- SapereAude
- Member
Offline 
- Registered: 3/23/2018
- Posts: 17
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
Hypatia wrote:
We can and should get to doubt, but vehement denial seems to be automatically off limits. As I said, there is no neutral position.
Frankly, that's pure academic. We are really concerned not with such theoretical questions but with our fate. There lies a spectrum of possibilities (e.g, God does exist, but there is no afterlife for us, we die once and forever) and I believe that rationalism covers only part of that spectrum. To put it bluntly, an irrationalist's chances are higher that those of a rationalist's. Rationally speaking, we must die forever, there is nothing in us worth eternity (and that would be the greatest irony of God's). So, I bet on irrationalism, that's where my hope rests. I'm waiting for the world to surprise me at the end.
I can find a cosmological argument rationally compelling while simultaneously holding that my reasons for accepting it may amount to nothing more than the cognitive structuring of my mind. Our minds are what they are. We can recognize their contingent nature but we can't step outside of them, so I would consider a qualified rationalist position to be better than a fullblown irrationalist one.
That's the right attitude. Study and enjoy everything you feel inclination to, but do not take anything too seriously. We are what we are and there is nowhere to run from ourselves. Let us be patient and have a good time and sometime we all are going to know the answer or, perhaps, the next mystery.
Every proposition of geometry is absolutely necessary, and in this way one talked about an object lying entirely outside the sphere of our understanding as if one understood quite well what one meant by this concept. The unconditioned necessity of judgments, however, is not an absolute necessity of things.
- Johannes
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/11/2015
- Posts: 240
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
I am certainly not as committed to the truths of Christianity as I was a couple years earlier. One thing I struggle with is whether or not I could propel myself back into the cosmic narrative of Christianity--something I find utterly sublime--without being convinced of the historical evidence of the resurrection of Christ. Would this be self-delusory, too fideistic?
Historical, rationally-assailable evidence was always required, starting with those hearing Jesus Christ preaching, as stated by Jesus Himself:
“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me. But if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (Jn 10:37-38)
The need of believing in the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus could not have been emphasized in stronger terms by the Apostle Paul:
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Also then those having fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (1 Cor 15:17-18)
Of course, most of us learn about Christ's miracles and resurrection, and then of subsequent miracles confirming those events, by way of witnesses, whose reliability should be assessed.
Notably, a case of a completely unwarranted negative assessment of witnesses' reliability is in the Gospel itself: the refusal of the Apostle Thomas to believe the testimony of the other Apostles concerning Jesus' resurrection (Jn 20:24-29). The event is most remarkable because those other Apostles were the people with whom Thomas had been living for the last two years, for all practical purposes his family, so he could not possibly think that they had conspired to lie to him. On the other hand, they were in a completely sound state of mind, with no signs of having dellusions or hallucinations. So the rational response to their testimony was to believe it.
Last edited by Johannes (4/02/2018 1:46 pm)
- Johannes
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/11/2015
- Posts: 240
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly, and more perfect than the Saviour; I say to myself with jealous love that not only is there no one else like Him, but that there could be no one.
I could not agree more.
I would even say more: If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I could not disagree more.
- Johannes
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/11/2015
- Posts: 240
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
I am convinced that Christianity better accords with the existence of God. It doesn't make sense to me that, provided God exists, he would've created us and never give us any special revelation whatsoever.
By itself, this does not prove that such divine revelation has already occurred in human history.
And the Christian narrative is (obviously) consistent with God revealing Himself to us, but more than that, it includes theidea that God would've made Himself human like us, to share life with us, share our suffering by our side, taking our pain and suffering and frustrations all upon Himself in both a heroic and a utterly compassionate manner. I find that, independently of historical evidence, this picture of God is a very plausible one. It is of course hard to speculate much about such an issue, but I think it is in accordance with what I would *expect* from God, given the state of our world. So I think the very idea of the Incarnation raises the probability of the Christian religion.
Likewise, I think the Christian trinitarian understanding of God's love is also very reasonable. And there is also the fact that Christianity preaches the resurrection of the flesh, which is precisely the sort of immortality humans would need the most, given hylemorphic dualism (which I am conviced of).
So I think Christianity has some objective, philosophical arguments in its favor, independent from the historical evidence.
Secondly, there isn't just the Resurrection of Christ. There is also the witness of many Christian saints, miracles and religious experiences. I don't think St Joan of Arc's life can be given a satisfactory natural explanation, esp. not given the background knowledge of theism. The extraordinary lives of people such as St. Gemma Galgani, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Padre Pio, and many others, significantly raises the probability of Christianity being true.
