119 wrote:

"First and foremost, there's the question of whether or not the evidence for the National Revelation at Sinai really is better than the evidence for Yeshua's resurrection"

It doesn’t matter if Jesus rose from the dead, or how any secular scholar or Christian theologian interprets the Torah. If a national Revelation doesn’t declare itself temporary, specify a successor, and give permission to its adherents to re-interpret it in this light, then all such claims are false, even if accompanied by “signs and wonders,” accurate predictions of the future, legions of followers, and the official approval of "western civilization" [sic]. There's an entire chapter in Deuteronomy commanding the Israelites to ignore supernatural evidence if it leads them away from HaShem, Who is not a man, Who is One, Whose Covenant is repeatedly described as "everlasting," binding for all generations," and "eternal." Miracles don't change this.

You gave the Christian two options for establishing that a covenant had been annulled. Option number one - the one relevant at the moment - was to show that the alleged replacement had better evidence.

I'd also be interested in seeing evidence that anything or anyone other than Ha'Shem Himself is capable of raising the dead.

“In other words, before you appeal to the 'best explanation' for the National Revelation at Sinai, you have to establish that the revelation actually happened.”
 
This isn’t how abductive arguments work. The Kuzari establishes the reasonableness of the belief on the grounds that its historicity is the best explanation. For those interested in the argument:

In flowchart format

Unbroken Chain
 
How We Know We Heard G-d at Sinai

A Rational Approach

I notice that all of these arguments give short shrift to the idea of legendary development - the most plausible candidate explanation given that the consensus date for the Torah is something along the lines of 600 BC.

"(I personally accept Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch)"

Then why challenge the evidence for its Divinity?

To highlight the fact that the evidence is mixed... unless recourse is made to a more recent revelation that makes no sense without the old one.

If I were not a Christian, I wouldn't buy Mosaic Authorship for a minute.

Plausible dates for the Exodus (an event that surely rendered Egypt impotent) tend to show up during the reigns of Pharoahs like Thutmoise III or Rameses the Great. Jericho wasn't sacked at the right time for the conquest. Ai was uninhabited in the middle to late bronze age. And so on. Now, doubt can be thrown on all of these considerations - perhaps the archaeologists missed something, or maybe Egyptian chronology is off - but it would be patently absurd to claim that the balance of the evidence supports the narrative of Exodus and Conquest. At the moment, what we have is a document that seems to date to 600 BC that purports to describe events in the 1500-1200 BC window, and for which we have found precious little archaeological reason to think it accurate.

What do you think the “Old Testament” is?

The story to which the Gospel is the climax, and without which the Gospel is unintelligible.

However, for current purposes, I'd prefer to treat OT and NT alike as mere documents, simply so that our respective biases do not creep in.

"Note that His wrath is limited to the third and fourth generation."

This is a Christian interpretation, the authority of which is the point in question.

Excuse me? What, exactly, are you referring to here?

Exodus 34 is where the Sages derived the 13 Attributes of Mercy.  It has numerical significance, but nothing to do with replacing Israel.

Who the hell said anything about replacing Israel? Not me, not Paul, DEFINITELY not Yeshua...

(It can't be emphasized enough that their chosen-ness is not a function of their moral perfection or SAT scores. It's about G-d's Honor.) 

Did I say otherwise?

"note that the Torah itself gives no hint of allowing for prayers or the like to replace the sacrifices and burnt offerings prescribed by the Law."

How did Torah observance survive the destruction of the First Temple?

Because copies of the Torah survived the destruction of the first temple.

Are you sure the Torah has nothing to say about the Temple-less future of the Jewish people?

And the L-rd will scatter you among the peoples, and you will remain few in number among the nations to where the L-rd will lead you. And there you will worship gods, man's handiwork, wood and stone, which neither see, hear, eat, nor smell[1]. And from there you will seek the L-rd your G-d, and you will find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are distressed, and all these things happen upon you in the end of days[2], then you will return to the L-rd your G-d and obey Him.[3] For the L-rd your G-d is a merciful G-d; He will not let you loose or destroy you; neither will He forget the covenant of your fathers, which He swore to them.[4] For ask now regarding the early days that were before you, since the day that G-d created man upon the earth, and from one end of the heavens to the other end of the heavens, whether there was anything like this great thing, or was the likes of it heard? Did ever a people hear G-d's voice speaking out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and live? ... You have been shown, in order to know that the L-rd He is G-d; there is none else besides Him. (Deut. 4:27-35)  Note G-d's shout-out to the Kuzari. See also Exodus 19:9. This evidence will work "forever."

