An Introduction to Gift/Demand Algebra in the Gospels: A Proof of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ

We’ve never had much of an interest in Gospel historicity controversies because the very nature of historical argumentation seemed to us to be too loose to be compelling. Consequently, our research at New Apologetics has tended to favor deductive forms of argumentation, especially those benefiting from the rigor of analytic philosophy.

By means of our research in other areas, and without intending to address the historicity question at all, we discovered a new way to argue for the historicity of the Gospels, by reason alone, with a degree of probability far greater than anything previously available.

The method for doing so is totally other than anything heretofore applied to the question of the historical Jesus. Instead of being relegated to ultimately non-verifiable speculation or comparative evaluation of the claims of competing biblical historians, the findings enabled by this new methodology carry, in our estimation, an evidential weight that cannot possibly be surpassed by any other competing line of inductive reasoning. In other words, in our opinion, it’s a weight well beyond unearthing the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, for example.

We first introduced the discovery in a Facebook post:

“There are skeptics who argue against the historicity of Jesus and/or against the reliability of the Gospels in accurately recounting his words and actions. As an unintentional by-product of our metaphysics work at New Apologetics, we’ve stumbled upon a new way to argue beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gospels historically accurately report what Jesus said, and that Jesus is a divine person. The method requires only one basic principle of communication metaphysics which we call “gift/demand algebra”.

The principle to keep in mind (and it is a self-evident one) is that gift and demand are logically incompatible in the sense that a gift demanded is no longer a gift. Now let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus Christ is a divine person, and that a divine person acts always and only in perfect love or absolute self-gift. One thing that follows from this is that a person acting purely in gift, with no degree of compromise, necessarily (due to the perfect purity of their gift-based speech and action) speaks and acts in ways that never meet any demand (implicit or explicit) on its own terms directly. Instead, whatever someone acting in perfect gift says or does happens only outside the ambit of whatever logical/relational space is claimed by the demander in any given proceeding.

Depending on the map of how the demands are flying around and what they are claiming (implicitly or explicitly) in any given situation, the action of a divine person in response to them will follow some very unusual patterns of limitation (unusual by our normal standards because we rarely act in pure gift), but will make perfect sense if someone is acting in perfect undiminished gift and cannot logically possibly put their gift in the relational space where a demand is levied.

What we observed is that the peculiar pattern of Jesus’ responses to his various interlocutors, as recorded in the Gospels, follows exactly what would be necessitated on gift/demand algebra perfectly all the time, no exceptions.

So, why do we argue that this means the Gospels are accurate historical records of Christ’s words and actions? It’s because nobody knows about gift/demand algebra. It’s a totally new area of inquiry.”

“Well … but you have to assume the divinity of Christ for this to even work, right?” No, you just have to know what kinds of actions a divine person (acting in pure gift) would necessarily not do in terms of parataxical integrations with demands.

“First used by Irish-American psychoanalytic psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan in the 1940s, Parataxical Integration (a combination of terms) refers to the mutual condition of parataxic distortions (another concept of Sullivan’s). Parataxical integration exists when two people, usually intimate with each other (i.e. parents and children, spouses, romantic partners, business associates), are reciprocally reactive to each other’s seductions, judgmental inaccuracies, hostile comments, and manipulations or other “triggering” behaviors. One says or does something causing the other to react, setting off a cyclical “ping-pong”, “tit-for-tat”, “you-get-me-and-I-get-you-back” oscillation of verbal and/or behavioral reactions.” (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parataxical_Integration)

The argument is basically this:

From what we are seeing in terms of correspondence with what we know from the communication metaphysics of gift and demand, the words attributed to Christ in the Gospels are, substantively, the words Jesus spoke to the actual people. And if that’s not the case, then the author(s) editor(s) knew the details of communication metaphysics (what we’ve termed “Gift Theory”) very, very well, and that is very, very unlikely because Gift Theory is an entirely new area of study which New Apologetics has developed over the past three years..

The fit between the theoretical form of how any gift-based communication would necessarily not go with any given interlocutor, and what the evangelists report Jesus saying in the Gospels, is uncanny. As just one example, the form of the exchange between Jesus and Pilate is puzzling, at best, when read as a conversation two people would ever normally have. It’s completely inscrutable if considered fictionally written in order to make an understandable (much less credible) point to some intended audience. However, on Gift Theory analysis, each sentence is astonishingly well-accounted for when mapped in terms of metaphysical gift/demand incompatibility. Once a reader knows what’s what in terms of this dynamic of gift and demand, it’s manifestly visible in essentially everything Jesus says and does. Additionally, any proceedings in the Gospels seeming to prima facie defy what we’d expect of Jesus on Gift Theory ultimately turn out to be sublime instances of complex correspondence to the theorems on closer scrutiny.

