I'm assuming you've read some of my posts and must have thought that these might help persuade me to a different conclusion regarding Jesus. Again, this is an assumption, and if I am wrong let me know.
I had left a number of comments on the "fulfilled prophecies" video page which were deleted shortly after. I guess the videos were only for fanboys of Jesus. And for the record, I was a fanboy for the first 33 years of my life, so I am intimately familiar with the source and context of such sentiments, and can only pray and dialog to perhaps persuade some to actually think about these claims they have learned and now believe.
I don't believe my comments were rude or derisive. They pointed out the basic problem with the "truth" claims which were set to some Christian Worship/U2/Brian Doerksen like music. I will share with you my concerns and objections to just one point on their first claim concerning Jesus' "virgin birth" in Isaiah 7:14.
All Christian scholars acknowledge that Isaiah 7:14 was not only fulfilled in Matthew 2, but was firstly fulfilled in Isaiah's time.. The Prophet was assuring Ahaz, king of Judah:
Is. 7:1 ¶ When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
Is. 7:2 ¶ Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
God asks Ahaz to request a sign from God for assurance that He will deliver him. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, not wanting to test the Lord. Isaiah rebukes him and proclaims the sign God will give to Ahaz so that Ahaz will know God will keep His word.
Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
But it continues...
Is. 7:15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.
Is. 7:16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
This demonstrates that the king would be alive to see this happen.
Then in Isaiah 8:
Is. 8:1 ¶ Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.
Is. 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
Is. 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
Is. 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria....
Is. 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
This is the uncontested primary fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. The secondary (Christian) "distant future" fulfillment is in Matthew 1.
This raises several points that are important in considering whether or not this prophecy has anything to do with Jesus:
1) There is no NEED for two fulfillments. That it was fulfilled in Isaiah's time is all that's necessary. The "dual" fulfillment is created for Christian purposes only. By that, I mean, that a Christian cannot use this as "proof" of anything about Jesus. It was already fulfilled, and the idea that it had a second purpose is only supposition. If another religion came along and used similar techniques to prove their "prophet" correct and consistent with New Testament claims... let's say Mohammed or Joseph Smith, Christians would be throwing communion crackers in the air for such specious methods of interpretation which contradict their classical Christian interpretations. Imagine taking a New Testament "prophecy" which you believe was fulfilled at that time, let's say Jesus' sign of Jonas for the resurrection... and someone claimed that it also means something else in their own religion. You'd think such an interpretation was ridiculous. And you'd be correct. It would be ridiculous.
2) The video begins by assuring the viewer that the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that these prophecies were written many years before Jesus, and therefore it can't be argued that these prophecies were created after Jesus came. In fact, the Isaiah scroll, among the first to be viewed (at the beginning of the war launched on Israel when the U.N. declared it a nation in 1948), settled an old argument between Christian and Jewish scholars regarding "the virgin." Judaism's copies of the Masoretic text, although newer than copies of Isaiah kept by the Church (Jewish scribes continued the practice of copying Torah scrolls), used the Hebrew word for "young woman" or "damsel." Christian scholars insisted that this was changed by the Rabbis to write Jesus out of their Scriptures, seeing that the Christian copies of Isaiah, much older, were using the Hebrew for "virgin." Dead Sea Scrolls settled the argument, but Christians still want their "virgin" in there, so they then point to the Septuagint, claiming that the Jews who produced it, translated the text to the Greek for "virgin," meaning that the Hebrew text at the time most have been "virgin." However, the Jews who created the Septuagint only translated Torah, the first five books of Moses. It was later Christian scholars who translated the remainder of the "Old Testament" into Greek.
3) If the Christian claim about Mary's virginity is correct, we have a significant problem. That fulfillment was secondary. If the correct secondary fulfillment of the text requires Mary to be a virgin because the prophecy says "virgin" then the primary fulfillment must also mean a virgin. Two virgin births? So according to Christianity, there MUST be TWO virgin births if there is supposed to be one. Don't remember that in Sunday School.
4) The primary fulfillment (agreed to by even Christian scholars) was fulfilled by Isaiah's wife with the birth to ANOTHER second son. ANOTHER SON? She was a prophetess. She was married to Isaiah. Their first son was named "Shear-Jashub" (Isa 7:3). Therefore, SHE WAS NOT A VIRGIN. If the original prophecy said "young woman" than this makes sense. If it was a "virgin" than Isaiah's wife doesn't work. This means no assurance to Ahaz.
5) If the belief at that time was that a "virgin" would give birth (as I've heard Messianics claim), why would Mary and Joseph try to hide the fact that Mary was NOT impregnated by Joseph. This is SUPPOSED to be a sign for the Nation of Israel (and the WORLD!!) that he's the messiah. Instead they hide this "sign" which then makes it not a sign.... because you can't prove it afterward. I say this facetiously, but imagine how many good little Jewish girls were saying, "But I didn't have sex... I'm carrying the Messiah!"
