Picture Perfect

You're right. I shouldn't have read it. I got halfway through and stopped reading. Darn you!

Write me a proper blog.

Posted by: Helen | 20/07/2007

Thank you for answering my question! I read it all—the option of stopping halfway through was not really open to me, as I asked the question in the first place.

I disagree with most of it, even though I can understand your view. Surprisingly, I actually agree with one point. Weird. But I shall be kind to Cat, and therefore won't elaborate on what I agree and disagree with...

Posted by: Nossie | 20/07/2007

Do not be kind to cat and not elaborate on what you agree and disagree with, rather be kind to both cat and myself: myself, for a reasoned response warrants another reasoned response and to cat, for if you truly believe that there is a God and he is supreme, surely you should present that information freely.

Posted by: DJ | 21/07/2007

Okay, okay. Here you are:

First, the Israelites believed in God before they had this national experience in Exodus. Their belief goes right back to Abraham, who went when and where God told him to go. The national experience just served to verify their belief to be true; it did not cause them to make their belief in the first place!

Also, by Jewish law in Leviticus, the fact that only a comparatively small amount of people saw Jesus after he had risen should be no reason to ignore them. Doesn't it say that what three witnesses say in court is to be believed? the point of this being that if there are three witnesses, and they are lying, there will be serious differences in their reports?

Also, I'm not so sure that Jesus was as hidden as you seem to think he was. Being followed around by the Israelites, taken before the High Priest and being accused of blasphemy, having the Pharisees unite with their enemies for the purpose of plotting against him... that doesn't speak of someone who was unknown by the majority.

And I don't think Jesus encouraged the Israelites to go after other gods or serve them. I see nothing at all that indicates this...maybe I'm just blind...

You are quite right when you say that the miracles of Jesus alone are unacceptable proof of his divinity. That's very true! :) Even Jesus himself would not want his miracles used in this way. (Matthew 24:24)

Isaiah 53 is a prophetic passage. I could be more specific, find more prophecies for you, but as I cannot debate properly, and normally end with completely confusing everybody, even myself, I shall stop here...for now!
-----------------
ANSWERS:
I shall respond to each of your 6 paragraphs in order:

1) It is true that the Israelites had knowledge of God, it going back to Abraham. Even more than that, if one studies the characters in Genesis they shall know that many of the biblical character's lives actually overlapped, from Adam to Abraham and beyond: thus Adam related his account of God to Enosh, Enosh to Enoch and Enoch to Noah, Noah to Abraham and Abraham to his children and grandchildren and all of them to their children and grandchildren: which of course brings us speedily to the time of the Exodus itself. Thus, there were about 5 people since and including Adam who transferred knowledge of God to the Israelites.

But this is not what I meant: the Israelites at this time were not bound by any social orders, any rules, or any other such thing. There was no law. There was no bible. They lived like anyone else lived...no kosher, no nothing [there were some things they had which were different: their clothes, names and language]. But the significance of the OT is that the entire nation was present when the law was being related to them, directly by God. They were there, they witnessed without a doubt not only the existence of God, but His commands to them to adhear to the law, which is contained in the OT.

But even if, as you allege the "national experience 'just' served to verify their belief...not...make their belief in the first place" we do not find a similar state of affairs with Jesus: there was no national experience for the verification of belief. And as you agree in paragraph 5, miracles are unacceptable as verifications of belief. So you seem to be hard pressed to suggest why someone who doesn't already believe in Jesus or the NT should start to, beyond "because I believe it to be true" or "this is what the NT says, so it must be true."

2) I believe the law in Leviticus you refer to states two witnesses, but in reference to capital offences. The reason why a minimuim of two witnesses to an event warranting capital punihsment are acceptable, is because of the rigorous questioning which would then take place afterwards, not merely because it's harder for two people to lie than it is for one. There was no rigorous questioning of witnesses to Jesus' miracles, and even if there was, as you say in parapgraph 5, it wouldn't constitute anything of any consequence at all. Furthermore, all the people who witnessed this appear to be women, all of whom are conveniently disqualified from testimony by the very scripture you wish to bring as a proof to me for the possible corroboration of these events. Furthermore, where exactly does it say the were witness to the events? All that happened was, on Sunday a group of Jesus' disciples found the tomb empty. Although Peter is alleged to have stated: "This Jesus God resurrected, of which we are all witnesses" (Acts 2:32), not one witness is produced who saw the resurrection. There is no actual record of the alleged resurrection in the form of an eyewitness account, trustworthy or not.

But let us take your "Jesus rose" point further, disregarding what I just finished writing. Let us assume it happened and there were those witnesses there. The NT is astoundingly silent on the events which took place there. If it actually happened, you'd expect it to be a pretty interesting part of the NT. It is certainly a cornerstone of your belief: "If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain" (I Corinthians 15:17) - so why all the silence on the matter? The NT doesn't mention what happened to those "saints" who "rose with" Jesus. Did they go to Jerusalem? Did they live long lives? Did they have a cup of tea with people? Did they die shortly afterwards, again? Why weren't the entire people of Jerusalem aware of this, taking place right on their doorstep? Why wasn't anyone besides the writers of the NT aware of this event? And out of the NT writers, why was only Matthew aware of the rising of these saints?