All of what would otherwise be inexplicably odd exchanges between Jesus and his interlocutors, especially those statements (and silences) of Christ, which seemingly evince rudeness or flippancy, begin to make very good sense, and they make more sense the more they are examined. That being the case, we now have excessively available, stupefaction-provoking evidence to show the reliability of the Gospels.

What follows in this article is a brief introduction to gift/demand algebra, which is part of a broader system of communication metaphysics we’ve named “Gift Theory”. The broader system has sweeping implications for all areas of academic inquiry and practical endeavor (everything from parenting to physics). For our purposes in this article, the exposition of Gift Theory is narrowly focused to what is necessary for the historicity thesis.

After laying down some minimal basics on Gift Theory, we take an introductory look at some of Jesus’ conversations, as portrayed in the Gospels, in terms of basic gift/demand algebra.

With that in place, we do the direct examination of some passages of scripture according to the model. The format of this latter part of the article is an extended quotation of an informal Facebook chat where the discovery first took place. It’s something along the lines of an “invention log” of the first intentional application of Gift Theory to the question of scriptural historicity. We decided to paste it whole, with minor edits, both because it’s a snapshot of the moment of discovery (we’re playing “historian-archivist” for fun), and also because it’s easy.

The material covered in the dialogue is just an introduction, and a more elaborate and formal scriptural commentary is being planned. Gift Theory permeates all of scripture, and the passages considered here are merely a token sample, and a cursory one at that.

 

PRELIMINARY BASICS ON THE METAPHYSICS OF GIFT AND DEMAND

“Whatever does not spring from a man’s free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but still remains alien to his true nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness.” (Wilhelm von Humboldt)

A commitment to true love isn’t easy. Love is “demanding”. Love requires effort of us. It challenges us.  “Demand”, however, as we refer to in this article, is not synonymous with the narrows of a freely undertaken sacrifice or challenge of this sort. For our purposes, the type of “demand” we mean is strictly of the relational kind between one person and another. It’s tricky with the ambiguity of language, but a “demand”, as we use the term in this context, is essentially whatever says to us that we are only worthy (or safe) if x, y, and z are accomplished, and this threat to our worth or safety is due to some negative evaluative judgment against us by some person (that person can be any other person or even ourselves).

That being said, we offer the following definitions:

A “gift” is the free offering of what one person is or has for the sake of the good of another person.

A “demand” is the attempted appropriation of some desired outcome through any form of coercion, threat, manipulation, or personal pressure.

With these definitions in mind, it is self-evident that gift and demand are mutually exclusive. A gift demanded is no gift at all.  It can’t be a gift if under a demand because, even if the one giving is truly generous, the act of giving under a demand is the annihilation of the gift-nature of the offering in its very essence.

Consider that if God exists according to the Catholic proposal, then the ultimate reality is an eternal act of unconditional love (i.e. gift). The life of the Trinity is self-­offering of one divine person to another. Further, everything created by God is originally created as gift to created persons, and we persons are no exception. While each is an end in himself, he is also to be an unconditional self­-offering to all other ends in themselves. On this worldview, we, as a community of persons, are only authentically ourselves in radically giving ourselves away to one another.

“Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, ‘that all may be one. . . as we are one’ (John 17:21­22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God’s sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.” (Guadium et Spes, 24)

If we, as persons, are made to be gift, if that’s our true identity, then it follows that, in the face of any real or imagined demand, we cannot present our true selves. Consequently, if we engage any demand head on, on its own terms, we can only advance a false/expendable self, something we are willing to lose by theft or calculated exchange. “If I lose, at least I have not lost all. ” Rather than be annihilated at our core, we bury our true identity in order to protect it from one unjustly seizing upon it.

“Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground.”

We can’t put our gift where a demand is even if we want to. If we could, it would be the annihilation of the image of God within us, and a call to spiritual suicide. Our nature fights back, and it is right and just that it does so. Necessarily, we send a sort of zombie avatar into whatever demand-structure overshadows us, and our true self is kept in reserve. A psychological split of this kind is created whenever we engage any demand-agent directly. The split is something everyone experiences, and likely recognizes, but is totally unknown in terms of explicit recognition from a theoretical standpoint.

