Are there any believers here who engage with Jewish refutations of Christianity and have found a satisfactory resolution? I don’t think textual criticism negates the broad picture of Christianity, but when you pair it with rabbi’s refutations of Jesus as the messiah, I don’t see a way to add those things up critically.
shgreen8485 said
Are there any believers here who engage with Jewish refutations of Christianity and have found a satisfactory resolution? I don’t think textual criticism negates the broad picture of Christianity, but when you pair it with rabbi’s refutations of Jesus as the messiah, I don’t see a way to add those things up critically.
The satisfactory resolution is that Jesus was not the messiah.
Jesus was the Messiah and got rejected by Jewish authorities and executed by Rome.
Furthermore, there was no salvation in the legacy of Jesus, the Messiah. That legacy did not prevent the Jewish Revolt. It did not win the Jewish Revolt. Jesus was from Galilee. There was no salvation in the legacy of Jesus, the Messiah in Galilee. In fact, there was a Battle of Galilee. The legacy of Jesus did not prevent war there and it did not win the battle there.
As Jesus spoke about the Temple of Jerusalem being a House of Prayer, not a place for commercialism, Jesus nor his legacy was able to defend the Temple of Jerusalem from being destroyed in AD 70.
Jesus was not the messiah because a Jewish messiah would not mislead people to run afoul of Leviticus 17: 10 by asking people to think of his body and blood as bread and wine. A Jewish messiah would do everything to keep God’s face from turning away and would do everything right to keep people from being separated from people of God.
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
RE JAS:
Perhaps not, though I have personal questions that have not yet been adequately resolved by atheism. My reason for this particular question is to meet Christian friends and family on terms they claim to believe. I ask this because Christians claim to believe in the Old Testament, but hearing rabbis discuss their issues with Christianity based in the Torah is a way to ask these people to think about what they believe in a framework that they purport to agree with. Ex: did Jesus follow the Law, do texts Christian’s claim to be Messianic prophecies really make those claims, what is the Jewish idea of the messiah, did Jesus think of himself as divine, etc. If my personal theology is relevant, I was raised in a secular home and consider myself somewhat an agnostic, though my husband and I subscribe to general liberal Quaker views. I ask because I can’t imagine a logic that still supports Christian doctrine in light of historical findings, textual criticism, and rabbinic refutations, but I don’t purport to have thought of everything.
In my experience, apologists have “answers” for pretty much everything . . . . whether or not one finds those answers persuasive or satisfactory is a personal reaction. Too much of it, at best, tends to be vaguely clever pleading. When I still attend church, it is a local UU church. When asked to label myself, I generally say that I am a Presbyterian with some serious doubts.
My problem would be finding a Jewish type person who actually believes in God. What my Jewish friends believe in is being Jewish. It is an ethno-cultural identity for them. Yahweh hardly comes into it. So they spend a miniscule amount of time considering “refutations” of Christianity. They are content to let the Christians fight amongst themselves.
As self-identified card carrying dues paying mad dog atheist (who nevertheless is darned cute) I would critique Christianity’s Messianic views from a historical perspective. The traditional Messianic view in Judaism was that of a triumphalist restoration of the Davidic royal lineage. The Messiah would defeat the enemies of Jews and lead his people into God’s kingdom. Whoops. It was Christians who reinterpreted the Messiah as a suffering servant who gave his life on the cross. All the so-called Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible mysteriously disappear when you consider what these passages meant to the people who actually wrote them. It’s always a bit funny to hear Christians tell Jews what their own scriptures “really meant”. Of course over the centuries Jews haven’t always had the luxury of being able to laugh about it.
I should point out that everything I’ve written would be true whether God exists or not. So the historical critique has little to do with being an atheist. I can only speak personally of course but I am an atheist for other reasons. I don’t see any compelling reason to believe. And the operating principle is that one should not believe in something (anything) without a compelling reason to do so. This just seems like common sense to me. It does follow that if anyone feels they have a compelling reason to believe I would be curious to hear it. Anyone truly interested in reaching the truth must start with the assumption that they may not already possess it.
Steefen said
shgreen8485 said
Are there any believers here who engage with Jewish refutations of Christianity and have found a satisfactory resolution? I don’t think textual criticism negates the broad picture of Christianity, but when you pair it with rabbi’s refutations of Jesus as the messiah, I don’t see a way to add those things up critically.
The satisfactory resolution is that Jesus was not the messiah.
Jesus was the Messiah and got rejected by Jewish authorities and executed by Rome.
