The Ferengi are back! Jimmy Akin, Dom Bettinelli, and Fr. Cory Sticha discuss this story that establishes Capt. Picard’s backstory involving the Stargazer; claims headaches don’t exist in the future; and sets up the Picard Manuever as the indefensible stratagem.
Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
When Pauline Dakin’s mother finally revealed why she’d had such a bizarre childhood it explained so much. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli reveal that this was only the beginning however, and what she would subsequently find out would change everything again.
Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?
Links for this episode:
Mysterious Headlines
This Episode is Brought to You By:
Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World is brought to you in part through the generous support of Aaron Vurgason Electric and Automation at AaronV.com. Making Connections for Life for your automation and smart home needs in north and central Florida.
RosaryArmy.com. Have more peace. Visit RosaryArmy.com and get a free all-twine knotted rosary, downloadable audio Rosaries, and more. Make Them. Pray Them. Give Them Away at RosaryArmy.com.
Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.
Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Mark contains a brief story not found in the other Gospels. Immediately after Jesus’ arrest, the Eleven scatter, and we read:
And a certain young man was following him, clothed only in a linen cloth on his naked body. And they attempted to seize him, but he left behind the linen cloth and fled naked (14:51-52, LEB).
People naturally want to know who this young, anonymous man was.
Was it Mark?
Today, many say it was Mark himself—that he recorded this incident the way medieval artists sometimes put tiny portraits of themselves in their paintings or the way Alfred Hitchcock briefly appears in his films.
Some may even suppose this is the traditional answer that has always been believed, but it’s not. The Church Fathers made other proposals, and this theory only became common in the late 19th century.
There also are problems with it. One is that the Greek word for “young man” (neaniskos) indicates a man who is past puberty and thus in his late teens or early 20s.
But when we meet Mark in Acts 12:12, it is the year A.D. 43—a decade after the Crucifixion—and it appears that Mark is a young man then, not one pushing or over 30.
We also have testimony from a first century figure named John the Presbyter, who says Mark “had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him” during his ministry (Eusebius, Church History 3:39:15).
Finally, we don’t have evidence of an ancient literary tradition of authors giving themselves brief, anonymous appearances in their works. That isn’t what Mark’s audience would expect, so this theory reads a much later artistic and cinematic technique into ancient literature.
A Curious Stranger?
Another proposal is that this was a random person—not a member of the Christian community—who happened to be following out of curiosity and got nabbed.
This isn’t impossible, but the argument for it is weak. The argument is that people normally wore two garments, an inner one and an outer one. So, perhaps the young man was asleep, heard the noise, quickly put on a single garment, and when to see what the commotion was.
The problem is that people also sometimes wore just one garment, so the man was not clearly underdressed.
Further, if he were not a Christian, why would the authorities grab him? Mark tells us that “a crowd” was present for the arrest (14:43), and a person walking along with the crowd would not be grabbed unless he previously had been seen among Jesus’ followers.
Also, if this man had no connection with the Christian community, how did this story get preserved? The way Mark tells it, the Eleven had already fled, and the arresting party would have no reason to tell the story to the Christian community later on.
The preservation of the story—and its use by Mark—would be more logical if the person was known to the Evangelist and his audience.
In that case, the question would be: Why isn’t his name mentioned?
Protective Anonymity
Scholars have noted that, in the Synoptic Gospels, certain people remain curiously anonymous in the Passion narrative.
These include the woman who anoints Jesus (Mark 14:3), the owner of the house where Jesus eats the Last Supper (14:14-15), and the disciple who strikes off the ear of the high priest’s servant (14:47).
What these figures have in common is that they committed acts that would be considered seditious by the Jerusalem authorities. The woman anointed Jesus, which could be seen as consecrating him for his role as the anointed Messiah, the king of the Jews. The householder then hosts the new rebel king. And the last takes up arms in defense of the rebel king.
When the story of Jesus’ Passion was first being told in the Jerusalem church, it would not be safe to publicly name these people—not if they still lived in or visited Jerusalem, where the Jewish authorities could get them.