When such a split obtains in us, we continually quest towards the recovery of the peace, freedom, and unity which has been stolen from us. In the act of trying to recover stolen goods (i.e. our identity as persons), we are driven by fear and lack. We act to redress a deficit, which is not a gift-action, and our deficit-action engenders an ipso facto demand on those around us. Even if one is not known to be an overtly “demanding” person, the same deficit-based “grab” is there, even if it is disguised. The precise personal nature of our deficit-action dictates the form of the demands we proceed to levy upon others.

By means of the same gift/demand incompatibility which put us into deficit when we engaged some demand-agent directly, the people we now interact with cannot logically possibly respond in gift within the ambit of any logical-relational space claimed by our deficit-demand. The gift of any person, regardless of their intended generosity, is necessarily forced outside the boundary of our demands due to the metaphysical incompatibility between gift and demand. Further, whatever any person does offer in response to our deficit-demand is necessarily something specifically tailored to the “shape” of our fear. It happens that way because we block the possibility of their gift-action according to the specific “shape” of our demand, and the shape of our demand is directly determined by the “shape” of our deficit/fear serving to engender the demand. We don’t engage in demands other than to make up for some perceived deficit, and we are only in deficit with regard to that about which we are fearful/insecure. The fear at the root of our deficit action responsible for any given demand coming through us is the same fear that originally led us to comply with some demand agent so as to create the deficit state of a psychological split.

Ever notice how the same types of relational traumas really repeat themselves over and over in life, as if by conspiracy? Ever notice how it seems like only you have this particular type of problem and everybody else seems immune or “in on some secret” you happen to have missed? Ever notice how almost nobody ever really understands this experience of yours, regardless of how much you try to explain, and if they truly seem to understand on one day, then on another day (and without any known cause) this person who really gets you suddenly forgets you right when you trust your perceptions just enough let your guard down? It’s all part of the deficit-demand process blocking the gift actions of others on a metaphysical level.

Nobody wants to be deceived or ignored, but when we act in deficit-demand, necessarily one of those is happening. If we’re not getting exactly what we fear, visibly, it’s because others in relationship with us are putting something deceptive into the relational space we’re laying claim to. In other words, it’s their false self we’re relating to. Though not immediately evident, such deception is also in the shape of exactly what we fear, but it’s covered over to be a double horror. The people doing this to us likely have no intent to deceive at all, but are merely afraid to disappoint us by not integrating with our deficit-demand. That’s enough. We’re doing it, too, every time we engage a demand-agent head on, we further complicate the web by offering a false self to some other person.

It’s not just in our heads. Really truly, the type of thing we worry about the most is, indeed, served up to us through the people around us. They almost never know they’re doing it it either. It doesn’t require deliberate malice, but happens as a matter of metaphysics. Our deficit-demand literally blocks the gift response of those with whom we relate. They still have free will, of course, but when we are acting in deficit, their gift cannot logically possibly be put into the sphere of our expectations, priorities, or direct attention. We actually create a negative reality around us because gift actions are metaphysically impossible within the relational boundaries of our demand system.

Taking all this into account, if Jesus Christ is God incarnate, then (because God always and only acts in radical self-gift without compromise), he necessarily cannot engage any demand-agent directly on their own terms. Without countenancing the least departure from this standard, Jesus (if he is truly a divine person), necessarily speaks and acts only outside of the logical-relational space claimed by any demand.

This restriction entails all kinds of implications for the possible modes of communication admissible to Jesus, and we will now look at just a few of those examples as they are described in the Gospels.

We’ve said enough about that for now, an we leave you to enjoy a transcript of the first conversation in which gift/demand incompatibilities were identified to govern the conversations of Jesus in various contexts. This is exactly what we would expect to find if the Gospels were historical and if Jesus Christ were truly a divine person. It is very hard to explain in terms of any other hypothesis.

Christopher McHugh:
Let’s start with what we know
1) Everything Jesus said was gift-speech.
2) When it was impossible to say something in gift because of a double-bind levied by his interlocutor, he would remain silent.
3) Everything Jesus said, being gift-speech, was necessarily outside the ambit of the demand-structure of the interlocutor.
4) If the Pharisees were laying claim to “righteousness” via demand (which they were), then necessarily the speech of Jesus, being a gift, would not integrate with their demand.
5) Therefore, in this case, the gift of Jesus to the Pharisees took the form of chastisement.