Furthermore, there was no salvation in the legacy of Jesus, the Messiah. That legacy did not prevent the Jewish Revolt. It did not win the Jewish Revolt. Jesus was from Galilee. There was no salvation in the legacy of Jesus, the Messiah in Galilee. In fact, there was a Battle of Galilee. The legacy of Jesus did not prevent war there and it did not win the battle there.
As Jesus spoke about the Temple of Jerusalem being a House of Prayer, not a place for commercialism, Jesus nor his legacy was able to defend the Temple of Jerusalem from being destroyed in AD 70.
Jesus was not the messiah because a Jewish messiah would not mislead people to run afoul of Leviticus 17: 10 by asking people to think of his body and blood as bread and wine. A Jewish messiah would do everything to keep God’s face from turning away and would do everything right to keep people from being separated from people of God.
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
A Jewish Messiah who was to save Judaism from Hellenists and Romans is preserved by GRECO-ROMAN gospels. Even that should tell you:
Maury Povich: Jesus, you are NOT the messiah.
Stephen said
My problem would be finding a Jewish type person who actually believes in God. What my Jewish friends believe in is being Jewish. It is an ethno-cultural identity for them. Yahweh hardly comes into it. So they spend a miniscule amount of time considering “refutations” of Christianity. They are content to let the Christians fight amongst themselves.As self-identified card carrying dues paying mad dog atheist (who nevertheless is darned cute) I would critique Christianity’s Messianic views from a historical perspective. The traditional Messianic view in Judaism was that of a triumphalist restoration of the Davidic royal lineage. The Messiah would defeat the enemies of Jews and lead his people into God’s kingdom. Whoops. It was Christians who reinterpreted the Messiah as a suffering servant who gave his life on the cross. All the so-called Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible mysteriously disappear when you consider what these passages meant to the people who actually wrote them. It’s always a bit funny to hear Christians tell Jews what their own scriptures “really meant”. Of course over the centuries Jews haven’t always had the luxury of being able to laugh about it.
I should point out that everything I’ve written would be true whether God exists or not. So the historical critique has little to do with being an atheist. I can only speak personally of course but I am an atheist for other reasons. I don’t see any compelling reason to believe. And the operating principle is that one should not believe in something (anything) without a compelling reason to do so. This just seems like common sense to me. It does follow that if anyone feels they have a compelling reason to believe I would be curious to hear it. Anyone truly interested in reaching the truth must start with the assumption that they may not already possess it.
I haven’t personally met any Jews who feel strongly about their ethnic Judaism but don’t care about their religious Judaism, though I’m sure that they certainly exist. I’m thinking particularly of groups like Jews for Judaism who’s mission is to counter evangelism by Christians broadly and Jews for Jesus specifically. They presented claims I found very compelling as to why, if one felt compelled to believe in a monotheistic, Aberhamic religion, Christianity wouldn’t make much sense at all. I personally struggle to accept complete atheism due primarily to a paranormal experience I had when I was younger. This encounter was auditory, physical, and experienced with a group of others. I had no real religious views at the time, but have always felt the need to integrate that experience into my understanding of “how things work,” and thus far have only found group hallucination as an atheist suggestion. I agree with your supposition that there is no need to believe anything unless you have cause to believe it. I may not have cause, but I certainly have questions.
I know lots of actively Jewish people, in a religious sense, not merely secular Jews, and at least by all outwardly appearances, they have some degree of belief in God, or what we might at least consider the more supernatural aspects of their religion. I do not generally challenge people on such details. Clearly, it is also a strong matter of personal identity, but I would not suggest it merely as such. I wonder what one might make of Messianic Jews, of whom I have only known a few personally. Much like Jewish people of my association, they tend to be very reluctant to talk about such matters with people outside of their faith. If I ask a specific question that is not too probing or personal, I usually get a very specific answer, offering little beyond that specific detail. If you typically ask an Evangelical Christian such a question, or pretty much any question, or merely say “good morning,” you are likely to get a free-flowing life story in response. I have found this to be true also of many Evangelical Atheists. Just having a pleasant conversation on such topics, where no one is trying to convert anyone to any way of thinking, is a great rarity. More frequently, people seem to feel a need to defend or justify their views on such matters, even when it should not be at all necessary to do so.
If I may chime in, my experience is probably typical, what B. E. has described as “psychological” — often called the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit.” The holy spirit is found written into throughout the bible and I think this is the most compelling “evidence” for a faith in God. Jesus was said to baptize with the Holy Spirit? Yes?