When I combine everything, I find Christianity to be very plausible.
My point is that, in that combination, historical evidence plays a key indispensable role. On the other hand, you are right in that miracles by Catholic saints are part of that historical evidence.
For Catholics, there is an authoritative magisterial text on this subject: the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius of the Ecumenical Council Vatican I:
However, in order that the "obedience" of our faith should be "consonant with reason" [cf. Rom 12:1], God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of a divine revelation, and are suited to the intelligence of all. Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but especially Christ the Lord Himself, produced many genuine miracles and prophecies; and we read concerning the apostles: "But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal and confirming the word with signs that followed" [Mk 16:20]. And again it is written: "And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place" [2 Pet 1:19].[...]
And, so that we may be able to satisfy the obligation of embracing the true faith, and of constantly persevering in it, God has instituted the Church through his only-begotten Son, and has bestowed on it manifest notes of that institution, that it may be recognized by all men as the guardian and teacher of the revealed Word; for to the Catholic Church alone belong all those many and admirable tokens which have been divinely established for the evident credibility of the Christian faith. What is more, the Church by itself, with its marvelous extension, its eminent holiness, and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good thing, with its Catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable witness of its own divine mission.
Notably, it seems that, lately, the visible head of the Church is intent on obscuring the note of "its Catholic unity and its invincible stability".
- Johannes
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/11/2015
- Posts: 240
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
And the Christian narrative is (obviously) consistent with God revealing Himself to us, but more than that, it includes theidea that God would've made Himself human like us, to share life with us, share our suffering by our side, taking our pain and suffering and frustrations all upon Himself in both a heroic and a utterly compassionate manner.
As a moral exemplar I might agree (if the metaphysics surrounding the incarnation are workable) - however Catholic Christianity normally wants to work the Incarnation into some idea relating to release from Original Sin, something which is not apparent.
Note that there is a significant line in Catholic theology holding that the Son would have become man even if men had not sinned. Of course, in that case the Incarnated Son would not have suffered and died.
The reason for an unconditional Incarnation is analogous to that for the Passion: just as the most excellent way for God to forgive men's sins was by his Son made man "becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), so the most excellent way for God to make men partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), specifically of the Person of the Son, even in the absence of sin, is by his Son becoming partaker of the human nature.
Note that the statement in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that the Son was incarnate "for us men and for our salvation" would still be valid if men had not sinned, understanding salvation in the positive sense of raising men to be partakers of the divine nature versus leaving them in a state of "natura pura".
This notion is clearly consistent with writings of Church Fathers [1], and even St. Thomas Aquinas, that explain the reason for the Incarnation without referring to the need of atonement, e.g. the statements quoted in this paragraph of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4): "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." [79] "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." [80] "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." [81]
[79] St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
[80] St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
[81] St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.
The notion is also consistent with Catholic liturgy referring to the Incarnation since very old times as an "admirabile commercium", "marvellous exchange", without reference to atonement, in the former first antiphon of Lauds of Christmas, current first antiphon of Vespers of Jan 1st, dated to the mid-fifth century, certainly earlier than 650 [2]:
«O admirabile commercium!
Creator generis humani, animatum corpus sumens,
de Virgine nasci dignatus est;
et, procedens homo sine semine,
largitus est nobis suam deitatem.»
«O wonderful exchange!
The Creator of the human race, assuming an animated body,
deigned to be born of the Virgin;
and, without [male] seed becoming man,
has lavished on us his divinity.»
[1] Fr. David Vincent Meconi, SJ, (2010). O Admirabile Commercium: The true Christmas exchange.
[2] Éamonn Ó Carragáin, Ritual and the Rood: Liturgical Images and the Old English Poems of the Dream of the Rood Tradition, University of Toronto Press, 2005, p. 288.
Last edited by Johannes (4/02/2018 3:54 pm)
- ficino
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 9/27/2017
- Posts: 188
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
As far as I know, the events of the Exodus did not occur as history. The Exodus story is a foundation myth. Rabbis have told me they agree with this.
That means that there was not in history a Mosaic covenant. That "covenant" is a later construct.
If no Mosaic covenant in history, no New Covenant in history.
There may be a Ground of Being out there, but I cannot see how religions that claim historical events in the Sinai Peninsula as part of their foundation can be true in any strong sense of "true."
- Johannes
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/11/2015
- Posts: 240
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
To believe that a national Revelation has been "fulfilled," annulled, or replaced, I'd need one of two things. 1) Substantially greater evidence (a world revelation?) or 2) An explicit statement in the original Revelation that this will occur. Christianity fails both.