[1] Note that the early phases of exile will be marked by idolatry. Unless I'm badly mistaken, that hasn't been a problem among the Jews for at least a thousand years. Am I missing something here?

[2] While "the end of days" is a possible translation of the relevant Hebrew phrase, "days to come" would be equally appropriate. The same phrase is used in Numbers 24, when Balaam prophesies King David's subjugation of Edom and Moab. Since this passage has already been fulfilled once (in the exile of 586 BC and the subsequent return), I see no reason to eschatologize this passage.

[3] Note the immediacy of G-d's reaction. As soon as His people turn back to Him, He turns back to them. To my understanding, the Jews have been seeking Him with all their hearts and all their souls for some nineteen hundred years at this point. Something's up.

[4] Note also that my rhetoric about G-d not abandoning His people to exile could have been quoted verbatim from this passage. In fact, I dare say that you've sharpened my argument by appealing to the Torah itself! Here we see confirmation of my main points - that loss of land and temple only occur as punishment for sin, G-d's loyalty to His people, the relative immediacy of His response, etc. And we have to square this with the fact that the temple is still gone, that it was taken away for reasons that are unclear, and that the Jews themselves have been scrupulously abiding by the scraps of the Covenant that they still have left for some nineteen centuries at this point.

And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword after you. Your land will be desolate, and your cities will be laid waste. (Leviticus 26:33)  Horrifying as this chapter & Deut. 28 are, they never, not once, say a peep about Israel being replaced.

Israel neither has been nor will be replaced. The annullment of the Mosaic covenant does not lay a finger on the promises made to the patriarchs.

The Prophet Hosea wrote that the exile will last a long time: For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor teraphim. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the L-rd their G-d and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the L-rd and to His goodness at the end of days. (Hosea 3:4-5)

Strong's 319[e] used in conjunction with Strong's 3117[e] can just as easily be translated "days to come" as "last days."

Since he was writing in the eighth century BC, it seems safe to say that his prophecy was fulfilled. The issue is what happened after - viz, the events of AD 70.

Deuteronomy 30 describes Israel’s redemption: And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the L-rd your G-d has driven you, and return to the L-rd your G-d, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the L-rd your G-d will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the L-rd your G-d has scattered you. (Deuteronomy 30:1-3)

Again, obviously referring to the events of the sixth century BC.
 

Are you denying these passages have anything to do with the Children of Israel returning to HaShem and His Torah at the end of days?

Yes. I'm saying that they obviously refer to the Children of Israel returning to Ha'Shem and His Torah 2500 years ago.

Where do we find anything about “fulfillments” by Jesus?

Where did I say anything about fulfillment by Jesus?

The only reference to the son of G-d in the Torah is Exodus 4:22. It’s Israel. Period.

Quite observant! Cross reference with what Daniel 7:27 has to say about the Son of Man, and you'll catch a dimension of Christology that has been neglected for some 1500 years.

Hosea alludes to this in 11:1. Your Bible has always contained a NT and you accept its authority and interpretations from the outset. (I used to do this too!)

I'm not a generic Christian apologist. Nor, from the looks of things, are your prior beliefs regarding the relationship of the old covenant and the new covenant and accurate guide to my own. Be careful to tailor your talking points to address my own, lest you wind up attacking your former self rather than your current interlocutor.

There’s no Christian theology in the TaNaKH. There's no Judaeo-Christian anything. These are things everyone asserts but no one questions. The possibility that the NT is an early version of the Book of Mormon is treated like some logical impossibility. 

Look, what does any of this have to do with anything I've actually said?

Yes, the current government of Israel is definitely not the prophesized Theocracy. They picked the wrong place for a secular democracy. This is why the so-called “ultra Orthodox” are anti-Zionist. This. It's complicated and exasperating.

1. I never said anything about the eschatological significance of the current government of Israel.

2. It is simply a fact that, despite over a melinnium of contrition, Israel has not been returned from exile, nor has the temple service been restored. Until that happens, Israel has no means of fulfilling the terms of the Mosaic covenant. Clearly, there's a huge difference between what's going on now and what went on in the sixth century BC. You have yet to seriously confront this manifest fact.