6) Follow this. The earliest writings of the New Testament are NOT the gospel accounts. Paul's epistle's are. Does Paul ever use the "virgin birth" to prove his theology which is used by Christians to "prove" Christ's divinity. Certainly, the "virgin birth" would not only fit well in this, it later became "essential" to the claim of Christ's divinity and thus his position as second person of the trinity. Paul travelled with Luke, who thoroughly investigated his narrative of Jesus... Luke even says so (Lk 1). Yet Paul never mentions the virgin birth. Of course, Luke's well investigated life of Christ missed the trip to Egypt, Magi, Herod, the death of many, many children, which had it actually happened, the Jews would have memorialized such a massive tragic event. Also, Luke missed 95% of the Gospel of John. Good investigation, bud. I think it's interesting that Paul says this in Romans 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead..." Paul seems to be under the impression that Jesus was made of Davidic seed (from Joseph, the only connection to King David given in the New Testament). Paul NEVER even hints, NOT ONCE, in all of his writings that Jesus was the result of god-seed. Jesus' "Son of God" status was obtained from the resurrection, not his conception. And the Son of God status, shouldn't necessarily be understood to being "God," even as Adam, Israel and angels are all called "Sons of God" but are not God. Eusebius (along with a number of the Church Fathers) makes it clear that the Jews who believed in Jesus as messiah, did NOT believe that he was divine in nature, born of a virgin, etc. These Jews continued to observe Torah, with a "Jesus-twist." This ultimately lead to a clear division between Jewish and Gentile believers after the destruction of the Temple, as it was clear that the Gentiles were determined to interpret what "writings" they had in their possession, in a way that was more congruent with the religions they emerged from and clearly left the pattern of Torah and the Prophets of Israel.
7) Do we even have to mention the claim that Jesus fulfilled the part about being called Immanuel? Not once is Jesus EVER called Immanuel, except where it says that he fulfilled the Isaiah prophecy about being called Immanuel. Now, before you argue that Isaiah's son was not named Immanuel either, I already concede that to be true. I am not a scholar of Hebrew, nor learned in the details of Jewish interpretation on this (although I think I will now research that), but I do know the Tanakh (Judaism's Bible) translates into the phrase "Let her (the mother) name him Immanuel," and in chapter 8, God specifically tells Isaiah (not his wife) to name him differently. Regardless, the New Testament translates the phrase into "and THEY will call him Immanuel." Not only does it fail to quote the passage correctly, but (and back to the original point) makes a claim of fulfillment that never was fulfilled. No one EVER called Jesus "Immanuel." So what we are left with, in so far as fulfilling Isaiah 7:14 is a virgin birth, that clearly was NOT originally prophesied. And while this may be dismissed with the wave a hand by most Christians, remember: Anyone who does not acknowledge the VIRGIN birth of Jesus is NOT a true Christian. In spite of practically no reasonable New Testament support (beside the nativity stories) for this claim, it nonetheless rises to the top of the list of Christian fundamental beliefs. If you don't believe this, regardless of what else you may believe about Jesus, you are going to hell.
8) The "prophecy" does not fall within a clear messianic context, as can more easily be seen in other passages where it uses words associated with the time of the messiah. No mention of "the Branch of Jesse" or "in those days..." or "in the last days..." etc. In fact, contextually, this "child" must reject the bad and choose the good. If it is about Jesus, who Christians claim is God, this is an impossibility, as God does not need to make such choices... humans do. So the only element remaining that actually has anything to do with Mary and Jesus is... well... nothing.