By the way, the fact that the words of Christ recorded in the Gospels follow this gift/demand algebra reliably proves that the Gospels are accurate.

Juan Diego:
I think number 5 has got some more explaining to do.

Christopher McHugh:
If there is a demand claiming a giant chunk of interpersonal reality, then God’s gift response is outside of the demand.
This is because of the following principle: “A gift demanded is no gift at all.” 

Juan Diego:
Okay, I understand that part.
Why does it “necessary take the form of chastisement” ?
I get there is a demand, but what does it mean to “integrate” with a demand?

Christopher McHugh:
Provisional definition (in need of being improved): Integration with a demand means to meet it on its own terms.
So, what a person puts forth to meet the demand on its own terms is not a gift.
It would be non-gift by the fact of it being a gift demanded.

Juan Diego:
So, in a way, it’s like taking a demand as real.

Christopher McHugh:
Yes.
Though please say more about that.

Juan Diego:
So, a demand is a falsehood in that it doesn’t come from God and it isn’t in accord with nature. 

Christopher McHugh:
Yes.
It is anti-reality.
And demand comes from deficit.
Deficit meaning, “I am going to make myself okay.”

Juan Diego:
So if we believe a demand then we are already in a deficit.
Because that is what demands do.
So, basically, Christ never believed a demand.
In that sense he could not treat it as something real. 

Christopher McHugh:
That’s a very good point.
We cannot make ourselves okay or prevent ourselves from not being okay.
We are okay by God’s gift.
“So if we believe a demand, then we are already in a deficit.  Because that is what demands do.”
Can you say more about that?

Juan Diego:
So let’s make a basic definition for demand.
Very basic definition.
Do you already have one?

Christopher McHugh:
Not officially, but will just stab at it.
A demand is what happens when we act from deficit.
Deficit is “It is not good to be me with you” (or something like that).
So, I try to fix you or fix me. 

Juan Diego:
I see.  So it’s a fixing of a gift.

Christopher McHugh:
Which entails not receiving it as a gift.

Juan Diego:
So that is good enough for me to work with.
Let me explain what I mean.

Christopher McHugh:
Now, I understand how our action from deficit makes demands.
But I don’t yet understand how our integrating with (believing in) the demand of another puts us in deficit.
I do know, intuitively, you are right, though.

Juan Diego:
A demand is the act of not receiving someone’s gift, but trying to force someone’s gift into something else.
So if we believe that, by definition, we believe our gift is not good enough.

Christopher McHugh:
Getting close.

Juan Diego:
A demand is any action that implies our gift is not worthy.  So, if we believe that demand then we think we are not worthy.
Getting closer?

Christopher McHugh:
Nailed it.
The non-belief in demand is the belief in gift. 

Juan Diego:
Yes.

Christopher McHugh:
So, Jesus knew they [the Pharisees] were worthy, for example, and they did not know it of themselves.
They were relying on their successes.
They demanded that their successes be revered.

Juan Diego:
We talking about [Jesus being harsh with] the Pharisees?

Christopher McHugh:
Yes.
If he is to speak to them, it necessarily will not go into affirming their successes (which they demand to be affirmed).
[Christ’s gift-speech] will, instead, affirm their worthiness apart from these successes.
But, to them, it will seem to be destruction.
Because their hope is in what they’ve built.
And he says that it is worthless.
He does so in reverence of their worth.

Juan Diego:
So what does it mean for it to take the form of a “chastisement”? 

Christopher McHugh:
To make chaste.
Chastity, as in gift.
And that happens through the failure of our demand structures.
That space has to collapse first before the new space can be entered.
The poor sinners were already well-collapsed.
Therefore, while we are building Babel for ourselves, the gift of God seems to be taking away all our hope.

Juan Diego:
“That space has to collapse first before the new space can be entered”
Does this mean telling the truth as it is?

Christopher McHugh:
Explain [the question] more please.

Juan Diego:
Well what do you mean?

Christopher McHugh:
“Does this mean telling the truth as it is?”
I don’t know what you mean by the question yet. 

Juan Diego:
I see it as you saying that Jesus has to tell the Pharisees exactly what they need to know what is wrong about their actions. 