"I would say that the New Covenant mentioned in verse 31 needs to be interpreted along the lines of a genuinely novel arrangement, rather than a restoration of the original."

A "novel arrangement" that has nothing to do with the Houses of Israel & Judah but the "salvation" of Gentiles who worship a tri-theistic deity on Sundays;

There are so many issues here I don't know where to begin. First and foremost, any systematic theology that doesn't acknowledge the continued importance of Israel to G-d's plan isn't worth taking seriously. Secondly, the NT speaks of gentiles being grafted into Israel through Christ, not of gentiles replacing Israel. Third, trinitarianism evolved when various first century Jewish forms of metonymy referring to G-d's action in the world (the Memra of the targums, the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 and Sirach  24, etc.) were reevaluated in light of the historical facts of the ministry of Yeshua the Mashiach.

a covenant that doesn't occur when "no longer shall one teach his neighbor ... saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest"; but one that occurs during a time of theological chaos when all we do is teach each other about G-d (when we're not killing each other).

And why will all know Him? Because the new covenant is written on the hearts of the faithful. Christians interpret vs 34 in light of vs 33.

"Jewish ways of dealing with these problems need to be held to the same standard as Christian ways of doing so"

Just like Christians are logically obligated to extend the same level playing field to Muslims and Mormons.

Exactly!

Of course, Mohammad's political successes seem adequate to explain his religion's current dominance of the middle East.

And the Mormons are even worse off, what with half of the people who testified to the existence of the golden tablets ultimately recanting. But the field is open, if they can provide the evidence.

Not. If their holy books aren't authorized by the NT to pop up and reinterpret or cancel the NT, you don't owe them the time of day.

That's not the problem with Islam and Mormonism. The problem is that they were founded by a successful politician and an obvious charlatan respectively. With Christianity, we find a man who died the death of a slave lauded as lord and master by his followers, a man slaughtered by the Romans proclaimed to be the savior of Israel. Nowhere else in history do we find a religion so clearly swimming against the current. And a closer look, far from resolving the prima facie peculiarities, multiplies them a hundred fold.

If the same could be said of the revelation at Sinai, perhaps your arguments could get off the ground. Then again, given the melinnium and a half of contrition on the part of the Jews, and the continued lack of a temple and concomitant inability to fulfill covenant obligations, perhaps not.

Similarly, if the Sinai Revelation doesn’t authorize a NT to replace it, the NT has no authority whatsoever. Notice how obvious this point is when it's raised as an objection to post-Christian traditions. If a Mormon told you Galatians 1:8 really means you should be on the lookout for John Smith you'd slam the door. But Christians are the World Champions at this fallacy, ignoring passages that adamantly deny “progressive revelation.”

Look, the NT isn't pulling any weight wrt my rejection of Islam and Mormonism. This ad hominem argument, however much bite it may have had against your former self, just isn't going to work on me.

(note: you've been entirely civil, and your argument isn't fallacious. It's ad hominem only in the sense that it is "aimed at" me in a way that it isn't aimed at, say, Mormons.)

"Held to the same standard"? Let's do some meta-theology: Please cite this objective "standard" and the source of its authority.

Evidence? The facts of history? The canons of sound reason? What other standard is there, unless you intend to fall back on the blind faith you rightly eschew?

The Children of Israel are under no "standard" to wax skeptical about their Mesorah (tradition). They're commanded to be fanatics, in the best sense of that word.

Which they've been doing for nearly two thousand years to no avail.

"Certainly, the Talmudic suggestion that the offerings in the temple are to be replaced by the prayers of the faithful has no basis in any 'explicit statement' of the Torah itself. The question isn't whether or not the Torah has been replaced, the question is which parts have been annulled and what they've been replaced by."

Inability to perform commandment X doesn't annul anything.

Look, either Israel has to obey commandment X, or they don't. If they have to obey it, then the last forty-eight generations of Israelites are condemned - since they have not been able to obey the commandments regarding temple service for 1900 years. If they don't have to obey it, then the Torah has been changed. It's that simple.

I find the former horn of the dilemma unacceptable due to G-d's various promises of faithfulness to His people. Thus I accept the second.

If you don't have a Temple you can't perform Temple-related commandments.

Which point is integral to my argument.