9) And maybe my last point. And this is perhaps more theoretical evidence than about "Scriptural" evidence. In the days of Noah, angels (and I'm going to keep this simple) came down, had intercourse with women and the women gave birth to "giants", "heroes." Understandably, this may sound fantastical to some. It also relates that this did not only happen at that time (before the flood) but later as well (Gen 6:4). What is so surprising is that whether or not you believe this, what we end up with is a large number of religions ALL having similar claims: Their gods came down from heaven and had sex with women and gave birth to those who were in some way extraordinary. We see this, most famously in Greek religion (strangely, and wrongly called mythology, it was a religion). Zeus is a bit of a philanderer, producing a number of greek heroes. We may question whether these stories are accurate, as far as the telling of them. But they all "smell" of Genesis 6. A study of ancient religions produces a variety of examples of such "relationships." A famous one, several millennia before Jesus, was Krishna. Parallels between the two stories are eerily similar. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find copies of the ancient books of Noah and/or Enoch (I can't find my DSS translations right off hand and it's been a while since I looked into this, sorry), and other DSS writings which claim that false religion (the occult) began with these angel/human interactions which were first recorded in Genesis. DSS even give names of the angelic beings involved. Think of all the religions which Israel came into contact with down through the ages. Ancient Canaanite religions, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek/Roman systems, etc. What was God's opinion? Read the prophets. It was Israel's involvement with these "false" religions and their practices which caused exile and destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem itself. Also, read the judgements against the nations and kings who will be used by God to first punish Israel, and then God would wipe them out because they would always do more harm to Israel than God gave them permission to do...God says "You are not a god, you are a man." These religions all have examples of such abominations. The unique system of Torah (Jewish Law) makes the following claims: God was not a man NOR born from man (Num 23:19), and it is a sin to even imagine God in the form of a man (Deut 4:16). One or both of these elements are an inherent part of ALL the false religions Israel encountered! And so we have God creating this very clear instruction for Israel to follow ALWAYS, and God fulfilling his promise to punish Israel should they wander after these foreign gods. And then what does God do? According to Christianity, God goes to a human woman, doesn't just perform a miraculous birth by her having a fertilized egg in her womb (a seed of David), God actually gives "god-seed" just like Zeus did, so that her child is "fully god, fully man," the ultimate messiah (my mind feels dirty even thinking about this)!!! And then pictures and statues fill Christian places of worship and their homes and in their Bibles of someone they claim to be the same god as the God of Israel! This makes no sense whatsoever. Condemnation from the beginning of Genesis through to Malachi for such abominations, and Christians think that this god-man Jesus fits neatly into God's plan? It's as crazy as saying that God gave the Law, knowing we can't keep it, condemns us for not keeping it, sends Jesus, and then if we believe in him, we can then do the very things (break God's Laws) that previously would have sent us to hell! Oh, except the 10 commandments of course.
Hmmm.... Rachel weeping for her children... do you really want me to tackle that now?
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Jeremiah: Prophet to the Christian Church? Hardly...
This is going to be entered out of order with how I had originally hoped to keep things in this blog. However, after listening to a dramatic reading of the book of Jeremiah from Inspired By's "The Bible Experience", I found myself emotionally and intellectually challenged in a way that really surprised me.
Since my departure from Christianity more than a decade ago, much of my focus concerning faith, Jesus and the Bible has come more from the intellectual side and less so from the emotional. I should say that my Christian experience had a better balance of intellect & emotion. This is understandable, as I had grown up in the Church, and the intellectual and emotional parts of me were allowed to coexist quite safely, each giving context to the other
(Studying to learn why we believed what we believed meant our emotions were contextualized accordingly. Thus, as a pentecostal, I would attribute certain feelings to the "work" or "gifts" of the "Holy Spirit". My experience, and their accompanied emotions, were interpreted through the various pentecostal doctrines I had accepted. Or meditating on a Bible verse, or reading a Christian book, ones which usually affirmed deeply held beliefs would lead to certain feelings of confidence or security.)
Since leaving the Church, however, I have found myself without a comfortable place in which to permit the kind of emotional experiences I enjoyed before. Perhaps this won't make sense to those who have not undergone such a dramatic change in their world view, but reconstructing ones spiritual foundation, particularly after several decades of intentional spiritual construction, often leaves you with as many questions as answers along the way. I suppose it isn't much different from someone growing up without any religious influence and then becomes a Christian. Jokes which they may have found funny before are no longer funny (an intellectual and emotional event). I'm not going to argue whether they came to find the jokes not funny anymore because of an inherent change (due to conversion) or that they had learned "coarse joking" and "foolish talk" are condemned in the New Testament (which means that the writer didn't think that such a behavioral change was so much inherent, but needed to be taught). The point is, when a paradigm shift takes place in one's life, there is a reconstruction of many assumed beliefs. And while on a certain level, there is much in common with Judaism and Christianity, those ideas which set them apart, place them worlds apart. Like an immigrant entering a new land, while I may have 2 eyes, ears, hands and feet, like everyone else, doesn't mean that one can just comfortably settle there. There may be differences of language, tradition, food, religion, etc., which require a lot of time to understand and feel comfortable with. Cliches, proverbs, slang, euphemisms and sarcasm, which the native born interweave within their daily conversations, are lost to the new-comer, who will only be able to make use after they have acquired the necessary knowledge and understanding to employ them in such a way as to feel these cultural expressions in an emotional way.