Christopher McHugh:
Yes. Interestingly, if they had allowed him any space to say anything different by not laying claim to all righteousness with their demands, he could have been softer.

Juan Diego:
That is interesting.

Christopher McHugh:
He was either silent or devastating [in those types of situations].
In the presence of Herod, for example, he was completely silent.

Juan Diego:
St. Therese makes a point about this in her book.

Christopher McHugh:
What does she say?
And I want to know why he was silent before Herod.

Juan Diego:
She had to “form” the novices.
So to some she had to be softer and to others she had to be more stern.
She fitted her discipline to each of the “novices”.

Christopher McHugh:
[This same gift/demand algebra would be governing her words, to the degree she’s in union with God.]

Juan Diego:

Yes. Lets take a look where Jesus is pretty rough on the Pharisees? 

Christopher McHugh:
Sure.

Juan Diego:

“The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help.  Everything they do is just to show off in front of others. They even make a big show of wearing Scripture verses on their foreheads and arms, and they wear big tassels for everyone to see. They love the best seats at banquets and the front seats in the meeting places.  And when they are in the market, they like to have people greet them as their teachers.”

Christopher McHugh:
Note also that when [Jesus] answers just about anyone’s question, it’s from an outside angle.
Because the question is almost always a test or a deficit action and therefore a demand. 

Juan Diego:
Yes, lets take a look at one of those.

Christopher McHugh:
Your choice.

Juan Diego:
The rich young man.

Christopher McHugh:
Consider that not everyone has to be poor to be holy.

“Now someone approached him and said, ‘Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?’

He answered him, ‘Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’

He asked him, “Which ones?’ And Jesus replied,  “You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”
Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

Then Peter said to him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?”

Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”

Christopher McHugh:
Look at how “innocent” the question seemed.
But also look at how much it claimed by demand.

Juan Diego:
What was the demand?
How would you frame the demand.

Christopher McHugh:
It was that all of this accumulation count in his favor over and above those who have not done as well.
The answer Jesus gives lays him out like a navy blue suit.
But it is not harsh [because he is not demanding himself to be regarded as being above all possible correction].

Juan Diego:
So he was essentially saying “what left do I have to do because I already have done so much?”

Christopher McHugh:
He didn’t think that he had nothing left to do, and genuinely wanted to know what would help him do more.

Juan Diego:
If it was genuine, I don’t think it would of been a demand. 

Christopher McHugh:

The demand would be that what he had been accumulating count towards the more, and that the poor be lesser than he.
He could not be like the poor because his hope was in being better. 

Juan Diego:
Was it a demand statement though?
Or was it just that there was a demand in him?

Christopher McHugh:
I think the latter.
Because Jesus actually answered the question.

Juan Diego:
Yes.

Christopher McHugh:
It’s just that the answer didn’t fit the hidden demand at all, but undermined it.
That’s interesting, too, given the impression of the question being genuine, and then seeing that Jesus actually answers it.
Perfect score on the theory so far.

Juan Diego:
Yes sir.

Christopher McHugh:
Herod now?
Pilate and Herod (why not?)

Christopher McHugh

Jesus before Pilate:

 

“Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate.

They brought charges against him, saying, “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.”

Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He said to him in reply, “You say so.”

Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, “I find this man not guilty.”

But they were adamant and said, “He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to here.”

Jesus before Herod: 

“On hearing this Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean; and upon learning that he was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod who was in Jerusalem at that time. Herod was very glad to see Jesus; he had been wanting to see him for a long time, for he had heard about him and had been hoping to see him perform some sign. He questioned him at length, but he gave him no answer. The chief priests and scribes, meanwhile, stood by accusing him harshly. [Even] Herod and his soldiers treated him contemptuously and mocked him, and after clothing him in resplendent garb, he sent him back to Pilate. Herod and Pilate became friends that very day, even though they had been enemies formerly.

Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and said to them, “You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him, nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”

Christopher McHugh

Further, Jesus before the Sanhedrin.

 

When day came the council of elders of the people met, both chief priests and scribes,n and they brought him before their Sanhedrin. They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us,” but he replied to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I question, you will not respond. But from this time on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.” Then they said, “What further need have we for testimony? We have heard it from his own mouth.”

Juan Diego:
So you want to go with this one or when he was silent?