Restoring the Temple and observance of Temple-related commands is what Mashiach is supposed to accomplish -- in the way Jesus, bar Kokhba, Sabbetai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, and R' Schneerson didn't.

I'm afraid I'm not quite seeing the point of your argument here. Are you saying that the Torah will only be suspended until the Mashiach arrives?

By this logic, inclusion of the Prophets and Writings in the canon is mere "Talmudic suggestion," and they're the source of most "messianic prophecies." The 'Anshei HaKenesset HaGedolah was made up of the Sanhedrin and included Mordecai, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi, and Shimon HaTzadik. G-d used them to establish the Biblical canon just as He used them to compose the prayers. The Prophets and Writings were canonized to be read only until the coming of Mashiach, after which they will no longer be relevant. Similarly, the prayers haven't annulled eternal commands.

In focusing on explicit statements of the Torah, I am merely using your own argument against progressive revelation. I myself am not committed to that particular standard. But since you seem to be (or at least seem to insist that I be held to it), I see no reason to restrict it in scope to would-be replacements.

I'd like to apologize in advance if I slip up at the keyboard. I'm typing these replies on my phone, so if I type out His Name rather than one of the acceptable stand-ins, I hope you'll be patient with me.

119 wrote:

Dave wrote:

You gave the Christian two options for establishing that a covenant had been annulled. Option number one - the one relevant at the moment - was to show that the alleged replacement had better evidence.   

And I’m denying that the miracles of Jesus are “better evidence.”

I think I see the disconnect. I'm operating at a higher level of abstraction than you are.

You (naively, imo) approach both the Gospel and the Pentateuch as if they literally happened, then weigh the events reported. You come to the eminently reasonable conclusion that there has never been a prophet like Moses, that for no one else has G-d shown the full scope of His might so clearly. This, combined with your (imo, inadequately grounded) belief that the Torah is unalterable forces you to deny Christianity.

I start by assuming that Pentateuch and Gospel alike are merely historical documents. I then examine the evidence that the events they describe actually occurred. It is in this sense - that we may place the central events of Christianity on a far, far surer foundation than we may the events of the Exodus - that I contend we have better evidence for Christianity.

While I can understand the appeal of your approach, as a Christian apologist, I find it utterly unsuited for dealing with my more typical interlocutors. Better to just question everything and see what survives.

The prior Revelation contains specific instructions about miracle-working prophets who try to lead the Israelites from the G-d of their forefathers.

I would say that trinitarianism gives us a fuller knowledge of G-d, rather than turning us away from Him. In any case, the origin of trinitarianism is fairly simple, and comes from two components.

I. The Jews developed various personifications and hypostatizations of Divine attributes in the years leading up to the first century. Some of these - such as His Wisdom (Proverbs 8), Shekinah Glory (that dwelt in tabernacle and temple), and Spirit - had their basis in scripture. Others, such as the Memra of the Targums, were more or less invented as a tool for keeping the common folk from anthropomorphizing G-d. If you look into this stuff, you'll find overzealous Christian apologists trying to paint such ways of speaking as proto-trinitarian. I am not as confident as they are. These ways of speaking may have been nothing more than that - ways of speaking... at least until factor ii came along.

II. The events that set off Christianity cast these various poetic-linguistic devices in a new light. In Yeshua, we find the assertion of Divine prerogatives (forgiving sins, presiding over the last judgement, serving as the bridegroom of G-d's people) co-existing with clear signs of subordination to G-d ("the Father is Greater than I", constant prayer, etc.). Ultimately, the early Christians would draw on the various personified attributes of G-d to help them understand the ontological issues they faced in the ministry of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit.

The upshot? Trinitarian thought originated when historical events prompted Yeshua's followers to take certain Jewish metaphors literally.

Dave wrote:

I'd also be interested in seeing evidence that anything or anyone other than Ha'Shem Himself is capable of raising the dead.

Is it logically impossible that G-d used Jesus as a test for Israel (perhaps also as a means of spreading basic concepts to others)? If not, what type of impossibility rules out this option? Deut. 13 says G-d might place supernatural evil in their midst. No restrictions are listed on what the signs and wonders might contain. How are you precluding this possibility?

By paying attention to the tests and false prophets in Israel's history.