I guess this is what I experienced. In the beginning of my conclusion that Judaism was the true revelation of God to all mankind (without Jesus and the New Testament), it was a conclusion based on the sum of my study, experience and investigation. But until now, I had not become so intimate with that embrace as to "feel" it inside me, as I had been accustomed to in Christianity. But, as I listened to this "Christian" production of the Jewish Prophet, Jeremiah, immersed in a way that is often missed using "themed" or "word" based bible studies, I was able to move quickly from verse to verse, chapter to chapter, different characters speaking their parts like a play. This is quite unlike picking up the Bible and opening a page and you read a verse without regard to what comes before it or what comes after it. How do you interpret that single verse? Or several? You interpret them within the context of what you understand and believe. As a Christian, you may replace references to Israel and Judah for the Church, if necessary, and Messianic themes are already assumed to be about Jesus. But when you begin at the beginning and let the prophecy unfold as God spoke to Jeremiah, you cannot turn it upside down and find Christian theology nor does it naturally "point" to Jesus. You find God warning repeatedly that each one of us will be judged according to our conduct, not according to some Lutheran "faith in Christ" construct, or the easy believe-ism of much of the modern church. This conduct you will be judged for is based on one unchanging truth: Torah, not the teaching of a Messiah figure or those who would come after him, such as Paul. The Covenant (Torah) will be an everlasting Covenant with the descendants of Jacob, and while God will punish those who break the Covenant, even as He warned He would in the Covenant, there will ALWAYS be a remnant who will be faithful to God and His Torah, and those who repent He promises to return to the land he promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Certain conditions would be necessary for the "Branch of David" to come. These were NOT fulfilled in the time of the New Testament, regardless of Daniel's Weeks of Years calculations. And you hear it pounding out consistently, verse after verse, chapter after chapter. And when you arrive at the great promise of the "NEW COVENANT" in Jeremiah 31, there is no way you can fit this into Christian theology. It is about Israel's physical descendants, NOT Gentiles. The "New" Covenant would be God's Law written on their minds and hearts, and they would all have knowledge of God from the least to the greatest. This, too, did not happen in the New Testament. Certainly not in anyway where one could look and say "Hey, you don't need to teach me about God, I know God, and you know God. I know His ways and you know His ways." This has NOT happened, although I swear, there are a few Christians who think they know God and His ways, but nobody else does. And that's the point:
"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD." Jeremiah 31:34
This has not happened. When it does, there won't be any question as to whether it did or not, as we clearly see was the case in the New Testament where there was no certainty as to who Jesus was claiming to be, leaving the question, "Is he the messiah?" going unanswered. If no one needing to be taught is supposed to happen WHEN the New Covenant is establish (and it will) and if the New Covenant was supposed to be established with Jesus and his blood, we have a problem. A problem of such magnitude that the only way a Christian could not see it is if he was blinded by false doctrine and therefore does not want to see it because he has been taught to call:
Is. 5:20 ...evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Torah is good. (Psalm 119:39)
Torah is light. (Psalm 119:105,130)
Torah is sweet.(Psalm 119:103)
Christianity says Jesus if good, Torah is bad.
Christianity says Jesus is the light, Torah is darkness.
Christianity says Jesus is sweet but the Torah is bitter.
From Genesis to Malachi (in the Christian version of the Hebrew Bible), that is the theme. God will judge you NOT on what you believe, but on whether your conduct is good or evil. Good and evil are defined by Torah, not what you personally believe or feel about someone's divinity, trinity or his mother's virginity. Torah was given to Israel, Israel is the Nation of Priests to the Nations. And in spite of Israel's failure to obey, God has ALWAYS promised that although they would be flung to the farthest ends of the earth, He would gather them back to the Land of Israel because Israel is the firstborn of God, NOT Christ, and NOT the Christian church.
I would challenge anyone... any Christian... find a quiet spot. Take out your Bible, even your Christian Bible. Go to Audible.com and buy the book of Jeremiah and Lamentations for $4 (5 hours of listening). Listen to (and read) this whole prophecy and imagine if God had in His mind a future religion called Christianity. Imagine that God had to be thinking about Jesus, the cross, resurrection, ascension, eucharist (communion) and the second coming, as this is how Christianity interprets the "Old Testament"... through the Christological prism. Imagine that God had in mind that
"...he (Jesus) himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace." Ephesians 2:14-15
If you immerse yourself in Jeremiah, you will NOT discover a God who was imagining any of these things! In fact, you will find none of Jeremiah "pointing" to Jesus, the New Testament or Christianity.
I read it. I studied it. I understood it.
NOW, I FEEL IT.
Since my departure from Christianity more than a decade ago, much of my focus concerning faith, Jesus and the Bible has come more from the intellectual side and less so from the emotional. I should say that my Christian experience had a better balance of intellect & emotion. This is understandable, as I had grown up in the Church, and the intellectual and emotional parts of me were allowed to coexist quite safely, each giving context to the other
(Studying to learn why we believed what we believed meant our emotions were contextualized accordingly. Thus, as a pentecostal, I would attribute certain feelings to the "work" or "gifts" of the "Holy Spirit". My experience, and their accompanied emotions, were interpreted through the various pentecostal doctrines I had accepted. Or meditating on a Bible verse, or reading a Christian book, ones which usually affirmed deeply held beliefs would lead to certain feelings of confidence or security.)
