skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I have the hardest time believing that the creator of the entire cosmos put on a 'meat suit' to masquerade as a human for thirty something years just so this deity could undergo some form of blood ritual sacrifice so that the other 2/3 of his triune self could then feel good about forgiving humans for not living up to an impossible standard of perfection. Further, this deity's forgiveness is contingent upon believing in revelations and miracles that only happened in the ancient past. Any god that will only reveal "himself" in the ancient past should not be surprised nor upset that large numbers of people don't believe in him today. - Walter
36 comments:
Sounds ridiculous and outlandish but it's still possible. I don't think an argument from incredulity is going to convince many Christians.
Who's Walter? I like him :)
Brian, maybe Walter will show up here.
Confidential, who says this quote is meant to convince many Christians? It might help convince someone on the fence and that's good enough. And even if not it helps confirm what we've come to think.
Nobody said that this quote was designed to convince many Christians. I just think that we atheists accuse Christians, and rightfully so, of making the same kind of arguments from incredulity in regards to the topic of science all the time, so we should be ready for criticism in return for doing similar things. I hear this line of reasoning often and it's appealing but it's still a fallacy if you're trying to make a logical argument against the Christian god. Either way, I suppose it's still a good thing if it leads people to truth and sets them free as you suggest.
But, I do completely concur that the whole idea of a god feeling it necessary to present himself as a man to be brutally tortured and killed to himself, so that we may come back into relationship with him, is extremely bizarre to say the least--particularly when looking at it from a 21st century perspective! When I was a Christian, I never really thought of it as being bizarre because it was just what I was taught from near infancy. Anyway, I'm probably just being a nitpicky bastard today. Sorry! I love your work John!!
Thanks Confidential!
Sounds ridiculous and outlandish but it's still possible. I don't think an argument from incredulity is going to convince many Christians.
It won't have the slightest effect on an entrenched believer. These comments roll off the pious like water off a duck's back. That particular comment was from a conversation I was having with a nice Catholic fellow over on Vic Reppert's blog.
My own deconversion began after I started contemplating both the morality of Yahweh's actions in the Old Testament and the morality of a never-ending hell of conscious torment that everyone on the planet "deserves" because we cannot live up to an impossible standard of perfection. After realizing the the morality of Yahweh did not line up with my own, I began to think of just how bizarre the Christian story sounds to someone looking at it from an outsider's perspective. From there I began to read books on historical criticism of the bible which convinced me that the "Good Book" wasn't exactly what the fundagelicals were claiming it to be.
It took quite awhile before I could bring myself to read books written by actual atheists because I had been indoctrinated in my youth to shun atheists, as they were considered to be the spawn of Satan and lower than Islamic terrorists. Anyhow, John's book, "Why I rejected Christianity" is one of the first books that I had ever read from the "other side". I try to read the best arguments from both sides of the fence.
I think it is a bit nit picky to say these argument won't convince any believer. You cannot convince an entrenched believer with the most well thought out argument against their belief. There are many Christians who refuse to accept a logical explanation for not believing in their God.
Postively eerie how similar our initially reasons for leaving the fold are. I, too, was most unsatisfied with the way god treated his beloved creatures in the O.T.. And, I later began to get a nasty taste in my mouth when I thought about hell. Then, I started looking at evolution and saw that it wasn't the big, ugly lie that most Biblical literalists would like to believe.
I read Bart Ehrman recently, among others, and see that there are some contradictory issues which Christians prefer to either skirt around or try to come up with a number of alternative possibilities to smooth things over. Only within the last year have I began to read the likes of Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Desmond Morris etc.. Science used to be of little interest to me.
As a believer in “the creator of the entire cosmos put on a 'meat suit,'” I somehow enjoy the cathartic scorn atheists express for Christianity. Most of you are right in that no logical argument at this point in my faith will dissuade me from belief in “this deity's forgiveness.” But, I still enjoy reading your arguments and am always impressed at your ability to turn a phrase and the sheer tenacity in thinking and writing. I often wonder if we had a beer together on regular basis how I would respond to your thoughts. Probably not well.
What I wonder about lately is how I should I apply the different types of knowledge or experiences in understanding the world and saying, “this is what I believe.”