Christopher McHugh:
I think they are all the same thing, but for some reason he was silent before Herod.
And he was silent intermittently before the others.
“Herod was very glad to see Jesus; he had been wanting to see him for a long time, for he had heard about him and had been hoping to see him perform some sign.”
“He questioned him at length, but he gave him no answer.”
Now, that’s interesting. Let’s look at this in order to [maybe] understand:

The Demand for a Sign:

“While still more people gathered in the crowd, he said to them, “This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it, except the sign of Jonah. Just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. At the judgment the queen of the south will rise with the men of this generation and she will condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and there is something greater than Solomon here. At the judgment the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because at the preaching of Jonah they repented, and there is something greater than Jonah here.”

Juan Diego:
What is that you see?

Christopher McHugh:
The seeking (demanding) of a sign.
No sign is given to the one demanding it.

Juan Diego:
I think I see something with Herod.

Christopher McHugh:
Go ahead.

Juan Diego:
So Herod was glad to see Jesus because he thought he could use Jesus.
For a sign
He wasn’t actually wanting to see a sign to believe.

Christopher McHugh:
What would he have wanted with the sign?

Juan Diego:
I could be wrong.
Let me see though.
He just seems that he wanted to see Jesus so that he could perform a sign.
He didn’t want to see Jesus for Jesus sake.
So the demand was “entertain me”.

Christopher McHugh:
And everything Jesus positively said or did was necessarily a sign of the Kingdom.
Had he said or done anything in that situation, it would have been playing into the demand of Herod.

Juan Diego:
Yes.

Christopher McHugh:
This is very good.

Juan Diego:
Hell yeah it is.

Christopher McHugh:
It’s also why he says this in response to certain questions:
They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.”

Juan Diego:
Please explain.

Christopher McHugh:
Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He said to him in reply, “You say so.”

Juan Diego:
Yes.

Christopher McHugh:
He cannot answer yes or no, even though giving a straight answer would make sense and at least appear to respect the questioner more.

Juan Diego:
Why not?

Christopher McHugh:
If he answers “yes”, it is in direct response to a demand, and he can’t put a gift where the demand is.
If he answers “no”, it is a lie.
And the questioner has not completely blocked every possible answer by the nature of their demand as Herod did.

Juan Diego:
What is the demand in this case?

Christopher McHugh:
Let me paste one more thing in order to answer:

Peter’s Confession about Jesus:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.”

Juan Diego
Uh?

Christopher McHugh:
“For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
The revelation of who Jesus is is a gift from the Father.

Juan Diego:
Yes.
Is there more?

Christopher McHugh:
Maybe.

Juan Diego:
So Pilate said” Are you the king of the Jews”?
What do you think Pilate was trying to do by asking this question?
Pilate obviously didn’t believe he was the king of the Jews.
Was he making fun of Christ? 

Christopher McHugh:
He was trying to get himself off the hook.

Juan Diego:
So he was trying to put the blame on Christ?

Christopher McHugh:
Not as such.
He was trying to make the blame not be on himself.
If it were on Herod, fine.
“upon learning that he was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod who was in Jerusalem at that time.”
If it were on the people, fine.
“Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and said to them, “You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him, nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”

Juan Diego:
Ya so how would you word the demand.

Christopher McHugh:
“Do something so that I am not responsible for this.”
There is another thing that’s just coming to light here…
Jesus consoles Pilate about Pilate’s responsibility:

Juan Diego:
So he was trying to put it on Christ, maybe no blame but responsibility.

Christopher McHugh:

“Then Pilate took Jesus and had him scourged. And the soldiers wove a crown out of thorns and placed it on his head, and clothed him in a purple cloak, and they came to him and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly. Once more Pilate went out and said to them, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And he said to them, “Behold, the man!” When the chief priests and the guards saw him they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him. I find no guilt in him.” The Jews answered, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

Now when Pilate heard this statement, he became even more afraid, and went back into the praetorium and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” Jesus did not answer him.  So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?”

Jesus answered [him], “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” Consequently, Pilate tried to release him; but the Jews cried out, “If you release him, you are not a Friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”

When Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus out and seated him on the judge’s bench in the place called Stone Pavement, in Hebrew, Gabbatha. It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your king!” They cried out, “Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.”

Christopher McHugh:

So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?”
This was not a demand, but a desperate cry for help.
Pilate didn’t want that power, but he tried everyting in his power to manipulate the situation prior to this moment. At this point he’s at the end of his rope, and is appealing to Jesus for help.

Therefore, Jesus is free to console him:
Jesus answered [him], “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”

Juan Diego:
“Where are you from?”
Why isn’t that a desperate cry for help?
Jesus doesn’t answer him.