Since leaving the Church, however, I have found myself without a comfortable place in which to permit the kind of emotional experiences I enjoyed before. Perhaps this won't make sense to those who have not undergone such a dramatic change in their world view, but reconstructing ones spiritual foundation, particularly after several decades of intentional spiritual construction, often leaves you with as many questions as answers along the way. I suppose it isn't much different from someone growing up without any religious influence and then becomes a Christian. Jokes which they may have found funny before are no longer funny (an intellectual and emotional event). I'm not going to argue whether they came to find the jokes not funny anymore because of an inherent change (due to conversion) or that they had learned "coarse joking" and "foolish talk" are condemned in the New Testament (which means that the writer didn't think that such a behavioral change was so much inherent, but needed to be taught). The point is, when a paradigm shift takes place in one's life, there is a reconstruction of many assumed beliefs. And while on a certain level, there is much in common with Judaism and Christianity, those ideas which set them apart, place them worlds apart. Like an immigrant entering a new land, while I may have 2 eyes, ears, hands and feet, like everyone else, doesn't mean that one can just comfortably settle there. There may be differences of language, tradition, food, religion, etc., which require a lot of time to understand and feel comfortable with. Cliches, proverbs, slang, euphemisms and sarcasm, which the native born interweave within their daily conversations, are lost to the new-comer, who will only be able to make use after they have acquired the necessary knowledge and understanding to employ them in such a way as to feel these cultural expressions in an emotional way.
I guess this is what I experienced. In the beginning of my conclusion that Judaism was the true revelation of God to all mankind (without Jesus and the New Testament), it was a conclusion based on the sum of my study, experience and investigation. But until now, I had not become so intimate with that embrace as to "feel" it inside me, as I had been accustomed to in Christianity. But, as I listened to this "Christian" production of the Jewish Prophet, Jeremiah, immersed in a way that is often missed using "themed" or "word" based bible studies, I was able to move quickly from verse to verse, chapter to chapter, different characters speaking their parts like a play. This is quite unlike picking up the Bible and opening a page and you read a verse without regard to what comes before it or what comes after it. How do you interpret that single verse? Or several? You interpret them within the context of what you understand and believe. As a Christian, you may replace references to Israel and Judah for the Church, if necessary, and Messianic themes are already assumed to be about Jesus. But when you begin at the beginning and let the prophecy unfold as God spoke to Jeremiah, you cannot turn it upside down and find Christian theology nor does it naturally "point" to Jesus. You find God warning repeatedly that each one of us will be judged according to our conduct, not according to some Lutheran "faith in Christ" construct, or the easy believe-ism of much of the modern church. This conduct you will be judged for is based on one unchanging truth: Torah, not the teaching of a Messiah figure or those who would come after him, such as Paul. The Covenant (Torah) will be an everlasting Covenant with the descendants of Jacob, and while God will punish those who break the Covenant, even as He warned He would in the Covenant, there will ALWAYS be a remnant who will be faithful to God and His Torah, and those who repent He promises to return to the land he promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Certain conditions would be necessary for the "Branch of David" to come. These were NOT fulfilled in the time of the New Testament, regardless of Daniel's Weeks of Years calculations. And you hear it pounding out consistently, verse after verse, chapter after chapter. And when you arrive at the great promise of the "NEW COVENANT" in Jeremiah 31, there is no way you can fit this into Christian theology. It is about Israel's physical descendants, NOT Gentiles. The "New" Covenant would be God's Law written on their minds and hearts, and they would all have knowledge of God from the least to the greatest. This, too, did not happen in the New Testament. Certainly not in anyway where one could look and say "Hey, you don't need to teach me about God, I know God, and you know God. I know His ways and you know His ways." This has NOT happened, although I swear, there are a few Christians who think they know God and His ways, but nobody else does. And that's the point:
"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD." Jeremiah 31:34
This has not happened. When it does, there won't be any question as to whether it did or not, as we clearly see was the case in the New Testament where there was no certainty as to who Jesus was claiming to be, leaving the question, "Is he the messiah?" going unanswered. If no one needing to be taught is supposed to happen WHEN the New Covenant is establish (and it will) and if the New Covenant was supposed to be established with Jesus and his blood, we have a problem. A problem of such magnitude that the only way a Christian could not see it is if he was blinded by false doctrine and therefore does not want to see it because he has been taught to call:
Is. 5:20 ...evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Torah is good. (Psalm 119:39)
Torah is light. (Psalm 119:105,130)
Torah is sweet.(Psalm 119:103)
Christianity says Jesus if good, Torah is bad.
Christianity says Jesus is the light, Torah is darkness.
Christianity says Jesus is sweet but the Torah is bitter.