Take the love and knowledge for my wife and children or friends, this seems to me a different sort of knowledge than what I learned in my B.S. Chemistry (sorry to say I was an average student) which also seems different than what I can know about events taking place in the world or about historical events.
Any thoughts about different ways of “knowing.”
The god of Israel does not require impossible perfection and neither does the god of the Roman Empire or Islamic Empire. Quite the contrary. The god of Israel requires that Israelis be zealot guardians of the land of Israel. And that's basically it, with variation on a theme.
The god of the Roman Empire and Islamic Empire are different in that they require that Christians and Muslims expand their empire.
It's very obvious that ALL organized religions are a racket that only benefit a parasitic elite wishing to centralize power and wealth. For someone that is not a member of this parasitic elite, I cant see how such a power arrangement is of benefit. Anyone serving a parasitic elite (the government mafia) by contributing labor blood and treasure for their centralizing and thieving enterprises, really needs to have their head examined. They are throughly propagandized against their better interest.
Empires are not sustainable. And even the imperialist population eventually gives up the imperialist enterprise. By design you will always end up with the short end of the stick. Mass taxation, mass psychological and economic depression, misery and collapse, is the only outcome of centralization and empire. That's just historical fact.
I'm not sure if the phrase "meatsuit" is intended in the manner of Docetism or Nestorianism, but either way, it's definitely heretical.
@ David
If you're interested in knowing the truth than there are four varieties that I want to suggest.
1)Rhetorical- proponents and opponents seek to convince a given group that their opinions are the truth.
2) Mystical- This is based on faith alone and rules regarding truth based on rhetorical, logical and empirical evidence do not apply.
3) Empirical- where events involving nature and history are meticulously researched and findings carefully documented-SCIENCE.
4) Logical- This is the study of reason and areas like mathematics.
Otherwise, not sure what you're really asking here.
As a trial lawyer I find a particular value in this type of argument, so effectively used by Walter. The strategy can simply be seen as one whereby a highlighting of the absurd consequences of a "fact" shows up the improbability of such "fact". Once one has cast doubt on such assumed probability, then other strategies can be employed.
“All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability”-David Hume
What's more likely, that any of this really happened or that it's all a bunch of myths based on oral tradition? There's no evidence to suggest that any of these extraordinary events happened around the life of Jesus. No one contemporaneous to the man wrote about these miracles he supposedly performed. Feeding five thousand people at one time with five loaves of bread and two fish, or whatever the hell it supposedly was, ought to be recorded by someone present and privy to the matter. There's no historical forensice evidence to shed any light on the matter either. Seems highly improbable to me.
David,
For me, the subject is far too serious to really enjoy reading the atheist' "take" on it...because of the reality of eternal separation of God's glory as well as the problem of communication (with respect to hyper technicalities verses inexactisms)in an imperfect langauge where clarifications (ad nauseum)are sine qua non.
God's Plan is inclusive of human choices which He together acts with - and explaining this concept in an imperfect language (which doesn't address infinite determiners)is problematic - because of His Atemporal Existence as well as His state of ordination beyond the limitations of a progessive consecutive linear timeline. (NOT "outside of time," however)
Just look at the reductio presentation of a Holy Creator becoming a "Man" as somehow being tantamount to putting on a meat suit. It is evasive not only to the spiritual resurrected body which Jesus now has, but it is also failing to address human consciousness as well as the implications of hypostatic union.
Then look also at the presentation of "blood ritual sacrifice" as though God is not giving Himself as an atonement of infinite quality to pay for eternal sins (yes, it is the nature of all sins to be ETERNAL - question everything!).
The fact that large numbers of people reject the Holy Savior only testifies to the nature and condition of humankind and its relationship toward a Holy God.
There is no risk in believing in the true God (the Abrahamic God - Islam's hell comes from the same source). There is infinite/eternal risk in NOT believing in the truth.
The reality is that the most ironic things in life are so often true....why should the next (eternal) life be any different.
God isn't surpised that large numbers of people refuse to believe that Jesus is Way the Truth and the Life...that is why the scriptures teach us that the way to heaven/eternal life is narrow and few find it (Matthew 7:14). It demonstrates INCREDIBLE Grace to those few who DO find it.
Question everything...there are answers to your objections to this.