Christopher McHugh:
In the “where are you from” it seems to me that Pilate still believed in his own power to shift the responsibility. He pulls that lever until it’s clearly not working.

Juan Diego:
Perhaps this was a demand: “So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?”

Christopher McHugh:
When Jesus doesn’t answer, he begins to face his powerlessness to evade the responsibility.
There was surely a demand in there.

But there was also space to reply, because there was a despair evinced about Pilate using the power he had at this point. All his resources are expended at this point.

Juan Diego:
Yes he doesn’t answer the first question.

Christopher McHugh:
That’s true.

Juan Diego:
And he doesn’t really “answer” the second question.

Christopher McHugh:
Right. The demand that’s there is not engaged.
Only the weakness/openness of Pilate is engaged. By “openness”, I mean the receptivity due to desperation/failure of all his available resources to make the situation well on his own power.

The response is offered as a consolation to Pilate, and it also personal to Pilate.

Juan Diego:
Yes.
He answers Pilate by giving a gift, as soon as there is space, and he does not answer the demand.
Cool sh$t man.
Hey so did we find out why he was silent before Herod, enough to answer your question?

Christopher McHugh:
Yes, I think so.

Juan Diego:
Why?

Christopher McHugh:
Everything Jesus said and did was necessarily a sign of the Kingdom.
And Herod wanted/demanded to be entertained by some sign.
Literally any word or deliberate action of Jesus in response to Herod would have been integrating with a demand.

Juan Diego:
Yes.

Christopher McHugh:
Dude, we can literally prove the reliability of the Gospels and the divinity of Jesus through this.
Totally new line of proof.

Juan Diego:
You think so?

Christopher McHugh:
Yes.
We have gift theory, which nobody in the world knows about, really.
Nobody has explored the algebra of gift and demand and how perfect gift does not engage demands.
We can prove that this is the way God would act if God is purely gift, viz., not engaging demands directly, but going around them. “A gift demanded is no gift at all.”
The Gospels record the speech of Jesus. His silences are just weird at times, and his answers are also weird.
Makes no sense in a lot of cases.

Juan Diego:
Nobody, for the most part, has understood these passages.

Christopher McHugh:
However, when you look at it in terms of what we would expect if the Gospels were accurate, and that Jesus were God, acting in pure gift, then, if facing demands from people, the responses are, spot on, exactly what you would expect without exception.

Juan Diego:
Wow, that is really cool.

Christopher McHugh:
And since absolutely nobody ever has defined the algebra of gift and demand until now, that means they couldn’t have made up what Jesus was saying to conform to the theory perfectly.
Therefore, the words of Christ in the Gospels are actually recorded reliably.

Juan Diego:
Oh I see what you are saying.
The writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) by themselves could not of have written the gospels in a way (by themselves) conforming to gift theory perfectly.
I just see one problem.

Christopher McHugh:
What is it?

Juan Diego:
We know that Jesus’ speech is gift.
So we are starting off from that point and then working to see what the demands in the situation are.
It just seems that what is a demand can’t be understood without knowing what Jesus speech is.
Because a demand, a lot of time, is not known by the words alone.
Hey, Come over here (friendly gesture). Hey, come over here (A$$hole boyfriend ordering his girlfriend around).
You get what I am saying?

Christopher McHugh:
Yes.
However, if we look at context of the stories, independently, we can also see the layout of the demands.
And the alert that there is a demand is the “outside” answer Jesus gives.
The fact that it always “fits right around” the demand (even the hidden demand discernable from context), and goes right to the need of the demander (as provable from context) is telling.

Juan Diego:
Yes, I agree with that.
We can for the most part see what is a demand in context of the story.

Christopher McHugh:
And these interpretations are already known to people through tradition and scholarship.
Just not the gift/demand algebra. Nobody knows about that yet.
It’s a totally new line of reasoning for the Gospels being authentic.
I had the idea in the back of my mind before, but never really took a close enough look at the exact things said.
It’s minutely in line with gift theory on every point.
Fireworks.
Laser show.
Lots of lights.
Ain’t no school like this. I say that as a student.
Only perfect love would speak in such ways.
No human being, whether historical, legendary, or entirely fictional, has ever spoken like Jesus.

Juan Diego:
Except for Mary : )

Christopher McHugh:
You zapped me!
Good one.