From Genesis to Malachi (in the Christian version of the Hebrew Bible), that is the theme. God will judge you NOT on what you believe, but on whether your conduct is good or evil. Good and evil are defined by Torah, not what you personally believe or feel about someone's divinity, trinity or his mother's virginity. Torah was given to Israel, Israel is the Nation of Priests to the Nations. And in spite of Israel's failure to obey, God has ALWAYS promised that although they would be flung to the farthest ends of the earth, He would gather them back to the Land of Israel because Israel is the firstborn of God, NOT Christ, and NOT the Christian church.
I would challenge anyone... any Christian... find a quiet spot. Take out your Bible, even your Christian Bible. Go to Audible.com and buy the book of Jeremiah and Lamentations for $4 (5 hours of listening). Listen to (and read) this whole prophecy and imagine if God had in His mind a future religion called Christianity. Imagine that God had to be thinking about Jesus, the cross, resurrection, ascension, eucharist (communion) and the second coming, as this is how Christianity interprets the "Old Testament"... through the Christological prism. Imagine that God had in mind that
"...he (Jesus) himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace." Ephesians 2:14-15
If you immerse yourself in Jeremiah, you will NOT discover a God who was imagining any of these things! In fact, you will find none of Jeremiah "pointing" to Jesus, the New Testament or Christianity.
I read it. I studied it. I understood it.
NOW, I FEEL IT.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Starting with a common ground (Part 1)
When any two people engage in a conversation, it's essential that they can speak and hear in a way that the two can both understand and be understood by one another. Sounds simple until you try it. Two people, same language, gender and age, similar social skills and education, even with the best attempts, good communication can be less than easy. Start tampering with this better than adequate setup for two people to understand and be understood (ie. they speak two different languages), and it will become more difficult for good communication to take place. So I take it as a given that being understood by those who hold to a different view may not come easy. I will try to avoid raising any unnecessary obstacles as best I can, while being as honest and candid as I need.
That being said, it's important that when one is going to discuss things which already presuppose conflict, such as religious disagreements, each side must be prepared to be reasoned and reasonable. Thinking and speaking not shouting. Studying and reflecting not name calling. Don't defend your position by simply restating what the position is, nor avoiding it by moving on to the next issue. Think. Study. Pray. Yes! Disagree with an argument. Disagree with vigor. Disagree with conviction. But let there be substance to the argument.
Let's create an example which I hope will help illustrate how we might navigate through a disagreement. If I make a claim and offer Biblical texts for why I believe this claim and you disagreed, you would probably offer up one or two verses which support your belief and negate my position. Two claims, four verses supporting opposite opinions. It would seem that we have reached an impasse. We conclude that the other's "interpretation" is faulty and we will just have to agree to disagree.
But let's understand what the real problem is that is needing to be resolved. There are 2 separate collections of texts involved: Documents 1 & 2 (the Old Testament & New Testament). Two religions (Judaism & Christianity) claim Document 1 to be "inspired" but disagree on Document 2. Document 1 was produced by Religion 1 and Document 2 was produced by Religion 2. Since Religion 2 claims to have been the "continuation" of Religion 1 (the "truer" "newer" version), it follows that Document 2 must be a continuation of Document 1.
My position is this: Doctrine A is false. Your position is: Doctrine A is true.
Doctrine A is only articulated (or alluded to) in the NT, Document 2 (remember, we both believe that the OT, Document 1, is valid and inspired, whereas the NT is in dispute). If the OT is silent on Doctrine A, one might allow Doctrine A to be "possible," but it would be understandable if Religion 1, Judaism, rejected Doctrine A because it is based on the NT, not the OT. However, if the OT states the opposite (or impossibility) of Doctrine A, regardless of what the NT states, Judaism must reject Doctrine A. Then Religion 2, Christianity, must explain how the NT's Doctrine A is an "INSPIRED" continuation of the OT, yet antagonistic to the OT. I use the word "antagonistic" because this would be more than a simple lack in cohesion. If the two Documents do not complement each other, than one is a fraud. And if there is a fraud, it necessarily means the NT is guilty of the fraud, not the OT.
Now, I apologize for using terms like Document this and Doctrine that. Perhaps, for some, it's confusing. If it is, read it again before proceeding. I just didn't want to be specific about doctrines, as these immediately cause emotional reactions and defensive postures are taken before meaningful conversation can take place.
The preceding explanation of "the real problem," I think, is straight forward and I wish I could leave it there. But it gets more complicated. What happens when both Document 1 & 2 are antagonistic to Doctrine A which is supposed to have been based on both Documents? Or Document 2 implies both agreement and disagreement with Doctrine A?
In my next entry I'll give a couple of specific examples of "the real problem."
That being said, it's important that when one is going to discuss things which already presuppose conflict, such as religious disagreements, each side must be prepared to be reasoned and reasonable. Thinking and speaking not shouting. Studying and reflecting not name calling. Don't defend your position by simply restating what the position is, nor avoiding it by moving on to the next issue. Think. Study. Pray. Yes! Disagree with an argument. Disagree with vigor. Disagree with conviction. But let there be substance to the argument.