Breckmin
Thanks for the gentle admonishment. You are right that what Walter says is caricature of Christianity. Do you really think his statement requires a point-by-point rebuttal? I enjoy his statement because Walter is a man like me (maybe a little smarter) who put his frustration with Christianity and Christians into some interesting words. It’s a picture image of someone who (not knowing Walter) probably feels ripped-off by the faith. Some of the Christian poets (Dante, Donne, Milton) also drew word pictures meant only to put images and emotions in the mind as their best attempt to describe God’s reality. I guess I have a weakness for any interesting emotional expression.
In my brief dealing with mathematics I enjoyed it as a kind of universal language. Chinese physics students, Albanian math students, and me, the American chemistry student could study the same principles, logic, and formulas and come up with an exact agreed upon answer. Wow! If God were interested in us all agreeing on the faith He would have made language more like math so we could all arrive at the same answers. Well He didn’t, so we’re screwed. So the best we have is some, I guess, logical principles to go with, a few sorted experiences we try to make sense of, and some friends we get to know and love who agree with us and some who don’t.
Ever read over an argument between people well educated in logic who disagree? It goes something like this.
JWL: Here’s my points
VR: Here’s my answer
JWL: You didn’t answer my points
VR: I did but you don’t want to understand my answer or acknowledge my own points
JWL: I answered you point by point
VR: No you didn’t
JWL: Yes I did
VR: You’re a jackass
JWL : That’s you what am I?
Not exactly mathematical certainty. So I’ve decided that I like people, understand atheists frustration, and have my own questions and frustrations. I’m glad I still have faith because most everything good that’s happened to me in the last fifteen years has been related to believing. I also desperately need a Savior and don’t know where else to turn but Christ. So I’m weak but that’s probably the least of my faults.
Breckmin Stated:
God isn't surpised that large numbers of people refuse to believe that Jesus is Way the Truth and the Life...that is why the scriptures teach us that the way to heaven/eternal life is narrow and few find it (Matthew 7:14). It demonstrates INCREDIBLE Grace to those few who DO find it.
Well Breckmin,
Without Paul’s letters (and theology) written by a man who never saw nor heard the Earthly Jesus, please give me a “Plan of Salvation" based only on what Jesus said in the Synoptic Gospels? Can you do that?
Please tell me how Jesus can talk about hell more than any other New Testament figure linking it with works, only the be totally countered with salvation by faith alone in Paul’s theology (again contra the Epistle of James)?
Now compared with the Church Father called St. Paul, please tell me how what Jesus said makes HIM the Way the Truth and the Life?
Please tell me why all the original apostles (except Peter and John, which the Book of Acts tries to keep functioning) vanish from Christian history almost immediately after the crucifixion?
(Even Jesus favorite, Peter, vanishes form Acts shortly after chapter 14.)
Please tell me how a Jesus favorite like Peter (and his Judaizing friends) can attack Paul and he attacked them has his “opponents”?
Please quote me chapter and verse where Jesus states that circumcision, kosher laws are to be done away with?
Please tell me why men (Apostles) who spent one to three years with Jesus (such as Peter) NEVER wrote a single Gospel?(If you think the four Gospels are written by any of the apostles Jesus taught, then you are believing the “traditions of men” that Jesus warned against.)
Breckmin, you might try to consider the reason that I and other former Christians who are now atheists is that we read, accept and understand the Bible better than you!
One more thing Breckmin:
Please tell me where in the Bible is lying forbidden or even condemned in order to get people to believe in God or to be SAVED? (Especially when God himself admits to lying: For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie ... 2 Thess. 2:11)
Blah, blah, blah...
"No, no! It's SPELT raymond Luxury-Yacht but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove."
Breckmin said,
"There is no risk in believing in the true God (the Abrahamic God - Islam's hell comes from the same source). There is infinite/eternal risk in NOT believing in the truth."
A lot of blather to try and punk us out with Pascal's Wager AGAIN.
How utterly tedious...
'God isn't surpised that large numbers of people refuse to believe that Jesus is Way the Truth and the Life...'
Large numbers of Jews refuse to believe.
So God will send them to Hell.
If you think what Hitler did to the Jews was bad, wait until Jesus is through with them.