But let us not speak about what is not contained in the NT, rather, let us speak about what is contained in it: the NT itself appears to be very confused in the reporting of this cornerstone of your belief: the reports contained in the gospels of the resurrection are confusingly exclusive of each other, thus all cannot be true - and in short, some of them are wrong if one of them is correct. For example, Luke and John differ with Matthew and Mark as to what the 1 angel (Mat. 28:2) or 1 lad (Mark 16:5) or two angels (John 20:12) or two lads (Luke 24:4) actually said. It's all very confusing and conflicting. Clearly, there are errors. If you wish to discuss this further with me, you may do so. my e-mail is located at the top of this blog, in the title.

3) I don't think Jesus was hidden, I think he was a historical person at all, as presented by the NT. Think about it like this: not one word about Jesus is found outside of the NT. His entire life is not corroborated in any form anywhere. There is one paragraph in Josephus' "Antiquities," written after 90 CE, which speaks of "a good man" who did "good works" in Israel around the time Jesus is alleged to exist, but this is agreed by all scholars to be a later addition by the Christian Church - thus starts the reputation of the early church to start fiddling with documents. What is remarkable is that historians contemporary to Jesus don't document anythign about him at all, even though they documented first-hand the early Roman Empire in astoundingly great detail, including specific and careful accounts of the time and place where Jesus is alleged to have taught. I refer now to Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 CE), Justus of Tiberius, and in excess of 40 other historians. Where was this sensational figure? Where was any reference to him at all? It simply isn't there, most likely because Jesus wasn't either.

Instead, I find it more likely that the NT writers sensationalised accounts of a historic figure, crediting things to him which he never did or said - which is why his contemporaries never mention anything about it.

Neither is Jesus mentioned in any of the rabbinic writings, ever. If there was a figure who was changing the social order of the Pharisees, surely there would be *a* contemporary reference to him? If they believed him to be a false messiah, surely they'd want to show that they successfully dealt with him in accordance to the law? There aren't any such references.

In addition, even the handful of 2nd century accounts don't actually mention a Jesus. They are not actually historical records, they are merely hearsay of what people believed to have happened in a distant past.

And what of Paul? He seems astoundingly silent on the matter of Jesus. We know he disagreed with him. We have a a sketchy reference about a last supper. Sure, we have some references to a "Christ." But we know Paul never quoted him, never spoke about his deeds, never spoke about him as a man, as a historical, flesh and blood figure.

More than that, Jesus not only appears to be absent from the times of history, he enters the realm of myth: like many Roman gods before him, he was born without sex, died, was reborn, did amazing things...as in 150 CE, Justin Martyr said to pagans he was arguing with: "when we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)."

But I trust you get the idea and shall now leave this particular topic. If you wish to speak about this in full, don't hesitate to contact me on my email address.

4) I like your usage of the words "maybe I'm just blind" and assume that you are referring to the oft quoted "those who do not believe are blinded by satan" adage. Pretty convenient. I wish I could use such an argument in the debate society in university, but alas, "because you dont agree with me, you are misguided" doesn't appear to be a valid argument there. It would certainly make my job easier if that tactic worked, and I do believe that was the intention of those who first penned that line.

But to answer the issue at hand:
Disregarding everything I've ever said in this entire post: the NT Jesus is alleged to be God. Thus, he is a man. But he is also God. Now factor in the trinity. Both phenomena was not and still is not a concept ever known to any believing Jew. "The Lord your God the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4) squarely cuts down any idea of the trinity. That the trinity is said to be "3 personas in one godhead" is unacceptable, for those are three things. "Ah!" you say "but it is really only one!" I have read a parable to explain the idea of the trinity, as expounded by King James I of Aragon. His parable is essentially the same as that explained by the missionaries who come by in my community today, and so I shall relate his: the trinity is like wine. It contains three things: colour, smell and taste. And yet it is one thing.

This idea is intrinsically erroneous, for taste, smell and colour are all seperate things, neither is reliant on the other and each can be found without the other. Further, the wine is not the colour, taste or smell, but rather that is the substance of the wine itself which fills the glass. Thus all that is expounded is that wine includes three seperate properties in which there is no unity. Applying this to the trinity, you would have to either agree that the father, son and holy ghost are all one without distinction and no seperate personas (in which case there is no trinity), or that they are all different and like the wine, one can exist without the other - in which case, like the wine, there is no unity. I hope this demonstrates that the trinity is a concept not ever accepted by any Jewish person throughout the 3,317 years of the existence of Judaism.

Numbers 23:19 is plain enough: "God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should change His mind." I do not find that it is a coincidence that this passage is found in the OT, considering that Jesus was referred to as "Son of man" and a "man."

In reference to Isaiah 53 (of course, you refer to 52:14 to the end of chapter 53) that is a large subject on its own. If you are still interested on the Jewish understanding of this, e-mail me.

Now, I have answered your questions and have raised several counter questions. But let me pose a few of queries of my own:

1) It says in Matthew 2:23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Where is this prohpecy? I was wondering if a Christian bible has a reference to the Judaic scriptures as regards this prohpecy, for I have not been able to locate it and until it is found and explained beyond reasonable doubt, must assume there is no such prohpecy. I must also therefore temporarily impute all the implications to the NT which one would impute upon finding a fabricated prophecy.

2) what do you make of the following article? http://www.freewebs.com/relinv/lineage.htm

Posted by: Nossie | 22/07/2007