To take the most obvious example, consider the limits placed on Pharaoh's magicians - who couldn't even summon gnats, much less undo the plague against the firstborn of Egypt! Consider also that these men did things by their own secret arts, not by the Power of G-d Himself.

Unless I'm forgetting something huge, all examples of false prophets and misleading signs in Israel's history follow a similar pattern - strict limitations on the magnitude of the sign, and no help from On High. G-d does not lie, nor does He facilitate lies. He may occasionally allow them as tests to the faithful, but I will not be so impious as to allow that He ever makes Himself complicit.

(I don’t like the idea either, but so what. I’m never consulted. I would have said skip the whole primate wing entirely. More sharks!)

Sharks? As amazing and effectively designed as He made them, I daresay that He is rather more fond of beetles than He is of any species of vertebrate.

Dave wrote:

If I were not a Christian, I wouldn't buy Mosaic Authorship for a minute.                

If the tomb was empty then the Exodus happened and G-d spoke to Israel and dictated the Torah to Moses. If the tomb was full then the Documentary Hypotheses explain the Bible, which has no evidence for its Divinity apart from the resurrection. Is this a fair description of your position?

I phrase my position as follows:

Let...

NR = the hypothesis that a national revelation to the Jews happened at Mt. Sinai.

C = the hypothesis stated in the Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed.

E = the various documents composing what is known as the Tanakh, pertinent archaeological discoveries regarding the middle-to-late Bronze Age and early Iron Age, and other historiographical data regarding the same time period and locale (the Ancient Near East).

K = the various documents known as the New Testament and historiographical data regarding Second Temple Judaism and first century Mediterranean culture.

Now, my opinion may be stated as follows:

P(NR|E) is somewhere south of 0.5, but not so far south that we can dismiss it out of hand. P(C|K), by contrast, is very high. If you want to know why I say this, we can get into that, but I suspect we'd need to sort out the issues we're discussing now before such a topic could become profitable. Now, as far as I can tell, P(NR|C) = 1.0. Which means that P(NR|K) is also very high. As for P(NR|E&K), it will be dramatically greater than P(NR|E), though still somewhat lower than P(NR|K).

In short, while E alone would incline me against the idea of a national revelation at Mt. Sinai, K outweighs E by a substantial margin, tilting the balance of evidence in favor of NR.

The documentary hypothesis per se, the empty tomb specifically, and the status of the Bible qua Bible are of secondary importance.

Dave wrote:

  To my understanding, the Jews have been seeking Him with all their hearts and all their souls for some nineteen hundred years at this point. Something's up.              

LOL! Which Jews are you thinking of? Many celebrate Christmas

Which holiday has been utterly secularized and need have nothing to do with Christianity, and which they did not touch with a ten foot pole until after said secularization had occurred.

and a “Chanukah” I can’t even recognize. (It’s not about tolerance and diversity. It’s the most awesome “redneck” triumph of fundamentalism on the calendar.)

The Maccabees are an important part of Jewish history and serve as examples of what it means to hold fast to G-d. There is nothing illicit about commemorating their successes... if you're a Jew or Noahide.

I heard this the other week: “Being Jewish is about being a good person.” When I was an undergrad my advisor assured me how Judaism isn’t really about G-d. It’s about the Law. My first exposure to the teachings of Maimonides was from an atheist who observed the Days of Awe for cultural reasons. It’s a miracle I take this position seriously. I’ve never personally known anyone else that does. (Granted, there’s a selection bias. Coming from a blue-collar factory town it’s not likely I’d cross paths with the Orthodox community. They’re live in insular, portable Theocracies during the Exile.)

And I put it to you that the Orthodox are far more representative of the state of Judaism in general for the past nineteen centuries than any W.E.I.R.D. splinter sects you may happen to have bumped into during your travels. Are you saying that the continuous exile of the Jewish people from the second century to the rise of so-called Secular Judaism was as pre-emptive punishment for a handful of modern heritics?

Dave wrote:

   And we have to square this with the fact that the temple is still gone, that it was taken away for reasons that are unclear, and that the Jews themselves have been scrupulously abiding by the scraps of the Covenant that they still have left for some nineteen centuries at this point.             

Your position requires the scrupulous bit. You state it several times. It’s false. Most Jews aren’t observant at all. It has to be a National abidence that leads all the nations to recognize the One True G-d.

