in the middle of the day, the great temple curtain was inexplicably ripping in two, etc., etc., that some dead bodies also appeared, living again, in the streets. We just don't know anything at all about it. (Glenn Miller has some useful information here.)

In Mark 9:29 it says, "This kind can come out only by prayer." And it is talking about a bad spirit. What does he mean with "this kind"?

Jesus has already sent his disciples out with the authority to expel evil spirits (Mark 6:6) and it's been successful (6:13). But now they come across a boy showing epileptic symptoms which seem to have a demonic origin, and he's not responding to treatment. When Jesus appears, the boy is cured immediately. The disciples are humbled and ask why they couldn't do it. Jesus replies that they are dealing here with an especially difficult case - "this kind", touto to genos - and the authority already given isn't enough: that authority comes from God, and without reliance upon God directly in prayer, they won't be able to use the authority.

For us today, there can be similar situations. God may have given us gifts as teachers, evangelists, pastors, or anything else, and much of the time the exercise of those gifts will produce results quite readily. But there will be situations where either (a) we're dealing with something which tests out our spiritual gift to the limit, or (b) we've slipped into an attitude of casual acceptance of our own spiritual abilities, without remembering that it all comes from God's Spirit and that without Jesus we can do nothing (John 15:5). In those situations, God drives us back to prayer, honesty and reality, by withholding his power until we're in the right position.

Did Jesus know he was God when he was little? At age 5 do you think he had the mentality of an adult and was able to understand it all?

No, I really don't. There's something deeply creepy about the idea of (e.g.) the baby Jesus lying in the manger thinking to himself, "You people have no idea, but actually I'm the Lord of heaven and earth." It isn't much better when he's five...

Jesus, I believe, grew up as a normal child, which is where the apocryphal gospels get it wildly and spectacularly wrong. He "grew in wisdom and stature" (Luke 2:52) just like anybody else. But he had a deep love for Scripture and an almost instinctive understanding of it (as the doctors in the Temple found when he was twelve). He still had to learn, though; notice what he was doing in the Temple (Luke 2:46): "listening and asking questions".

He also must have developed early in his life a deep relationship with his Father through prayer; nobody just goes out on the hillside and prays for hours at night, as he did in the midst of a busy ministry, without having learned that habit through continual, disciplined practice. And so through his teenage years, or perhaps a little later, he must have grown in his understanding to the point where he started to see himself in the Old Testament prophecies he knew so well, and grasp gradually that he was there in the world on a mission which would involve pain and death, but would transform the world. And so, baptized by John, he began the ministry that he knew he had been sent to perform.

The power he manifested, and the way in which God was so obviously with him, convinced others that he was God's Son (John 1:14, 2 Peter 1:16-18); but he had already worked his way through to that conviction, and the calm confidence with which he met the furious opposition he faced shows that in deep secret dealings with his Father he'd worked it all out and then set himself to finish the mission. His famous prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 17) is a revealing insight into the way he talked to his Father about what he was there to do.

Why did Jesus remain silent when the court asked him about the false accusations the lying witnesses came up with (Mark 14:61)?

Actually, if you read the story closely, Jesus is silent twice when directly questioned by the High Priest, and then on the third question answers fully and frankly in a way that gets his accusers rubbing their hands in glee because he's just committed himself. Why does he do it that way?

Well, this is the irregular and illegitimate trial in the High Priest's house, just after the arrest in Gethsemane. What happens here flies in the face of all established Jewish legal procedure, and the Sanhedrin's own rules. What they want to do is simply to get Jesus to say something that will enable them to take him to the Roman governor (who is the only person in the story able to order death). And so they've tried the false witnesses, only to find that their stories conflict and won't stand up in a court of law. In desperation, the High Priest cuts across normal practice and asks Jesus directly to respond to the accusations. He remains silent: it's beneath anybody's dignity to defend himself against claims which are obviously fabricated and don't merit a response. The High Priest, even more illegally, challenges Jesus to say whether he truly believes he is the "Son of the Blessed One". This challenge in no way arises out of the trial so far, and Jesus remains silent: why should he fall for such an obvious trick? Hopelessly the High Priest repeats his challenge, and to his amazement and glee, this time Jesus speaks as clearly and frankly as any of his opponents could have wished. Why?

Well, I think that if Jesus had remained silent throughout, he still wouldn't have escaped death. For one thing, he knew that drinking "this cup" was his Father's will; for another thing, having nerved themselves up to arrest him, his enemies were not going to let go. To remain silent might have made onlookers suspect that Jesus didn't really believe his own story, that he was having doubts about his own status. And so - having exposed the desperation of his accusers by not rising to their challenge twice - on the third occasion Jesus declares simply and fully exactly who he is.

It means their trap has been successful; but at a time of his choosing, not theirs. He is still demonstrating, even at his trial, that he is in control of what is happening to him; they haven't won.

Even more questions and answers Back to home