Let's create an example which I hope will help illustrate how we might navigate through a disagreement. If I make a claim and offer Biblical texts for why I believe this claim and you disagreed, you would probably offer up one or two verses which support your belief and negate my position. Two claims, four verses supporting opposite opinions. It would seem that we have reached an impasse. We conclude that the other's "interpretation" is faulty and we will just have to agree to disagree.
But let's understand what the real problem is that is needing to be resolved. There are 2 separate collections of texts involved: Documents 1 & 2 (the Old Testament & New Testament). Two religions (Judaism & Christianity) claim Document 1 to be "inspired" but disagree on Document 2. Document 1 was produced by Religion 1 and Document 2 was produced by Religion 2. Since Religion 2 claims to have been the "continuation" of Religion 1 (the "truer" "newer" version), it follows that Document 2 must be a continuation of Document 1.
My position is this: Doctrine A is false. Your position is: Doctrine A is true.
Doctrine A is only articulated (or alluded to) in the NT, Document 2 (remember, we both believe that the OT, Document 1, is valid and inspired, whereas the NT is in dispute). If the OT is silent on Doctrine A, one might allow Doctrine A to be "possible," but it would be understandable if Religion 1, Judaism, rejected Doctrine A because it is based on the NT, not the OT. However, if the OT states the opposite (or impossibility) of Doctrine A, regardless of what the NT states, Judaism must reject Doctrine A. Then Religion 2, Christianity, must explain how the NT's Doctrine A is an "INSPIRED" continuation of the OT, yet antagonistic to the OT. I use the word "antagonistic" because this would be more than a simple lack in cohesion. If the two Documents do not complement each other, than one is a fraud. And if there is a fraud, it necessarily means the NT is guilty of the fraud, not the OT.
Now, I apologize for using terms like Document this and Doctrine that. Perhaps, for some, it's confusing. If it is, read it again before proceeding. I just didn't want to be specific about doctrines, as these immediately cause emotional reactions and defensive postures are taken before meaningful conversation can take place.
The preceding explanation of "the real problem," I think, is straight forward and I wish I could leave it there. But it gets more complicated. What happens when both Document 1 & 2 are antagonistic to Doctrine A which is supposed to have been based on both Documents? Or Document 2 implies both agreement and disagreement with Doctrine A?
In my next entry I'll give a couple of specific examples of "the real problem."
Sunday, May 11, 2008
To begin...
The Christian Quagmire.
Hmmm.... where to begin?
Quagmire: a soft boggy area of land that gives way underfoot. An awkward, complex, or hazardous situation.
How do you start a "fresh" conversation about Judaism & Christianity that has taken place a million times before with more educated people than I? I am not a scholar in greek or hebrew. I am not a historian. I never attended seminary school, let alone graduate from one... hmmm... come to think of it, I didn't graduate from high school either. Not much to work with, is there?
So, if I can't figure out how to start, perhaps I should ask myself if I should even try? The answer to that is surprisingly simple, in spite of my lackluster resume. A great majority of Christians know less greek and hebrew than I do. Very few Christians know the last 100 years of their particular denomination's or sect's history, and even fewer still know anything about the critical first 300 years of church history and the development of present Christian doctrine. I was raised in Sunday School and was very active in the evangelical church my family attended, therefore, my religious education meets or exceeds, in some measurable way, that of the vast majority of Christians on that basis alone. So while I may not be over qualified for this, I certainly am not under qualified, compared to the masses of Christians who believe they are "equipped" to carry out the Great Commission. If they are qualified to spread the gospel, with many of them relying on a few pet verses from the New Testament or from some mission-izing formula, I guess I'm more than qualified to dose those flames with a little water. There. Enough about that.
Probably the first thing to say is this: I'm not here to change your mind. I don't think anyone will be convinced of anything unless they are already questioning what they've previously been convinced of. If you are convinced that Christianity is the "truth" and the only "truth," especially if you believe it is the only "truth," I suspect there is little that I can say to change your mind. I might irritate you, to which you may simply turn the channel. You could become angry because I've offended your "spiritual" sensibilities and you may hurl insults and claim I'm deceived and am now going to hell (isn't it odd that it's always everyone else who is deceived and going to hell). I may cause you to run out and buy Josh MacDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" so that you can quickly reaffirm your fragile state of faith when perhaps you find yourself for the first time realizing that your rock-solid "truth" (Christian doctrines) and the source of that "truth" (the New Testament) don't fully line up with each other, let alone the Hebrew Scriptures which these are supposed to naturally emanate from. You may even say, "we'll just have to agree to disagree" (but then they usually don't) or "I still love you brother, I'll be praying for you." And while that sounds tame compared to some responses, we're not talking about any kind of passive "if it by Thy will" kind of praying... you are certain of what that prayer should be and that will include being put on the local prayer chain with intense crying to God to rescue me. These are but a few of the numerous kinds of possible reactions. And I'm okay with that. Having spent many years as a devout evangelical, I would expect nothing less.