My statements generalize over nineteen centuries of history. I don't take much notice of liberalizing sects of Judaism, nor do I have any particular interest in liberalizing sects of Christianity or any other religion. Such things are, at the end of the day, merely a blip on the radar - and the demographics (birth rates and the like) reinforce this judgement.

I posted this earlier, from a rabbi who denies the “scrupulous” devotion your position requires, with catastrophic consequences. Not for the faint of heart. I only post it because I’m sick and tired of skeptics citing the Holocaust as evidence against G-d or Judaism. Has anyone ever read a Philosophy of Religion book that didn't?

On the contrary, I would cite the holocaust as evidence that He has not abandoned His people. If He wanted to abandon His people, He could have left them to the Nazis. Instead, He crushed their oppressors under the treads of Soviet tanks.

And yet the Dome of the Rock still stands astride Mount Zion. How are we to reconcile these two facts?
 

Dave wrote:

And why will all know Him? Because the new covenant is written on the hearts of the faithful. Christians interpret vs 34 in light of vs 33.

This sounds like an empirical statement, at least insofar as it should have observable consequences. All Christians should have the same basic new covenant written on their hearts, no? Wouldn’t this result in one systematic theology?

What is true knowledge of G-d? To have an airtight systematic philosophical theology? Or to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him?

But there are hundreds (thousands?) of different sects with radically different and often mutually exclusive positions. Feel the love between Calvinists and Catholics. (If you’re the latter, you’re predestined to eternal conscious torment cuz Romans 9). Is Pat Buchanan’s Jesus the same one worshiped south of the border, as MLK’s Jesus? These are pagan totems. All of them. The only thing Christians have in common is that each knows his version is true.

So, in your exegesis of Jeremiah 31 and its relationship to Christianity, you find it necessary to bring Catholics, Calvinists, paleoconservativism, and the Civil Rights movement into the picture?

Remember, our focus is on the notion of a new covenant, and whether or not such a notion can be supported. As much as I can, I've tried to zero in on the main line of evidence (the 1900 year long and ongoing absence of a temple) relevant to me, and have brought in other topics either out of convenience (if there had been no discussion of Jeremiah 31, I never would have brought it up), or as a response to your points.

Yes, some of my points refer to theologies I’ve entertained. That’s because it’s not possible to steel-man a single, coherent view. There isn’t one, never was, and the fragments are increasing. How would an independent observer to the 2K years of Christian history figure out which batch of doctrines is correct?

Same way you figure out which religion is true in the first place - grapple with the historical facts and wrangle what you can our of them. If you want something more concrete and detailed, N.T. Wright's work would be a good place to start.

Dave wrote:

[The “Old Testament” is] the story to which the Gospel is the climax, and without which the Gospel is unintelligible. …

With Christianity, we find a man who died the death of a slave lauded as lord and master by his followers, a man slaughtered by the Romans proclaimed to be the savior of Israel. Nowhere else in history do we find a religion so clearly swimming against the current.  

The trial of Jesus is not intelligible via anything in Jewish Law. If you can raise objections to the historicity of the Exodus based on absence of evidence, I can cite positive evidence the trial couldn’t have happened as described. It’s obvious propaganda. (“Let his blood be on us and our children”? I’m sure that really happened. Saw the same thing on Judge Judy, only the crowd spontaneously added an interpretive dance.)

1. Regarding the Exodus, I am not referring to an absence of evidence, but rather the positive evidence that Egypt was thriving during both of the most plausible dates for the occurrence of the Exodus - which is evidence that there was no massive crippling blow to the nation in either timeframe. Such arguments can, I think, be defeated, but there's a huge difference between having the ability to defeat arguments against your position, and having good reason to accept it in the first place.

2. It should also be noted that I have, as of yet, not presented any positive arguments for my own position - largely (as previously noted) because I think dealing with this particular objection - the one based on the alleged immutability of the Mosaic covenant - is a necessary precondition to making such a discussion profitable.

3. You present a post on the internet alleging that a unanimous verdict would be viewed with suspicion. Alrighty then. What source is given for this claim? When and where was that source written? Only when such questions are answered may its bearing on the Gospel narrative be evaluated.

4. But even supposing the Gospel depicts the Sanhedrin as grossly violating Jewish law, how is that evidence against the narrative? We know that courts can and do go crooked even when there are many checks and balances and ways to hold judges to account.

5. We also know that, if the narrative is correct, the stakes were quite high - Yeshua had made a disturbance in the temple, challenged the authority of the Priestly class and the temple officials, and gathered a considerable following. It was the middle of the Passover - a celebration of G-d's mighty hand and outstretched arm in freeing His people from their oppressors. It was an age of nationalism. If the people latched on to this upstart rabbi from Ha'Shem knows where, there could be a riot, and then the Roman reprisals would be merciless - especially with Pilate holding the Governorship. Everything would be so much simpler if the rabbi from Galilee were to just... disappear. It would have been easy for Caiaphas to deceive himself into thinking that the death of Yeshua would be for the "greater good." And if courts in general are capable of going crooked, courts headed by judges who think that cutting corners is the right thing to do are doubly so.

6. The fact that you think that the norms of discourse appropriate to a 21st century courtroom ought to be used as a guide to the reasonableness of a purported depiction of a first century (and somewhat less than entirely above the table) legal proceeding is quite revealing.

The OT “makes sense” of the NT?[1] The latter is some ghastly Frankenstein monster attacking the former.[2] Swimming against the current isn’t evidence against Judaism and Christianity isn’t unique in this regard. Buddhism didn’t swim against Hindu currents?[3] That was its point. Abraham’s monotheism against polytheism? The Mosaic Laws compared to the ways of the nations?[4]

1. That's my opinion, yes. However, as I stated (in a portion of my post that you failed to reproduce), it would be better to view both OT and NT as normal historical documents for the purposes of this discussion.

2. Your main evidence for that thesis appears to be the whole "immutability of the Mosaic covenant" thint - which thesis we really ought to be focusing on.

3. Not every new religion in dialogue with its surroundings swims against the current. Coming up with ideas contrary to those around you is easy. Doing so in such a way so as to retain them in a recognisable form even as they radically depart from their origins, and retaining them in the face of tremendous social pressure and frequent persecution, without having to cloister away in monasteries, run away to uninhabited regions, or strike back blood for blood? That's something a great deal more difficult, and something that (unless I'm badly mistaken) only Christianity has managed to pull off.

4. For what reason do you think that Abraham was a monotheist, and why do you think the Torah was handed down by Moses? I think that I can use the Pauline corpus to establish certain facts about the Early Church that will allow me to support traditional views regarding authorship of the Gospels, which lets me circumvent typical assumptions about the development of the Christian narrative. How do you circumvent the scholarly consensus regarding the origins of the Exodus narrative?
 

Dave wrote:

Look, either Israel has to obey commandment X, or they don't.

They’re obligated to observe laws they currently can’t because of the Exile.

How can there be an obligation to do the impossible?

They will in the Messianic era, which Jesus failed to initiate.

Yeshua didn't need to restore the temple because it was still standing in his day.

Dave wrote:

If they have to obey it, then the last forty-eight generations of Israelites are condemned

To what, Dante’s Inferno? Judaic eschatology eludes me. You mean they’re barred from the World to Come? Of all the elements of Judaism that are esoteric, the precise mechanics of the afterlife can’t be asserted with certainty. (It’s my understanding that atheists won’t be surprised when they die. They can still lead good, meaningful lives, the purpose of which is confined to this world.)   

I know no more of the afterlife than you do, but I was under the impression that "following the Torah" is the main determinant of an Israelite's fate in Judaic thought.

Dave wrote:

If they don't have to obey it, then the Torah has been changed. It's that simple.

No, it’s not. Your syllogism isn’t even a caricature. It’s not even true of local laws. Consider the following:

There is a law on the books in my city prohibiting open intoxicants in public. It’s flouted often. In some places (parks and the lake) it’s not even enforced. You don’t have to obey it. This doesn’t change its status as a law. Its lawfulness endures, unobserved and unenforced and unknown to many. It is not impossible that a future leader will recognize its wisdom and enforce it with great zeal. It’s even likely that one could encourage others to vote for him for this reason alone.

So the laws concerning the temple are still in effect, but won't be enforced at the Last Judgement? How is that any different from them being abrogated, functionally speaking?

Dave wrote:

Are you saying that the Torah will only be suspended until the Mashiach arrives?

I’m saying the Messianic Era will be a period in human history where Israel will anoint a King, restore the Temple, and follow the Torah. It will be a time of world peace. That snippet pasted on the wall at the UN about “beating swords into plowshares” implies this might happen if we just have enough council meetings. It will happen when the Messiah leads all the world to recognize the One True G-d. Anyone who doesn’t pull this off isn’t the Messiah. If I want to live to see this I'll probably need to quit smoking, and do that cryogenic stuff. 

That's nice, but how are the Jews supposed to obey the 244 commandments concerning the temple in the meantime? And if they aren't supposed to obey them, doesn't that mean that terms of the Mosaic covenant can at least be temporarily annulled?

Look, I hate to sound repetitive, but this is kind of my central point, and your answers, while perfectly intelligible in an appropriate context, aren't answers to my question.

Etzelnik wrote:

What I'm referring to is the way in which Christian orthodoxy - which purports to be based on the Jewish revelation - completely misunderstands its source material.
If Christianity simply presented itself as a religion for the gentiles, while continuing to affirm the laws of the Jews for the Jews, I would not have such a problem with it. I would still think it was false and possibly idolatrous, but it wouldn't bother me all that much. The fact, however, is that the most fundamental teaching of Christianity is that Jesus's life and death abrogated the old covenant.

​From what I understand of the origins of Christianity, its founders were Jews and it comes out of Jewish communities. This is incompatible with it being able to be a purely gentile religion. However over time, this is what it has basically become. Coming from a gentile perspective and being asked about what the most fundamental teaching of Christianity is, that Jesus' life and death abrogated the old covenant is not what comes to mind. I wasn't even clear on this point, somehow I have been assuming that the old covenant is still valid for Jews who don't convert.

   

​
 

Etzelnik wrote:

Deuteronomy is quite clear that even in the face of miracles, one is forbidden to follow a prophet into idolatry. So no, even if a miracle did occur and Jesus rose from the dead I would still not worship him as a deity - an error made all the more idolatrous by Catholicism's subsequent doctrine of the real presence in the host.

Etzelnik, on which of the two foundational Christian dogmas do you base your view of Christianity as idolatry? I.e., do you base that view...

- on the Trinity, i.e. the dogma of three consubstantial divine Persons, or

- on the Incarnation, i.e. the dogma that a divine Person assumed a human nature, or

- on the conjunction of both dogmas?

Note that these dogmas do not intrinsically imply each other. The possibility of a Trinity without Incarnation is straightforward, as the Incarnation was a free divine decision, in turn contingent on creation, which was also a free divine decision. Conversely, the Incarnation could hypothetically take place even if there were only one divine Person.

Just in case you care to know why I hold that neither of these dogmas implies idolatry:

- Trinity: because of the consubstantiality of the three divine Persons.

- Incarnation: because Jesus' created human nature is assumed by a divine Person. Stating it more precisely in a philosophical framework which holds the real distinction between essence and act of being or existence: because Jesus' human nature does not exist by its own contingent act of being but by the (one and only) Subsistent Act of Being that the Person of the Son Is.

 

119 wrote:

Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it.

The commandment is given to the people of Israel. Nobody, no human person of his own accord, may add or take away a commandment from the God-given Law. That does not prevent God from doing it.

119 wrote:

If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, “Let us follow and worship another god”—whom you have not experienced—

That is the point. Jesus did not entice his followers to worship another god. All divine operations ad extra - in contrast to the operations within the Godhead like e.g. the generation of the Son - are common to the three divine Persons, Who act inseparably as one efficient cause. This is a consequence of their consubstantiality: as the three divine Persons are inseparable, so do they act inseparably [1]. This is a dogma which applies to all divine acts ad extra, even though many of those acts are frequently attributed to one divine Person, as e.g. in the Creed the creation of the universe is attributed to God the Father and the Incarnation of the Word to the Holy Spirit.

Thus God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, acting inseparably as one efficient cause, created the universe, created Adam and Eve, and redeemed Israel from the house of bondage.

119 wrote:

Follow none but the L-RD your G-d, and revere none but Him; observe His commandments alone, and heed only His orders; worship none but Him, and hold fast to Him.

And Christians do just that. Per the consubstantiality of the divine Persons, Each of Them is Ehyeh, "I Am", in Himself, and per the unity of the divine operation ad extra, Each of Them is YHWH, "He causes to be", from the viewpoint of creatures.

[1] For those interested, there is a site wholly devoted to this subject:
https://operaadextra.wordpress.com/