If there was a god who took on human form ("put on a meat suit") to reveal himself to a handful of men of antiquity, for the purpose of bringing a message cardinal to
the wellbeing of humankind, only to
that extent, with reluctance and
skepticism, I'd be willing to entertain the possibility of such a proposition. But the proposition gets extremely complicated--and thus extremely difficult to accept by those of us who have formed
alliance with reason--when this god, out of so many options we can assume he has and use to forgive humankind by virtue of him being "Omnicient," chose to allow to be brutally and sadistically tormented so he can pacify himself and then forgive us. This god must know and agree that his bizarre
action left behind a monumental mass confusion and, consequently,
made atheists out of many believers
and potential believers; and we also could assume that wasn't his intention. For most people of
"faith" this may not be an issue, but for those of us who "faith" is just a vague concept, and for those
who once had it and lost it, this is an irreconcilable conundrum.
Not to mention thet when Christians appeal to "accumulative case argument", what they're really saying is:
We have this large pile of scripture (which can't prove anything because it's self-referential). And over here, we have a mountain of hearsay "evidence" ('nuff said about hearsay...). And over here, we have a load of circumstantial bullshit (the Apostles wouldn't martyr themselves for a lie, etc.).
There is not a single piece of substantial evidence that confirms this fable, but folks still say,
"when you add it all up, the "evidence" is overwhelmingly supportive, and warrants a rational belief in Christianity.
Bull
Shit.
"There is no risk in believing in the true God (the Abrahamic God)."
Here the presumptuous assumption is
that the "Arahamic God" is the
"true God" to the bias exclusion of many other gods who are just as
probable to exist (or not to exist)as the Abrahamic God. Yes, there is the risk that one could be worshiping the wrong god. Furthermore, "beliefs" are not arbitrary choices one makes. So by
what method could I [force] myself to believe in a non-empirical entity? Certainly for me a believe
that is contingent upon threat of eternal damnation and reward of everlasting bliss, seems to be of a lower order; and renders "free will" to a mere delusion. The argument suggests that to "believe" is subject to the will, and by determining that I am
in a safe-bet situation, then I go ahead and "choose" to believe to cover my ass; which also implies, intended or not, that this god must be a fool and will buy into my "ass-covering-just-in-case" decision.
Remember Christians:
Since Jesus gave his life for you, now you need to give a hand, foot or an eye for Jesus. [Plus, if you want to know where the Qur’an gets its barbaric requirement that the hand of a thief should be cut off; just consider the LOVE of Jesus in Mark 9: 43 - 48:
]
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Notice the theology in this verse as taught by the master Jesus (God in flesh) himself! Both humans and worms burn for eternity in Hell.
Thus, worms are cursed with Original Sin (just like Adam and Eve were) because there must have been a worm (or worms) eating the forbidden fruit too. (Even worms can’t escape the all knowing judgment of God!)
Sadly, it’s too bad Jesus didn’t die for worms on the cross also, since now all worms must go to Hell when they die and burn with unforgiven humans!
Seems reasonable that a person of God should incarnate as a man who has to rely on the Father like everyone else in order to observe Torah perfectly, in order to refute that it was too much to ask of Jews who wanted to embrace it.
And reasonable that Jesus obey God to the death rather than back down from skeptics who hassled him for preaching. In doing so he stepped up as a worthy leader taking heat for preaching God, and as leader he has power to give us mercy if we repent, same as secular kings or presidents can give clemency and stays of execution to lawbreakers. That's how he really saves us. Not like a whipping boy or animal sacrifice. This is all quite sensible and easy to understand.
As to, "Please quote me chapter and verse where Jesus states that circumcision, kosher laws are to be done away with?" there is no such thing in the teachings of Paul, as his ministry was to Gentiles. What was advocated was minimal Torah as outlined in Acts 15 in addition to "Golden Rule" teachings of Jesus, which is quite similar to Noahide advocated for Gentiles in Judaism today. Thus, there was never an obligation for Gentiles to fully convert as Jews, either in Christianity or Judaism.
In any case, Jews were never told by Paul or anyone else in the NT that they could abandon Torah and still remain Jews.
Hello Rainbow Bright,
Stated: Seems reasonable that a person of God should incarnate as a man who has to rely on the Father like everyone else in order to observe Torah perfectly, in order to refute that it was too much to ask of Jews who wanted to embrace it.
RE: Oh really? According to the Scribes and Pharisees (the ones who wrote Torah (Not God) and who even Jesus recognized as Torah authorities (When He saw them, He said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” (Luke 17:14)) accused Jesus of being a blasphemer and a person who ignored Torah. So your claim of a Jesus who “observe Torah perfectly” would be totally rejected by Jews in the New Testament, in the Talmud to modern Judaism!
Stated: And reasonable that Jesus obey God to the death rather than back down from skeptics who hassled him for preaching. In doing so he stepped up as a worthy leader taking heat for preaching God,…
RE: But you just stated Jesus and God are the same above. Now you stated that (since they are not) Jesus must obey God and preach for him. Then you claim: “This is all quite sensible and easy to understand.” So Rainbow Bright, your contradictions are not too “Bright” here!
Stated: As to, "Please quote me chapter and verse where Jesus states that circumcision, kosher laws are to be done away with?" there is no such thing in the teachings of Paul, as his ministry was to Gentiles.
RE: So you are telling me the conflict in Galatians chapter 2 between Peter and Paul never happened??? “But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” Is this how your Jewish / Gentile circumcision division works?
Or what about Peter (a Jesus favorite and holder of the Keys to the Kingdom) getting rebuked by Paul (a man who never saw nor heard the Earthly Jesus teach): But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
The text shows that your God in flesh (Jesus) had taught the Apostles about torah so poorly that Paul had to set Peter straight as to why the Torah was no longer to be kept.
Stated: Thus, there was never an obligation for Gentiles to fully convert as Jews, either in Christianity or Judaism.
RE: Tell this to Peter, James and Paul’s “opponents” in Corinthians!
Stated: In any case, Jews were never told by Paul or anyone else in the NT that they could abandon Torah and still remain Jews.
RE: We are talking about apples and oranges here! Jesus was a Jew all his life; he NEVER was a Christian. As I stated above Jews, and not Christians, kept Torah.
Christianity was formulated, NOT BY JESUS, nor the Apostles, but by Paul!
HARRY: According to the Scribes and Pharisees...accused Jesus of being a blasphemer and a person who ignored Torah.
RB: Accused of blasphemy in claiming to be Messiah, which of course if you could prove that he was lying, we would not be here right now. Accused of lawbreaking for example by healing on the Sabbath, which is allowed in Judaism for life-and-death circumstances. Assuming that neither of us claim to be prophets with access to an omniscient God, we're also unable to establish that such healing was not done to save lives.
Therefore your claim here is based on a position of "guilty until proven innocent" which is inappropriate since the burden of proof is on you to prove such lawbreaking. You certainly can't show that Jesus claimed to ignore Torah since in Matthew 5:17-18 he claimed to see that Torah is fulfilled and remains until heaven and earth pass.
HARRY: But you just stated Jesus and God are the same above. Now you stated that (since they are not) Jesus must obey God and preach for him...
RB: No contradiction, when I discuss incarnation on earth, his position is as a regular man relying on God for strength, where God is the Father he is relying on. I thought I made this clear in the opening paragraph but apparently not.
HARRY: So you are telling me the conflict in Galatians chapter 2 between Peter and Paul never happened???...
RB: Jesus also had to correct Peter by calling him "Satan" in Matthew, and Peter denied Jesus 3 times, so it's not a matter of Jesus failing to teach Peter, but simply that Peter needed correction from time to time. It's not my position that Peter was infallible, and the NT doesn't seek to whitewash that. Additionally, Paul was chosen to lead ministry to Gentiles, so it's expected that he would need to instruct Peter as to how that was to take place. As stated, that Judaism holds to a similar standard today, full Torah for Jews and partial Torah in Noahide for Gentiles, indicates that Paul was following a normal standard in Judaism by not demanding that Gentiles be circumcised and observe full Torah, and indicates that Judaizers were among the fringe, as they would be today in Judaism regarding full conversion of Gentiles.
HARRY: Christianity was formulated, NOT BY JESUS, nor the Apostles, but by Paul!
RB: For your claim to carry weight, you would need to show where the NT advises Jews to abandon Torah for a strictly Gentile or Noahide type of system. As suggested by verses following, that will likely be impossible since Paul acknowledges Peter as being key in ministry to Torah-observant Jews, and Paul in no way diminishes the value of Torah for Jews.