Maury Povich: Jesus, you are NOT the messiah.
Steefen, while a historical critique is possible and even necessary I am not saying that it is illegitimate for Christians to read the Hebrew Bible in light of their beliefs. The point is not that Christians cannot interpret but that the original texts have their own context. This is a matter of the historical/critical approach making different demands than a faith perspective. If you think the historical/critical approach must be identical to a particular faith perspective then you’re a fundamentalist whatever your opinion.
shgreen8485 wrote
I personally struggle to accept complete atheism due primarily to a paranormal experience I had when I was younger. This encounter was auditory, physical, and experienced with a group of others. I had no real religious views at the time, but have always felt the need to integrate that experience into my understanding of “how things work,” and thus far have only found group hallucination as an atheist suggestion.
Folks who study such things, neuroscientists and psychologists, tell us that folks have these kinds of experiences all the time. Such experiences raise all kinds of interesting questions.
How would we distinguish between a “supernatural” experience and a “natural” experience that we just don’t have an explanation for yet? (What does it tell us that the natural can exist in both the realm of the known and the unknown but the supernatural seems only to exist in the realm of the unknown?)
If these kinds of experiences are used to validate a particular faith perspective (as they commonly are) then how to explain that members of all faith perspectives report these same kinds of experiences? (Would it be outrageous to suggest that all these folks are having the same experiences and then filtering these experiences through their own cultural lens?)
As far as “group” hallucinations, this does indeed seem like an unsatisfactory explanation, but there are authenticated examples. Without knowing the specifics I couldn’t possibly offer a critique. There are questions that can be asked though. Did everyone really have the same experience at the time or has everyone’s memory of the experience been harmonized over time? It happens! (Memory is malleable. It’s depressing to consider but neuroscientists tell us that most people’s memories of their childhoods are almost complete fantasies. My brother and I once almost came to blows during an argument about an incident we both witnessed. Clearly one of us was wrong. But on reflection, what if both of us were wrong?)
Maury Povich: Jesus, you are NOT the messiah.
I am not saying that it is illegitimate for Christians to read the Hebrew Bible in light of their beliefs.
The point is not that Christians cannot interpret but that the original texts have their own context. This is a matter of the historical/critical approach making different demands than a faith perspective.
Jewish Apocalypticism is NOT a Christian interpretation. Is that what you are saying?
Is that what you are saying?
I am contrasting two different ways of interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Christians view the OT through the lens of their faith perspective. The writers of the NT did this. Historical/Critical method seeks to interpret the OT in the context in which it was actually written as far as that can be determined. There is nothing wrong with Christians reading the OT through the Jesus lens as long as they are conscious that they’re doing it. Jews object when Christians assume Isaiah 53 or Psalm 82 were originally written with Jesus in mind.
Stephen said
Maury Povich: Jesus, you are NOT the messiah.Steefen, while a historical critique is possible and even necessary I am not saying that it is illegitimate for Christians to read the Hebrew Bible in light of their beliefs. The point is not that Christians cannot interpret but that the original texts have their own context. This is a matter of the historical/critical approach making different demands than a faith perspective. If you think the historical/critical approach must be identical to a particular faith perspective then you’re a fundamentalist whatever your opinion.
shgreen8485 wrote
I personally struggle to accept complete atheism due primarily to a paranormal experience I had when I was younger. This encounter was auditory, physical, and experienced with a group of others. I had no real religious views at the time, but have always felt the need to integrate that experience into my understanding of “how things work,” and thus far have only found group hallucination as an atheist suggestion.
Folks who study such things, neuroscientists and psychologists, tell us that folks have these kinds of experiences all the time. Such experiences raise all kinds of interesting questions.
How would we distinguish between a “supernatural” experience and a “natural” experience that we just don’t have an explanation for yet? (What does it tell us that the natural can exist in both the realm of the known and the unknown but the supernatural seems only to exist in the realm of the unknown?)
If these kinds of experiences are used to validate a particular faith perspective (as they commonly are) then how to explain that members of all faith perspectives report these same kinds of experiences? (Would it be outrageous to suggest that all these folks are having the same experiences and then filtering these experiences through their own cultural lens?)
As far as “group” hallucinations, this does indeed seem like an unsatisfactory explanation, but there are authenticated examples. Without knowing the specifics I couldn’t possibly offer a critique. There are questions that can be asked though. Did everyone really have the same experience at the time or has everyone’s memory of the experience been harmonized over time? It happens! (Memory is malleable. It’s depressing to consider but neuroscientists tell us that most people’s memories of their childhoods are almost complete fantasies. My brother and I once almost came to blows during an argument about an incident we both witnessed. Clearly one of us was wrong. But on reflection, what if both of us were wrong?)