Neither would it do to write their names in a Gospel that would find its way to the Jerusalem church. So, the theory is that the Synoptic Evangelists give these people “protective anonymity.”
But when John was written, the individuals may have moved away, died, or already been taken into custody, so they didn’t need protection.
That’s why some are named in John. The woman who anoints Jesus is revealed to be Mary the sister of Lazarus (John 12:3), and the disciple who wielded the sword is revealed to be St. Peter (John 18:10).
But their identities were known in the Christian community from the beginning. Jesus had said, concerning Mary, “wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her” (Mark 14:9), and when Peter was preaching the gospel orally, he would have identified himself as the man with the sword.
Yet in Mark, Mary is simply “a woman” (14:3) and Peter is “a certain one of the bystanders” (14:47).
Someone we know?
Could Mark be withholding the identity of the “certain young man,” though it was known to the Christian community? Might we have heard of him? If so, who might it be?
St. Ambrose suggested that it might be John son of Zebedee, but it’s hard to see why he would need protective anonymity. People knew he was one of the Twelve, and Mark names him as present at the time of the arrest (14:33). He already was in danger as a known supporter of Jesus, and merely escaping an arrest was not a seditious act.
Theophylact of Ohrid suggested the man might be James the “brother” of the Lord. However, Jesus’ brethren didn’t believe in him during his ministry (John 7:5), so he was unlikely to be following Jesus that night.
Some have proposed that the “beloved disciple” was actually John the Presbyter, who was from an aristocratic Jerusalem family and personally knew the high priest. He may have been the host of the Last Supper, which is why he was seated next to Jesus (John 13:23).
If so, there could be reason to shield his identity, and he never names himself in the Gospel!
However, he doesn’t identify himself as the man who ran away. And, after Jesus is arrested, he follows Jesus to the high priest’s house and even gets Peter access to the courtyard (18:15-16). This makes it unlikely he had just escaped arrest.
The ideal candidate?
The ideal candidate for the young man would be someone who (a) was not one of the Twelve, (b) lived in the Jerusalem area, (c) was a follower of Jesus, and (d) was already wanted by the authorities, since he doesn’t do anything criminal in Mark.
Is there such a person? Yes, and it’s Lazarus. Immediately after John records Mary anointing Jesus, he says:
When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came, not only on account of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus also to death, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus (12:9-11).
The authorities thus were already looking to kill Lazarus. But he may not have known this, which could explain why he thought it would be safe to follow, only to be seized and forced to flee naked.
Lazarus—like his sister Mary—was known to the early Christian community, and when the Passion was retold in the Jerusalem church, people would have known the parts they played. Yet, it wouldn’t have been safe to name them publicly, such as in a Gospel, as long as they remained alive and in the Jerusalem area.
This doesn’t prove Lazarus was the man who ran away naked, but it fits the evidence, and it’s an intriguing possibility!
This page collects articles I have been writing dealing with the Kalaam cosmological argument for God’s existence. It is expected to grow over time as I write more on the subject.
Put simply, the argument goes:
The cause of the universe can be meaningfully described as God. Therefore, God exists.
This argument is both valid and sound–that is, it uses a valid logical form and its premises are true, so its conclusion is true.
Despite this, many of the arguments used to support it are not successful. In particular, many of the philosophical arguments used for its second premise are flawed.
Here are articles in which I explore why.
General Considerations:
The Big Bang and Science
Philosophical Arguments:
The First Argument (No Actual Infinities):
The Second Argument (No Infinity by Successive Addition):
More Recent Arguments:
Related:
This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 17 June 2021 to 14 July 2021.
Angelus
Messages
Speeches
Papal Tweets
Papal Instagram
The return of the Mara. Jimmy, Dom, and Fr. Cory discuss this 5th Doctor story that was partially inspired by tales of Christian snake handlers, but also uses concepts out of Asian religions and philosophies.
Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Sometimes defenders of the Kalaam cosmological argument defend its second premise (i.e., that the world couldn’t have an infinite past) by proposing a paradox involving counting.
The line of reasoning goes something like this:
A. Suppose that the universe has an infinite history (the kind of history you’d need to do an infinite countdown).
B. Suppose that a person has been counting down the infinite set of negative numbers (. . . -3, -2, -1) for all eternity, and they finish today, so today’s number is 0. It took them an infinite amount of time to reach 0 in the present.
C. Now suppose that we go back in time to yesterday. How much time was there before yesterday? Also an infinite amount of time! Given that, they could have counted down the infinite set of negative numbers so that they reached 0 yesterday instead of today!
D. So, we have a paradox: If the person had been counting down the negative numbers for all eternity, they could have finished today—or yesterday—or on any other day in the past, since there was always an infinite number of days before that.
E. There needs to be a sufficient reason why they stop on the day they did.
The Kalaam defender then challenges the Kalaam skeptic to name the sufficient reason, and if he’s not convinced by the answer, he rejects Step A of the argument—the idea that the universe has an infinite history—since there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with Steps B, C, D, or E.
What’s problematic about this line of reasoning?
Arbitrary Labels
To see what the answer is, we need to think about the arbitrariness of the labels involved in the countdown.
In Part B, the Kalaam defender chose to use the set of negative numbers, but he could have chosen something else.
For example, he could have chosen the digits of the irrational number pi (3.14159 . . . ) in reverse order (. . . 9, 5, 1, 4, 1, 3), in which case today’s number would be 3.
Or he could have used the Golden Ratio and chosen the digits of the irrational number phi (1.61803 . . . ) and reversed them, in which case today’s number would be 1.
Or he could have picked anything else, such as an infinitely long string of random numbers—or random words—or random symbols.
Any string will do for an infinite count of the past—as long as it’s an infinitely long string.
The point we learn from this is that the labels we apply to particular days are arbitrary. It depends entirely on what labels we choose. We can pick any labels we want and use them for any set of days we want.
Forward Counts
To underscore this point, let’s consider counts that go forward in time rather than backwards.
For example, we could choose the set of natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3 . . . ), assigning 0 to today, 1 to tomorrow, 2 to the day after that, and so on.
Or we could use the digits of pi, in which case today would be 3, tomorrow 1, the day after that 4, etc.
Or the digits of phi, so today would be 1, tomorrow 6, the day after that 1, etc.
Or we could use something else—such as an infinite string of random numbers, words, or symbols.
We can pick whatever labels for a set of days, beginning with today, that we want!
A Count-Up Paradox
Now consider the following line of reasoning:
A*. Suppose that the universe has an infinite future (the kind of future you’d need to do an infinite count going forwards).
B*. Suppose that a person starts counting the infinite set of natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3 . . . ) today, so that today’s number is 0, tomorrow’s is 1, the next day is 2, etc.
C*. Now suppose that we go forward in time to tomorrow. How much time is there left in the future of the universe? Also an infinite amount of time! Given that, the person could start their count of the infinite set of whole numbers so that they begin with 0 tomorrow instead of today!
D*. So, we have a paradox: If the person counts the set of whole numbers for all eternity, they could have started today—or tomorrow—or on any other day in the future, since there will always be an infinite number of days after that.
E*. There needs to be a sufficient reason why they start on the day they do.
If we’re challenged to name the sufficient reason why the person starts counting on the day they do, what will our answer be?
Mine would be, “Because that’s how you set up the thought experiment! You made this determination in Step B*. You could have chosen to start the count on any day you wanted (today, tomorrow, yesterday—or any other day), and you chose the set of numbers that would be used to label these days. Your choices are the sufficient reason for why the count starts and why it labels the days the way it does.”
Turn About Is Fair Play
And this is the answer to the original line of reasoning we presented. The same logic is present in A-E that is present in A*-E*, so the answer is the same.
The reason that the original countdown stopped today, which was labelled 0, is because those were the choices made in Step B. The person setting up the thought experiment chose that the countdown stop today, and he chose that it would stop with 0.
Once again, it is the choices that the person made that determine when the count stops and what it stops on.
There is only a “paradox” here if you lose sight of the fact that these choices were made and demand a sufficient reason over and above them.
To say—in the first case—“I know I made these choices in Step B, but I want a reason over and above that to explain why the countdown doesn’t stop on another day” is the same as saying—in the second case—“I know I made these choices in Step B*, but I want a reason over and above that to explain why the count doesn’t start on another day.”
No such reasons are needed. The choices made in Step B are sufficient to explain why the countdown works the way it does, just as the choices made in Step B* are sufficient to explain why the count-up works the way it does.
So, like a lot of paradoxes, the “countdown paradox” has a perfectly obvious solution once you think about it.
God as the Decider
Now let’s apply this to the question of whether God could have created the universe with an infinite past. In this case, we’re doing a thought experiment where God is the one making the choices.
A**. Suppose that God creates a universe with an infinite past (the kind you need for an infinite countdown).
B**. Suppose that–within this timeline–God creates a person (or angel, or computer, or whatever) that counts down the negative numbers so that he finishes today, and today’s number is 0.
Why didn’t the person stop counting on some other day or with some other number? Because that’s not what God chose. He chose to have it happen this way, with the person counting the number -2 two days ago, the number -1 one day ago, and the number 0 today.
Could he have have done it differently? Absolutely! God could have made different choices!
In fact–to go beyond what we’ve stated thus far–God may have created other people doing just that.
C**. Suppose that God also created a second person who has been counting for all eternity such that he ended yesterday with the number 0.
D**. Suppose that God further created a third person who has been counting for all eternity such that he ended two days ago with the number 0.
These are also possible, and we can modify our thought experiment such that God creates any number of people we like, finishing an infinite count on any day we like, with any number (or word or symbol) we like.
In each case, it is God’s choice that is the sufficient reason why the person finished when he did and with what he did.
The situation is parallel to the following:
A***. Suppose that God creates a universe with an infinite future (the kind you need to do an infinite count going forward).
B***. Suppose that–within this timeline–God creates a person who starts an infinite count today, beginning with the number 0.
As before, we can include any number of counters we want:
C***. Suppose that God also creates a second person who begins counting tomorrow, starting with the number 0.
D***. Suppose that God further creates a third person who begins counting the day after tomorrow, starting with the number 0.
As before, we can modify our thought experiment to include any number of counters we want, they can start on any day we want, and they can start with whatever number (or word or symbol) that we want.
Yet in these scenarios, it is God’s choices that determine who is created, when they start counting, and how the count works. These choices are the only reasons we need to explain what is happening.
If there is no unsolvable paradox preventing the scenarios described in A***-D***, then there is no unsolvable paradox preventing the scenarios described in A**-D**–or in any of the previous scenarios we’ve covered.
There just is no problem with the idea of a person doing an infinite countdown ending today–any more than there is with the idea of a person beginning an infinite countdown today.
In the second part of their discussion of this movie, Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli continue to talk about the Cold War themes, the responsibility of a starship captain, and putting aside personal grudges and loyalties for the sake of duty and doing what’s right.
Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Pauline Dakin’s family moved a lot and her mom would only say she’d explain when Pauline was older. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli look at the odd childhood Pauline experienced and the surprising reason Pauline’s mother gave for why they kept moving around the country.
Help us continue to offer Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World. Won’t you make a pledge at SQPN.com/give today?
Links for this episode:
Mysterious Headlines
This Episode is Brought to You By:
Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World is brought to you in part through the generous support of Aaron Vurgason Electric and Automation at AaronV.com. Making Connections for Life for your automation and smart home needs in north and central Florida.
RosaryArmy.com. Have more peace. Visit RosaryArmy.com and get a free all-twine knotted rosary, downloadable audio Rosaries, and more. Make Them. Pray Them. Give Them Away at RosaryArmy.com.
Want to Sponsor A Show?
Support StarQuest’s mission to explore the intersection of faith and pop culture by becoming a named sponsor of the show of your choice on the StarQuest network. Click to get started or find out more.
Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 1 July 2021 to 20 July 2021.
Angelus
Letters
Messages
Papal Tweets
Papal Instagram