Galatians 2:7-9 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Hi Rain Bow Bright (Which of the seven laws are you?)
I see you have a theological agenda: The Institute of Noahide Code
All Bible sects use theology to advance their agenda from Catholics to Baptist to Mormons to Protestants and your Jewish sect is no different.
Theology is a subjective humanistic tool to make the Bible make sense.
I’ll respond more later.
HARRY: Hi Rain Bow Bright (Which of the seven laws are you?) I see you have a theological agenda: The Institute of Noahide Code
RB: My screen name on Tweb (how I know John) and elsewhere is Rainbow Brite, and was actually chosen in reference to the cartoon. Those who call themselves Noahides generally reject Jesus, while I am a Christian. Although the issue of Noahide often comes up as skeptics criticize Paul for not demanding Gentiles observe full Torah, even though Judaism makes no such demands either.
HARRY: All Bible sects use theology to advance their agenda from Catholics to Baptist to Mormons to Protestants and your Jewish sect is no different. Theology is a subjective humanistic tool to make the Bible make sense. I’ll respond more later.
RB: We all have our various opinions and agendas here, right. Look forward to seeing a reply to my last post...
Hi Rainbow Duck,
Let me call you attention to the Jews and Hasidic Gentiles-United to Save America (JAHG-UTSA):
The Seven Laws of Noah often referred to as the Noahide Laws or Noachide Code, are a set of seven moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind. According to Judaism any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile and is assured of a place in the world to come , the Jewish concept of heaven.
And:
The Rainbow is the modern symbol of the Noahide Movement, recalling the rainbow that appeared after the Great Flood of the Bible. (Just wondering about your name….)
Funny isn't it, I have been posting here at DC for 3 years and no one I have ever read a comment from used the term “Noahide” but you!
Secondly, the Rainbow is the official symbol of the JAHG-UTSA and you claim you are NOT affiliated with this sect???! Come on!
Thirdly, you continue to use the term Noahide in all your comments.
Then you state almost perfect JAHG-UTSA theology:
What was advocated was minimal Torah as outlined in Acts 15 in addition to "Golden Rule" teachings of Jesus, which is quite similar to Noahide advocated for Gentiles in Judaism today. Thus, there was never an obligation for Gentiles to fully convert as Jews, either in Christianity or Judaism.
Further:
As stated, that Judaism holds to a similar standard today, full Torah for Jews and partial Torah in Noahide for Gentiles, indicates that Paul was following a normal standard in Judaism by not demanding that Gentiles be circumcised and observe full Torah, and indicates that Judaizers were among the fringe, as they would be today in Judaism regarding full conversion of Gentiles.
Come on Rainbow bright, I wasn’t born yesterday! If you are not associated with the JAHG-UTSA, than I’m born again Christian.
As my grandmother used to say: Tell the truth and shame the devil.
Fact is, if it walks like a duck; if it quacks like a duck: It’s a DUCK!!
HARRY: Funny isn't it, I have been posting here at DC for 3 years and no one I have ever read a comment from used the term “Noahide” but you! Secondly, the Rainbow is the official symbol of the JAHG-UTSA and you claim you are NOT affiliated with this sect???! Come on! Thirdly, you continue to use the term Noahide in all your comments.
RB: That Noahide is Judaism's standard for Gentiles, and that most Noahides are not favorable to Jesus, is no big secret. So you are off track, I am Christian, visit theologyweb if you want to check out my discussions. And that no one has mentioned it, what does that mean...should they have? But such conspiratorial suspicions are irrelevant diversion anyway...
You asked, "Please quote me chapter and verse where Jesus states that circumcision, kosher laws are to be done away with?" so I pointed out that Judaism also does not require Gentiles to convert to full Judaism, and that Paul was minister to Gentiles and acknowledged Peter as valid minister to Jews who do observe full Torah. Which means your accusation that Paul somehow deviated from standards of Judaism in not requiring Gentile circumcision and full conversion is quite baseless.
That you divert into focusing on me and not my argument suggests that you have no true rebuttal, so I assume that we can consider this a silent retraction on your part?
Rely to Rainbow Brite Part 1:
Harry Stated: RB, you cherry picked your responses to my charges! Below his how evasive you are:
RB: That Noahide is Judaism's standard for Gentiles, and that most Noahides are not favorable to Jesus, is no big secret. So you are off track, I am Christian, visit theologyweb if you want to check out my discussions.
Harry: Right RB, most Noahides are not a Christian unlike like you are and “not favorable to Jesus” (whatever that means). Noahides includes many Christians such has you!
I have never and will never post on T-Web where Holding and friends hangout. My view of Holding is as I wrote a blogger just today:
Holding is nothing short of an apologetic mercenary. The real Holding true beliefs are summed up in his ambivalent character in which the right hand defends Christianity while the left hand character assassinates any person he deems a heretic or an infidel. Because of this opposing dichotomy, any debate with Holding is simply a waste to time due to his bipolar nature.
Secondly, I pulled my 4 different volumes of dictionaries Christian of Theology (The Oxford Companion Dictionary to the Christian Church; The Oxford Dictionary to the Christian Church; The Westminster Dictionary to the Christian Church and the Baker Dictionary to the Christian Church AND NOT…NOT ONE has a entry for Noahide nor even used the term in the any of their volumes! So you can quite playing Mr. Disassociation with the Jews and Hasidic Gentiles-United to Save America (JAHG-UTSA). Now objectively prove me wrong! Find the use of the term “Noahide” in a major work such as The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
RB: That you divert into focusing on me and not my argument suggests that you have no true rebuttal, so I assume that we can consider this a silent retraction on your part?
Really? So lets go to the core of your claim.
RB stated: You asked, "Please quote me chapter and verse where Jesus states that circumcision, kosher laws are to be done away with?" so I pointed out that Judaism also does not require Gentiles to convert to full Judaism, and that Paul was minister to Gentiles and acknowledged Peter as valid minister to Jews who do observe full Torah. Which means your accusation that Paul somehow deviated from standards of Judaism in not requiring Gentile circumcision and full conversion is quite baseless.
Pardon me, but where the hell did you get this misinformation from other than the Jews and Hasidic Gentiles-United to Save America sect?!
Rely to Rainbow Brite Part 2
In the Maccabean Period, John Hyrcanus forcibly circumcised the Idumeans who fought alongside the native born Jews in the war against Rome. (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13: 257, 319 and 397).
In the Rabbinic Period, documents make it clear that while gentiles are ONLY NOT required to follow the Jewish agricultural laws and purity laws upon conversion, but they are required to observe ALL other Jewish practices and mitzvoth.
Conversion to Judaism in the 4 and 5 centuries: In Byzantine-Christian law any Roman citizen who allowed himself to be circumcised was to be exiled with the confiscation of all his property and the Jew or doctor who did the circumcision was to be executed!
In 329 Constantine II decreed that if a Jew purchases a non-Jewish slave and circumcises him, then not only would the slave will be confiscated by the authorities, but the Jew was to be put to death! (Why RB, would a Jew risk this if you are correct? WHY?)
I could go on with more details on circumcision, but you need to educate yourself. Really RB, apart from your skewed use of the New Testament, try an objective approach; try reading an entry on Circumcision in a Jewish Encyclopedia. Mine is:The Encyclopedia of Judaism published in 1999 by EJ Brill ends its article on circumcision with the following statement:
When a lay society announced its intention of jettisoning the age-old rite on the grounds that it no longer represented the essence of their Mosaic faith, they encountered universal condemnation by German rabbis, even the liberals some of who personally opposed circumcision themselves, but who were loath to say so in public. The rite therefore continued despite reservations that many had about its propriety. (Vol. I, p94)
Finally RB, please try reading some major objective works for a change such as The Cambridge History of Judaism (Vol. 3 The Early Roman Period):
The Gentiles in Judaism 125BCE -66 CE by Morton Smith (pp.192-249);
Gentiles As Seen by Jews After CE 70 by Raphael Loewe (pp. 250 - 266);
Jesus: From the Jewish Point of View by WD Davies and EP Sanders (pp.618 – 677);
Paul: From the Jewish Point of View by WD Davies (pp.678-730);
Jewish Christianity by JC Paget
(731-775). I have!
Fact is RB, I don’t have time to waste in debating youon your sect's theology.
If you still think I’m avoiding the issue, than PLEASE RB, quote me some articles from major works to support your “theology”.
Please do some objective reading in major works published by Oxford, Cambridge and Brill!
Harry: first I don't agree with Holding's use of "riposte" either, as I and other Tweb posters have spoken against it, but you can go there to see discussions that I am a Christian, while the JAHG people you mention are not favorable to Jesus (http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm). It's bizarre and beyond me why you are pursuing this tangent, since both issues of Holding and JAHG are quite irrelevant anyway.
But fact is in modern Judaism, the standard is Noahide for Gentiles, Torah for Jews, and most any source out there will support this position, like Judaism 101, "The Noahic commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family. The 613 mitzvot of the Torah, on the other hand, are only binding on the descendants of those who accepted the commandments at Sinai and upon those who take on the yoke of the commandments voluntarily (by conversion)..." (http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Noah). Also a quick Jewish Encyclopedia check shows, "Eighteenth-century Rabbi Jacob Emden proposed that Jesus, and Paul after him, intended to convert the Gentiles to the Noahide laws while allowing the Jews to follow full Mosaic Law." http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#52.
)
So again the point is, the accusation that Paul deviated from Judaism by not requiring full Torah for Gentiles is baseless, since a limited Torah for Gentiles is the standard today.
Hi RB:
If I were a university professor who was grading your thesis on the term “Noahide” (based on what you’ve posted here at DC) you would receive a “F” for not referencing your claims to any major reference or any main line scholar (such as who has published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Novum Testamentum, Jewish Quarterly Review, or even had your term “Noahide” referenced in any major commentary series such as the Anchor Bible, or International Critical Commentary (Both old and new series). Yet you ARE bound and determined that this “Johnny-come-lately” term “Noahide” is a term that has a historical bases in both Judaism and Christianity!
Your shallow and superficial thesis about Gentiles being called Noahides as represented Second Temple Judaism yet you provide no references other than websites.
As I hope you are well aware RB, the fastest way to earn a failing grade on a term paper is to use websites and Wilipedia as a references!
As far as getting a consensus about conversion for Gentiles in the Talmud among rabbis, you need to read some major authors such as Martian Hengel, Allan Segal, Jacob Neusner and Shaye Cohen!
Other than unsubstantiated claims, you’ve yet to prove your case.
Fact is, I was the Protestant lecturer at Temple Beth Israel in 1986 and not once in all my six lectures did the term "Noahide" come up … hell, I never even heard nor read the term myself or used at any national or state SBL meetings until you used it here two weeks ago!
Finally: “So again the point is, the accusation that Paul deviated from Judaism by not requiring full Torah for Gentiles is baseless, since a limited Torah for Gentiles is the standard today.” Is another baseless thesis that is never backed up by any known major Biblical scholar (and I’ve been attending SBL meetings and have been engaged with the reading about the origins of Christianity for forty years).
Yet you claim Paul’s epistles represented Second Temple Judaism’s view of Gentile conversion in light of volumes of major scholars who would flat out reject your conclusion! Pardon, me but that is nthing but simple wishful and unfounded thinking.
(Tell you what RB, go to Israel and try out your Noahide theology and belief that Paul theology about the Law represented Second Temple Judaism and see just how fast you are in violation of their national law of proselytizing!!)
Fact is, you have not proven your case at all!! Until you reference the use of Noahide in any major work (as I’ve listed above and in my last comment), you have done nothing other than substitute your personal conclusions! “It is so, because I say it is so! (purely Circular Reasoning)
In my view (and based on your none use of major scholars and reference works to back your thesis about the term Noahide or that Paul’s theology / epistles representing Second Temple Judaism) any further discussion with you on the above two points is totally fruitless.
Harry, to the point, I ask you to find a rabbi in Orthodox Judaism who says all Gentiles ought to convert. Once again I am not promoting Noahide since I am a Christian, but rather stating Paul did not deviate from standards modern Judaism holds today in terms of not requiring full conversion of Gentiles. You should find that most rabbis agree with the following:
"G-d does not ask all of mankind to refrain from forbidden foods, to rest on the Sabbath, or to restrict his behavior in any really infringing way." -Rabbi Rosenfeld (http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-18a.html)
Post a Comment