I do think memory is fascinating and how our recollections can change over time. We have gone far astray from the question and I typically avoid this subject because I find it unsettling to remember, but I’m interested what others may make of it. May years ago I had a girlfriend, who had a lifelong friend who routinely had “spooky” experiences happen to him in his home. They told me about them and I didn’t think they were necessarily lying, but I didn’t pay it much attention, maybe they had just freaked themselves out. These experiences include disembodied knocking that responds to people, someone being pushed by nothing and having hair pulled, being scratched, and general freaky shit. One night my girlfriend and I spent the night with the friend, and another person. The four of us hung out in and spent the night in the family’s camper trailer. My girlfriend and I slept in the bedroom, the guys slept in the living room convertible beds. Once lights were out and we were all settled we began to hear pacing up and down the hall. We asked if either of the guys were up and if they heard it too. They said they were not up and they could also hear it, we could hear that they were in their beds. The pacing went down the hall, to either side of the bed, and back down the hall repeatedly. When the steps approached either side of the bed, it was bumped as though someone was running into it. My girlfriend and her friend, having had many such experiences at this point, said the best thing to do was to just try to ignore it and go to sleep. Until I (somehow) fell asleep, the footsteps and shaking of the bed continued. We didn’t discuss this much afterwards since I found it immensely creepy and they had been having odd experiences for years so this didn’t seem like a new phenomenon. I do think I remember we all agreed we had the same experience the next morning. We are way outside the original question at this point, but invisible forces with the ability to enter act with the physical world somehow has to fit into my secular worldview. Or I have to believe it was in all of our imaginations, which is not likely to me.
shgreen8485, thank you for sharing your experience. I’m not going to waste your time offering some second-hand bullsh*t rationalization for an episode that was obviously very meaningful to you. But since you shared I will too.
Back in 2011 my younger brother died unexpectedly. He lived 700 miles away from me so I only got to see him a couple times a year. We were very close and talked together every week. It turned out he had an unsuspected congenital heart defect. He died in his sleep. My friends tell me they thought I was very angry. All I remember was the feeling of having a block of ice where my heart used to be. About a month after Dan’s death I had an extraordinary, even visionary dream.
I was standing in a public place with people milling about. Dan walks up to me rather matter-of-factly without fanfare. He was wearing a luminous blue shirt* and I reached out and touched his arms and could feel their warmth. Astonished I said, “Dan, how can you be here? You’re dead.” And he replied, “I am dead. But I’m still here.” And I was filled with a feeling of peace and comfort. And then I woke up. Still filled with peace. Ever since I’ve felt a sense of closeness to my brother as if he were still a companion and not lost to me.
Now I ask, did my brother visit me from beyond to assure me of his continued existence? If I had lived in the ancient world I would certainly have thought so. (What is not truly appreciated by moderns is that if one of Jesus’ disciples had a vivid dream about Jesus after his death, that would have been readily accepted as a resurrection appearance.) Or, in a secular materialist context, did one part of my brain give another part an experience I needed to have? Well I know which explanation I wish were true and which one I suspect is true. Whichever it turns out to be, the fact remains, the peace and comfort was real. The sense of closeness is real.
* After all this I did some research and I found out how common it is in these kind of stories for the deceased to have on some striking and unusual article of clothing!
I have often had to try to explain to people that this is the basic problem with relating born-again experiences as evidence of value to anyone but the person himself/herself (and now, I suppose, I need to add themself). Having felt that someone was present is a personal reaction that cannot really be transferred. It is much like the ubiquitous ghost shows on TV, where people “feel” all sorts of things and try to offer that of proof of something, anything, when it is really pretty much nothing at all. There are many people who “found God” and turned their lives around in ways that are clear and profound, and while that can be amazing and admirable, it is not proof. At least as many others have pled their case to God, eagerly sought a miracle and only ended up suffering the fate that they wished to avoid. Is their story not as persuasive as those who had a more positive outcome?
It isn’t that the stories may not be true, in some way, merely that they are only personal experiences and their meaning and value is mostly personal and can really never be more than that.