There may be those who are in the same place I was a number of years ago and may find the information helpful... those looking for some explanation to their uncomfortableness with their Christianity. This is my audience. And this will be the place that I share my own exploration of the faith of my family for several generations and the faith I embraced during my own youth and where this exploration has taken me. I want you to know that there is life after Christianity that can be God-centered and meaningful. It's not easy letting go of the baggage, as I know I still carry some. And I do not have all the answers. However, I do know that every time I listen to someone extol the "perfect Gospel," whether from a family or friend, at someone's funeral service, or I want to punish myself by listening to the "Way of the Master" radio or a televangelist, I am ever grateful to God that I no longer live in that space, the Christian space.
I mentioned a quagmire.
Perhaps if I was less lazy and spent the time to layout my argument in a more systematic fashion it would be much easier to read. But the truth is I have neither the time nor the mental focus to do so. Therefore, I will dive into the deep end and pose the question at the root of the said quagmire:
Is Jesus really THE Messiah?
Hmmm.... where to begin?
Quagmire: a soft boggy area of land that gives way underfoot. An awkward, complex, or hazardous situation.
How do you start a "fresh" conversation about Judaism & Christianity that has taken place a million times before with more educated people than I? I am not a scholar in greek or hebrew. I am not a historian. I never attended seminary school, let alone graduate from one... hmmm... come to think of it, I didn't graduate from high school either. Not much to work with, is there?
So, if I can't figure out how to start, perhaps I should ask myself if I should even try? The answer to that is surprisingly simple, in spite of my lackluster resume. A great majority of Christians know less greek and hebrew than I do. Very few Christians know the last 100 years of their particular denomination's or sect's history, and even fewer still know anything about the critical first 300 years of church history and the development of present Christian doctrine. I was raised in Sunday School and was very active in the evangelical church my family attended, therefore, my religious education meets or exceeds, in some measurable way, that of the vast majority of Christians on that basis alone. So while I may not be over qualified for this, I certainly am not under qualified, compared to the masses of Christians who believe they are "equipped" to carry out the Great Commission. If they are qualified to spread the gospel, with many of them relying on a few pet verses from the New Testament or from some mission-izing formula, I guess I'm more than qualified to dose those flames with a little water. There. Enough about that.
Probably the first thing to say is this: I'm not here to change your mind. I don't think anyone will be convinced of anything unless they are already questioning what they've previously been convinced of. If you are convinced that Christianity is the "truth" and the only "truth," especially if you believe it is the only "truth," I suspect there is little that I can say to change your mind. I might irritate you, to which you may simply turn the channel. You could become angry because I've offended your "spiritual" sensibilities and you may hurl insults and claim I'm deceived and am now going to hell (isn't it odd that it's always everyone else who is deceived and going to hell). I may cause you to run out and buy Josh MacDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" so that you can quickly reaffirm your fragile state of faith when perhaps you find yourself for the first time realizing that your rock-solid "truth" (Christian doctrines) and the source of that "truth" (the New Testament) don't fully line up with each other, let alone the Hebrew Scriptures which these are supposed to naturally emanate from. You may even say, "we'll just have to agree to disagree" (but then they usually don't) or "I still love you brother, I'll be praying for you." And while that sounds tame compared to some responses, we're not talking about any kind of passive "if it by Thy will" kind of praying... you are certain of what that prayer should be and that will include being put on the local prayer chain with intense crying to God to rescue me. These are but a few of the numerous kinds of possible reactions. And I'm okay with that. Having spent many years as a devout evangelical, I would expect nothing less.
There may be those who are in the same place I was a number of years ago and may find the information helpful... those looking for some explanation to their uncomfortableness with their Christianity. This is my audience. And this will be the place that I share my own exploration of the faith of my family for several generations and the faith I embraced during my own youth and where this exploration has taken me. I want you to know that there is life after Christianity that can be God-centered and meaningful. It's not easy letting go of the baggage, as I know I still carry some. And I do not have all the answers. However, I do know that every time I listen to someone extol the "perfect Gospel," whether from a family or friend, at someone's funeral service, or I want to punish myself by listening to the "Way of the Master" radio or a televangelist, I am ever grateful to God that I no longer live in that space, the Christian space.
I mentioned a quagmire.
Perhaps if I was less lazy and spent the time to layout my argument in a more systematic fashion it would be much easier to read. But the truth is I have neither the time nor the mental focus to do so. Therefore, I will dive into the deep end and pose the question at the root of the said quagmire:
Is Jesus really THE Messiah?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