I will deal with 1) in this post.
If you believe that the revelation at Mt. Sinai took place in front of 603,550 men "from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war," (Num 1:45-36) plus their women and children, sure the risen Jesus appearing to just "more than five hundred brothers at once" (1 Cor 15:6) would seem very little evidence indeed. Particularly when it's just Paul who mentions that apparition, whereas the Gospels and Acts talk only about apparitions to a few women, the Apostles, and a couple of other disciples. Notably, Christian biblical literalists, nowadays mostly Protestants though there are still a few such Catholics around, would have to agree with your assessment of evidence strength based on the number of witnesses claimed by the written record.
Of course, the picture changes dramatically once the assessment of evidence strength focuses on quality instead of internally-claimed quantity. The reasons are well-known:
- a column of 2 million people arranged in rows of 10 separated by 1 m would be 200 km long, so that while the first were arriving at Mt. Sinai, the last are still crossing the Read Sea.
- No Egyptian record of plagues or of an exodus of 2 million people.
- In 1447 BC (967 + 480 = 1447) there was still no alphabet, Hebrew or otherwise, since the Proto-Canaanite alphabet (early Phoenician script) is conjectured to have appeared around 1300 BC. Anything written at that time had to be in the Proto-Sinaitic script.
To note, this Exodus date supports the vocalization of the Name revealed in Ex 3:15 as "Yahweh", the hifil stem, third person, singular, imperfect form of "hwh", an earlier variant of the root "hyh", "to be", meaning "He causes to be". In this case, while the Name of Ex 3:14 denotes God as He is in Himself, the Name in Ex 3:15 denotes God as viewed by creatures: He who causes them to be, the Creator. A frequent objection to this vocalization is that the hifil stem of "hwh" does not occur anywhere in Hebrew, only in Aramaic, but if Exodus occurred around 1447 BC, then the Name was revealed to Moses at a time when Aramaic and Hebrew had not yet become differentiated.
This Exodus date is also consistent with the reference to "the land of the Shasu of Yhw" in the temple at Soleb, Nubia (Sudan), built by Amenhotep III (1391–1353 BC). Most probably, the event involved a much smaller number of people, probably only Levites [1], and what their leader wrote at that time was a very small part of the Pentateuch.
All this does not mean the narrative of the Pentateuch does not have reality for Christians: it has spiritual reality (1 Cor 10:6,11), irrespective of its degree of historicity. It means, though, that the strength of the Pentateuch as historical evidence for the Jewish faith is far weaker than the strength of the NT as historical evidence for the Christian faith. Because Jesus' ministry was in 28-30 AD and the events in the Acts of the Apostles were in 30-62 AD, and by that time the whole Mediterranean basin, particularly the Eastern Greek-speaking half, had become one economically, politically and culturally united greco-roman world, accross which the movement of goods, people, writings and ideas was quite fluid.
Thus, while the first reference to Israel was the Merneptah Stele (1213-1203 BC) inscription that "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not", where the "foreign people" sign, typically used by the Egyptians to signify nomadic groups or peoples without a fixed city-state home, implied a seminomadic or rural status for 'Israel' at that time, [2] (i.e. 150 years after the reference to "the land of the Shasu of Yhw"), Roman officers and Judean kings mentioned in the Gospels and in Acts are well attested by external sources, as is the spreading of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the I century AD, as:
1. Historians Tacitus and Suetonius, writing in around 116 and 122 respectively, record that there were Christians in Rome in 64. These records could hardly have been forged by Christians:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." (Tacitus, Annals) [3]
"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." (Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars) [4]
2. St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107 writes letters to several Christian churches on his way to martyrdorm in Rome, quoting the NT, stating clearly the divinity of Christ (Ephesians), his physical Resurrection and that the Eucharist was his flesh (Smyrneans), and that we should be "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day" (Magnesians), witnessing episcopal ecclesial hierarchy (all the letters) and longing for martyrdom (Romans). [5]
3. Pliny the Younger, then governor of Bithynia et Pontus (present Northern Turkey), writes to emperor Trajan on Christians around 112 [6], saying that "the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms" [7].
So, it would have been a real feat that this fastly-spreading "mischievous superstition", whose holders were willing to die rather than renounce it, was begun by some uneducated Galilean fishermen (Acts 4:13), later joined by a driven-insane-by-excessive-learning (Acts 26:24) rabbinical student, making up a wonderful story on the real life and death, and concocted miracles and resurrection, of a charismatic Galilean itinerant preacher-healer. Notably, a story in which the supposed authors consistently play an extremely poor role.
Comparing this with the evidence strength of the Pentateuchal text, whose final redactor was Ezra some 1000 years after the Exodus, the case is clear. Except for the Levites, the degree of historicity of a massive Israelite Exodus and conquest of Palestine is like that of a Dorian Invasion of Greece: near zero. A little migration from the outside and a lot of change inside explain facts. This does not imply that the Pentateuch was not divinely inspired, only that the degree of historicity of the narrated events is generally low (zero in the case of a universal flood). Which does not detract from the spiritual reality of those events, just as the lack of historicity of the events in Jesus' parables does not detract from their spiritual reality.
As for the evidence for the (lack of) existence of an "Oral Law" transmitted since Sinai, the Karaites have already dealt very well with that.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Last edited by Johannes (4/02/2018 11:46 pm)
- 119
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 10/27/2017
- Posts: 97
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
The Exodus story is a foundation myth. Rabbis have told me they agree with this.
It's the position of Orthodox Judaism that the Source of Reality, the uncaused cause we invariably discover via the Cosmological arguments, dictated the 304,805 Hebrew consonants of the Torah to the Prophet Moses. This is one of the 13 Principles. It was not Divinely inspired or canonized. It was written by G-d Himself 974 generations before the Creation in “words of black fire written on parchment of white fire” (according to a mystical tradition). The Prophets and Writings were canonized by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. It's my understanding that they're only in the Bible until Moshiach comes. Then, only the Torah and the Scroll of Esther will remain in the Liturgy.
This is a great sketch of Classical Theism in Judaism.
All this does not mean the narrative of the Pentateuch does not have reality for Christians: it has spiritual reality (1 Cor 10:6,11)
Define "spiritual reality." Sounds New Agey. Calling Oprah. What ontological status did the Torah have for Jesus? Was he a rabbi of a religion that did not represent the Will of A-mighty G-d or not?
Quoting the new testament at someone who doesn't accept its status as a Divine Revelation is called affirmation of the consequent. You don't accept this pattern of argument from muslims, mormons, or scientologists. Why should I? Our point of contention is the Divinity of the NT. I deny that it or the koran have any authority whatsoever to interpret the Torah or "fulfill" it (whatever that means). Using its Divinity as a premise is not terribly persuasive.
Tacitus and Suetonius ... Pliny the Younger
I don't recall denying that Jesus existed and had passionate followers. And none of those historians mention the mass resurrection described in Matthew 27:52-54. This would have been the single most astounding event in the history of our species and only one faithful reporter pulls a Woodward & Bernstein on it. If you're citing the logistical issues in the Book of Numbers as evidence against its truth you need to be consistent. If the NT contains whoppers of this magnitude, which were widely believed and passed down despite being obviously false, why should I trust its lesser claims?
Where in the Hebrew Bible does it say the Messiah won't be crowned King of Israel, won't gather the exiles, won't lead the nations to recognize the One True G-d in a time of world peace, but will be executed and rise from the dead? Where does the Torah say the Children of Israel will be disinherited in favor of some "predestined elect" who have bathed in the atoning blood of a human sacrifice? I don't see this in Deut. 30 or the Prophet Hosea:
"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)
As for the evidence for the (lack of) existence of an "Oral Law" transmitted since Sinai, the Karaites have already dealt very well with that.
All three of them. Appeal to authority that's not an authority. The little fallacy that couldn't. This has the identical logical structure and force: "As for evidence of Catholicism, Luther & Calvin have already dealt very well with that! So there."
Christians have issues with an oral tradition in Judaism, but their Gospels came from where? What did the pot say to the kettle. And most of the NT is written by a man who's authority is based on a dream.
No Egyptian record of plagues or of an exodus of 2 million people.
I would have expected statues dedicated to the slaves that clobbered them, just like those beautiful monuments in Dresden to the RAF and USAAF.
Last edited by 119 (4/03/2018 1:28 am)
- Johannes
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/11/2015
- Posts: 240
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
To believe that a national Revelation has been "fulfilled," annulled, or replaced, I'd need one of two things. 1) Substantially greater evidence (a world revelation?) or 2) An explicit statement in the original Revelation that this will occur. Christianity fails both.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer 31:31-34)
Here's a quick rundown of problems with 2:
I will review the problems one by one, but first a couple of general points.
First, all those "everlasting" and "eternal" qualifications are from Israel's viewpoint. As far as Israel is concerned, the statutes are eternal, but as far as God is concerned, He can change or abrogate them.
Hovever, since the case is not of a mere abrogation but of a fulfillment at a higher and deeper level, in that sense the statutes are, indeed, eternal.
And I will establish My covenant between Me and between you and between your seed after you THROUGHOUT their generations as an EVERLASTING COVENANT. (Genesis 17:7)
The covenant with Abraham subsists in Christianity, but Abraham's seed above does not refer to his carnal seed but to his spiritual seed, to all those who believe God's word as Abraham did, which means Christians.
And [Passover] shall be for you as a memorial, and you shall celebrate it as a festival for the L-rd; THROUGHOUT your generations, you shall celebrate it as an EVERLASTING STATUTE. (Exodus 12:14)
[Yom Kippur] is a Sabbath of rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves. It is an ETERNAL STATUTE. (Lev. 16:31)
Both the Passover and Yom Kippur were figures of Jesus Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection for the atonement of sins. They subsist by being assumed in Christ's Sacrifice.
Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath THROUGHOUT their generations as an EVERLASTING COVENANT. Between Me and the children of Israel, it is FOREVER a sign that [in] six days The L-rd created the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and rested. (Exodus 31:16-17)
(It's on Saturday, btw, and it's "Between Me and the children of Israel ... FOREVER.")
The reason for Christians' observing the Lord's day instead of the Sabbath is clearly seen from both accounts of the Sabbath commandment:
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Ex 20:8-11, NASB).
The Sabbath was memorial of the first creation, the Lord's day is memorial of the new creation, started in Christ's resurrection.
‘Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day. (Deut 5:12-15, NASB)
The Sabbath was memorial of the liberation of Israel from the slavery of Egypt, the Lord's day is memorial of the liberation of Christians from the slavery of sin, confirmed by Christ's resurrection.
Additionally, the replacement is logical when viewed in the extended framework of the days of creation in Gen ch. 1. Let us first note that:
- In the Hebrew timekeeping scheme, the day starts at sunset. That's why the text says at the end of each day: "And there was evening and there was morning, [nth] day."
- The previous formula is not said of the 7th day, which implies that the 7th day was still going on at the time when the book of Genesis was written.
I posit that the timeframe of Gen ch. 1 continued thusly:
- Nightfall of the 7th day: the sin of Adam and Eve.
- Nocturnal part of the 7th day: all of human history up to the coming of Jesus.
- Sunrise of the 7th day: the coming of Jesus, "the Sunrise from on high" (Lk 1:78).
- Diurnal part of the 7th day: the life of Jesus on Earth up to his Passion (*).
- Nightfall of the new 1st day: the Passion and Death of Jesus.
- Nocturnal part of the new 1st day: the time during which Jesus was dead.
- Sunrise of the new 1st day: the Resurrection of Jesus, which occurred precisely just before sunrise of the 1st day of the week.
- Diurnal part of the new 1st day: the time of the Church up to the Second Coming of Jesus.
In this theological timeframe:
- given that Israelites were living during the 7th day, it was logical that they sanctified the 7th day of the week.
- given that Christians are living during the new 1st day, as we "have been raised with Christ" (Col 3:1), it is logical that we sanctify the 1st day of the week.
Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the L-rd your G-d which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:1)
There's an entire chapter devoted to miracle-workers. Deut. 13 says they're a test if they try to lead you from the G-d of your forefathers, who wasn't a trinity (Deut. 6:4).
First of all, the commandment in Deut 4:1 and 13:1 to "neither add to it nor take away from it" is addressed to the people of Israel, and forbids them to do so on their own initiative. It does not preclude YHWH Himself from doing it.
Thus, Deut 13:5-6 does not forbid Israel to accept a change in the Law given at Sinai if, and only if, that change comes in fact from YHWH Himself. This is clear if we interpret the command in Deut 13:5 as meaning exactly what it says:
"Follow none but YHWH your God": wherever He leads you, at any time, provided that it is He Who is leading you.
"observe his commandments alone": whatever commandments He gives you, whenever He speaks to you, not just the commandments He gave at Sinai. He, and only He, can add a commandment, e.g. because you were not ready to observe it in the past (such as the prohibition of divorce and remarriage), and take away another, e.g. because you no longer need to observe it (such as the food regulations).
"heed only his orders": as He spoke at Sinai through Moses, and as He will speak in the future through the promised "prophet like him" (Deut 18:15-19). Moreover, if that future prophet will be "like Moses", it is just to be expected that God will speak through him the same kind of words He spoke through Moses. i.e. give commandments, even if that prophet is a mere man like Moses (let alone if that prophet is a divine Person Himself).
Thus, while 13:5 indeed implies the equivalence between worshipping other gods and not keeping YHWH’s commandments, it does not imply a permanently fixed status of those commandments with respect to potential future divine revelation, i.e. it does not imply that YHWH Himself - and only He - cannot add to, change or substract from the commandments He gave at Sinai.
Moving to 13:6, "the path that YHWH your God commanded you to follow" refers just to what was stated in the previous verse.
Thus, from a plain reading of Deut 13:5-6 it cannot be inferred that a state of "epistemic insulation", excluding the possibility of acknowledging further divine interventions and revelation, had been divinely mandated to Israel, much less if the passage is read in conjunction with Deut 18:15-22. Moreover, the latter passage implies that Israel was in a state of "epistemic openness" (clearly not indiscriminate but with very stringent requirements to ascertain that the future prophet is speaking in the name of the LORD and, moreover, speaking only the words that the LORD has commanded him to speak.)
Moving from the subject of commandments to the more important subject of the Trinity, the fact that God revealed Himself as only one Person in the Old Testament does not preclude His later revealing that He eternally generates a consubstantial Son and spirates a consubstantial Holy Spirit, where the key word for the consistency of that further revelation with the Shema is "consubstantial", meaning that the Son is all that God the Father is in a numerical identity sense, except for being the Father.
To note, this consistency of trinitarian doctrine with the Shema is apparent even at the linguistic level, because Jesus' foremost statement of his consubstantiality with the Father, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30), was, if spoken in Hebrew, "Ani veha'av echad", ending with "echad" as the Shema. Jesus' utterance of that statement in Hebrew was plausible because He was speaking to an audience of Pharisees in Jerusalem, who were versed in the Scriptures and could understand Hebrew. Along that line, Paul addressed in Hebrew an audience of Pharisees some 28 years later (Acts 22:1-2).
So, Jesus was not trying to lead Israel from the God of their forefathers, because that God was his Father (Jn 8:54).
There is only one reference in the Torah to the son of G-d. Exodus 4:22 says it's Israel.
A new revelation is just that, new. Not everything must be prefigured in the Old Testament. But the eternal generation of the Son of God is in fact prefigured in the Old Testament, in Proverbs 8:22-31.
There's one reference to G-d being a man. Numbers 23:19 says He isn't.
Christians do not believe that God is a man, but that a divine Person, Who Is eternally God, assumed a (created by Him) human nature. There is no mixture between the divine nature and the assumed human nature. Each nature retains its own properties. The assumption can occur because the divine nature is the Subsistent Act of Being. Thus, a divine Person assuming a created nature means that the created nature in question, from the moment of its creation, exists by the Subsistent Act of Being that the assuming divine Person Is.
Note that only a divine Person can assume a created nature, because only the divine Essence is an Act of Being. The contingent act of being of a contingent entity is bound to the corresponding contingent essence, and cannot assume another essence, either of the same or of a different species.
Out of 613 Commandments, not one says anything about accepting (much less worshipping) the Messiah.
Christians do not worship the Messiah as such, they worship the consubstantial Son of God Who has assumed a human nature and Who, in that character, happens to be the Messiah promised in the Scriptures. To note, a significant number of Christians hold that the Son of God would have incarnated even if men had not sinned. Since in that case there would probably not have been a Messianic promise to fulfill, the incarnated Son of God would have been worshipped without Him being Messiah.
When he comes it will be obvious.
What is obvious are the nefarious consequences of ironclad assumptions about what a Messiah must do and, even worse, about how he must do it, because the people holding those assumptions will reject a Messiah claimant who does not fulfill them even if he unequivocally shows the divine seal of approval by performing a miracle that strictly requires direct divine intervention, like resurrecting a man. Moreover, the effect of that miracle will be to prompt those people to decide to kill both the Messiah claimant (Jn 11:45-53) and the resurrected dead man (Jn 12:9-11), thus fulfilling Jesus' prophesy that 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' (Lk 16:31).
Why do I single out the resurrection of a man? Because bringing a dead man back to human life, not just biological life, requires to infuse the resurrected body with a spiritual soul. Otherwise the result of the resurrection would not be a human being with intellectual capabilities but the metaphysical, cognitive and behavioral equivalent of the hominid species previous to biblical Adam. And infusing a spiritual soul to a human body is a work that can be performed only by God, who is also the only One who:
- can create a soul out of nothing, a point relevant in the case of the conception of a new human being, and
- has in his hands the souls of the departed, a point relevant in the case of a resurrection.
Thus, the resurrection of a human being is a work necessarily performed directly by God, who by that work would be unequivocally certifying in the eyes of the witnesses that the servant through whose intervention God is performing that work has God's "seal of approval", like the prophet Elisha (2 Ki 4:32-35), Jesus (Lk 7:11-17; Lk 8:49-56; Jn 11:38-44), and the apostle Peter (Acts 9:36-42). Thus, if Jesus, by performing resurrections, shows to have God's seal of approval, then what he said was true. Therefore if Jesus claimed divinity, He is God.
Clearly the maximum "seal of approval" that God can confer to a servant of His, as Christians believe He did to his Servant par excellence, Jesus, is to resurrect him to a glorious state. So, if God raised Jesus from the dead, He certified that everything that Jesus said and did had his seal of approval.
All the threats are for deviating from the Torah.
All the threats are for deviating from "the path that YHWH your God commanded you to follow". If you want to prohibit God from showing you a better version of his path when the right time comes, it is you who have a problem.
Parashat Ki Tisa tells us why the Jews remain G-d's chosen people. It's not a function of their moral perfection; it's about the Honor of HaShem.
It is by Jesus and in Jesus that the Name of God was perfectly glorified (Jn 12:27-28), and it is by confessing that Jesus is YHWH that human beings can glorify the name of God (Phil 2:11).
- Johannes
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/11/2015
- Posts: 240
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
All this does not mean the narrative of the Pentateuch does not have reality for Christians: it has spiritual reality (1 Cor 10:6,11)
Define "spiritual reality."
I already did. E.g. Jesus' parables have spiritual reality for Christians but clearly not historical reality.
Quoting the new testament at someone who doesn't accept its status as a Divine Revelation is called affirmation of the consequent. You don't accept this pattern of argument from muslims, mormons, or scientologists. Why should I? Our point of contention is the Divinity of the NT. I deny that it or the koran have any authority whatsoever to interpret the Torah or "fulfill" it (whatever that means). Using its Divinity as a premise is not terribly persuasive.
Whenever I quoted the NT, I did it to state my beliefs, not to convince you of the truth of my beliefs. If that was not already clear, we have a communication problem here.
Besides, "divinity" applies to Jesus, while "divine inspiration" applies to the NT.
Tacitus and Suetonius ... Pliny the Younger
I don't recall denying that Jesus existed and had passionate followers. And none of those historians mention the mass resurrection described in Matthew 27:52-54. This would have been the single most astounding event in the history of our species and only one faithful reporter pulls a Woodward & Bernstein on it. If you're citing the logistical issues in the Book of Numbers as evidence against its truth you need to be consistent. If the NT contains whoppers of this magnitude, which were widely believed and passed down despite being obviously false, why should I trust its lesser claims?
There is a plausible interpretation of Matthew 27:52-54 that poses no problem regarding its historicity: the "saints" raised in Mt 27:52 were precisely the children murdered in Mt 2:16, so that Jesus, on the occasion and as a fruit of his death, undid the specific works of the devil done by Herod on the occasion of his birth. This hypothesis:
a. explains the term "the Holy City" in Mt 27:53, which, if understood as referring to physical Jerusalem, carries a strong cognitive dissonance. Would precisely Matthew, who a few lines before had narrated that "All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”" (Mt 27:25), refer to Jerusalem as "the Holy City"? It is far more plausible that Matthew is referring here to the New Jerusalem, the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church: the raised saints appeared, or better said manifested, disclosed, revealed themselves as such (*), to members of the Church.
b. explains the total absence of social impact in Jerusalem out of that resurrection of "many" (around 20 in this hypothesis) saints, since given that they had died 35 years ago while being less than 2 years old, and that they had been raised as adults, any inhabitant of Jerusalem that crossed ways with one of them would have no idea at all of whom he was, even less of the fact that he had been raised from the dead, and would simply take him as just another Jew that had come from far away to Jerusalem for the Passover. Only those members of the Church to whom these raised saints manifested, disclosed, revealed themselves as such (*) could come to know what had really happened.
(*) The word in Mt 27:53 usually translated as "appeared" is enephanisthēsan, 3rd person plural of the aorist indicative passive tense of the verb emphanizō, which appears 10 times in the NT, with the following meanings in the other passages:
Jn 14:21-22: manifest, disclose, reveal (oneself)
Act 23:15: give notice, make a report, notify
Act 23:22: report, notify
Act 24:1; 25:2; 25:15: present (a case against X), inform (Y about X)
Heb 9:24: appear
Heb 11:14: make manifest, make it clear
From these occurrences, it is clear that the expression in Mt 27:53 can be plausibly understood as meaning that the raised saints manifested, disclosed, revealed themselves (as such) to many, that they notified many about their resurrection.
It is also clear that these "many" to whom the raised saints manfested themselves were exclusively members of the initial community of disciples of Jesus, because they were the only ones who could believe their testimony. Just think of the reaction of an inhabitant of Jerusalem in 30 AD (or of any other place in any other time) if a stranger approaches him saying: "Hi, I was dead for 35 years and have just been raised from the dead. Would you be so kind as to provide me with lodging and food for a while?"
BTW, you have brought up this issue with exactly the right person:
Where in the Hebrew Bible does it say the Messiah won't be crowned King of Israel, won't gather the exiles, won't lead the nations to recognize the One True G-d in a time of world peace, but will be executed and rise from the dead? Where does the Torah say the Children of Israel will be disinherited in favor of some "predestined elect" who have bathed in the atoning blood of a human sacrifice? I don't see this in Deut. 30 or the Prophet Hosea:
"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)
You conveniently disregard Isaiah ch. 53 and Zechariah 12:10-13:1.
Besides, the Messiah was crowned, the exiles were offered to be gathered (St. Paul always preached first to them, then to Gentiles), the Church slowly leads the nations to recognize the true God in spiritual peace, and the doors of the New Alliance were, are and will always be open for the Children of Israel to enter it.
As for the evidence for the (lack of) existence of an "Oral Law" transmitted since Sinai, the Karaites have already dealt very well with that.
All three of them. Appeal to authority that's not an authority. The little fallacy that couldn't. This has the identical logical structure and force: "As for evidence of Catholicism, Luther & Calvin have already dealt very well with that! So there."
No appeal to authority here, just an economy of energy. Like saying: "I agree with these guys' argument on this subject, so I will not repeat it here."
BTW, another instance of a communication problem.
Christians have issues with an oral tradition in Judaism, but their Gospels came from where? What did the pot say to the kettle. And most of the NT is written by a man who's authority is based on a dream.
We do not have a problem with oral tradition per se, we just deny that Rabbinic Oral Law is anything more than human traditions. It is evident to anyone by reasoning from historical and scriptural (OT) facts, which is the argument correctly stated by Karaites. For Christians, additionaly, it was positively stated by Jesus (Mk 7:5-13).
BTW, while that refers to doctrinal or moral oral traditions, there are two very important pieces of historical oral tradition:
The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually.
Why is this important? Because 40 years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple was 30 AD, the year of Jesus' Crucifixion. Thus, the Rabbis themselves attested that the sacrifice of Yom Kippur was no longer accepted by God after his Son had performed the true Atonement.
MISHNA: The Yom Kippur service continues: The High Priest comes over to the scapegoat, places both his hands upon it, and confesses. And he would say as follows: Please, God, Your people, the house of Israel, have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You. Please, God, grant atonement, please, for the sins, and for the wrongs, and for the rebellions that they have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You, Your people, the house of Israel, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Your servant, saying: “For on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; before the Lord you shall be purified” (Leviticus 16:30).
And the priests and the people standing in the Temple courtyard, when they would hear the Explicit Name emerging from the mouth of the High Priest, when the High Priest did not use one of the substitute names for God, they would kneel and prostrate themselves and fall on their faces, and say: Blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever.
Why is that important? Because the prostration of the people on hearing the High Priest pronounce the name of God in the third person revealed in Ex 3:15 for the first time corresponds to the fall to the ground of the party that had come to arrest Jesus when He said to them "I Am" for the first time (Jn 18:4-6). Which shows that Jesus, as the true High Priest of the true Atonement, pronounced the Name of God only the three times related to the sins of the people (the third time is Mk 14:62), and as God, pronounced the Name of God in the first person revealed in Ex 3:14.
Needless to say, I did not write the last quote and explanation in order to convince you of the truth of Christianity, since it can be argued that all the Gospel passage shows is that the Apostle John, being probably of priestly family himself (Jn 18:15-16) and thus acquainted with the rite of Yom Kippur, wrote the narrative of Jesus' arrest to make it reflect that rite in his high-Christology theological framework. That is, the narrative does not prove the truth of the narrated event. Rather, I wrote the Talmud quote and subsequent explanation for the Christian readers of this forum who already believe in the truth of the Gospel narrative.
Last edited by Johannes (4/03/2018 4:10 am)