Stephen said
shgreen8485, thank you for sharing your experience. I’m not going to waste your time offering some second-hand bullsh*t rationalization for an episode that was obviously very meaningful to you. But since you shared I will too.Back in 2011 my younger brother died unexpectedly. He lived 700 miles away from me so I only got to see him a couple times a year. We were very close and talked together every week. It turned out he had an unsuspected congenital heart defect. He died in his sleep. My friends tell me they thought I was very angry. All I remember was the feeling of having a block of ice where my heart used to be. About a month after Dan’s death I had an extraordinary, even visionary dream.
I was standing in a public place with people milling about. Dan walks up to me rather matter-of-factly without fanfare. He was wearing a luminous blue shirt* and I reached out and touched his arms and could feel their warmth. Astonished I said, “Dan, how can you be here? You’re dead.” And he replied, “I am dead. But I’m still here.” And I was filled with a feeling of peace and comfort. And then I woke up. Still filled with peace. Ever since I’ve felt a sense of closeness to my brother as if he were still a companion and not lost to me.
Now I ask, did my brother visit me from beyond to assure me of his continued existence? If I had lived in the ancient world I would certainly have thought so. (What is not truly appreciated by moderns is that if one of Jesus’ disciples had a vivid dream about Jesus after his death, that would have been readily accepted as a resurrection appearance.) Or, in a secular materialist context, did one part of my brain give another part an experience I needed to have? Well I know which explanation I wish were true and which one I suspect is true. Whichever it turns out to be, the fact remains, the peace and comfort was real. The sense of closeness is real.
* After all this I did some research and I found out how common it is in these kind of stories for the deceased to have on some striking and unusual article of clothing!
Journey of Souls by Michael Newton
Learn the latest details and most recent groundbreaking discoveries that reveal, for the first time, the mystery of life in the spirit world after death on Earth―proof that our consciousness survives―in Journey of Souls by Michael Newton, PhD.
Using a special hypnosis technique to reach the hidden memories of subjects, Dr. Newton discovered some amazing insights into what happens to us between lives. Journey of Soulsis the record of 29 people who recalled their experiences between physical deaths. Through their extraordinary stories, you will learn specifics about:
-
- How it feels to die
- What you see and feel right after death
- The truth about “spiritual guides”
- What happens to “disturbed” souls
- Why you are assigned to certain soul groups in the spirit world and what you do there
- How you choose another body to return to Earth
- The different levels of souls: beginning, intermediate, and advanced
- When and where you first learn to recognize soulmates on Earth
- The purpose of life
Journey of Souls is a graphic record or “travel log” by these people of what happens between lives on Earth. They give specific details as they movingly describe their astounding experiences.
After reading Journey of Souls, you will gain a better understanding of the immortality of the human soul. You will meet day-to-day challenges with a greater sense of purpose. You will begin to understand the reasons behind events in your own life. (1994)
Destiny of Souls by Michael Newton
Life between Lives by Michael Newton
shgreen8485 said
Are there any believers here who engage with Jewish refutations of Christianity and have found a satisfactory resolution? I don’t think textual criticism negates the broad picture of Christianity, but when you pair it with rabbi’s refutations of Jesus as the messiah, I don’t see a way to add those things up critically.
Christians don’t care about the opinions of people who “killed God”. To them, Jews have always been wrong about who their Messiah would be and can quote you verses from Isaiah to “prove” it.
Steefen said
Jesus was not the messiah because a Jewish messiah would not mislead people to run afoul of Leviticus 17: 10 by asking people to think of his body and blood as bread and wine.
It’s very likely that the galilean preacher never said that.
Probably Paul and the Hellenists borrowed the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** from mystery cults.
Several anthropologists and egyptologists have described the tradition to bake doughs made with ** you do not have permission to see this link ** from the body of Osiris.
A great classic, albeit dated, is the essay written by Wallis Budge about ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
This does not mean that the Pauline last supper is a copycat, but that the idea to eat the body of a divinity was relatively common in some pagan circles.
This ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (history of Christian theophay, by Preserved Smith) was printed 100 years ago, so it should be no longer subject to copyright.
An article written by prof. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** with a comment about a different tradition (the Didache).
But there is another reason for doubting the historical validity of Paul’s account. Other than Paul, a wholly alternative record of the words spoken at a celebration over the bread and the wine come from the early Christian text we call the Didache (pronounced did-a-káy) that are completely different from the words of Jesus that Paul reports.
You shall give thanks as follows: First, with respect to the cup: “We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever.” And with respect to the fragments of bread: “We give you thanks our Father, for the life and knowledge that you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever” (Didache 9:2-3). ** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert