In the fall of 1972, as a first year law student, I carefully examined the writings of Christian apologists such as Josh McDowell, Paul Little and Francis Schaeffer, all of whom made the same basic arguments that Christ’s virgin birth, crucifixion, death and resurrection proved his claim that he and his Father were “one.” Most importantly, these apologists argued that Jesus’ claim that he was, in fact, God because he, and he alone, rose from the dead and fulfilled all of the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures regarding their expected Messiah. Persuaded by these arguments, at that time, I “accepted Jesus as my personal Savior and Lord.” From that point forward, I attended and taught various Bible studies and fellowship groups and was actively involved in Christian outreach ministries and was an active member of several “Bible Believing” church communities. In 1984, I was elected to a national political office and, thereafter, gave my “testimony” to various groups, both large and small. In the 1990’s, after involuntarily leaving politics as a candidate or elected official, I hosted a live call-in talk show that was at that time being broadcast primarily into the greater Atlanta metropolitan area. The theme of my talk show was “where politics and religion converge.” During my fifth year of broadcasting, I invited a guest, who was an Orthodox Jew who regularly listened to my show and contacted me to see if I would allow him to make the case for his view of the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically, he wanted to make the argument that anyone who had seriously studied Hebrew Scriptures and oral traditions could not possibly conclude that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Hebrew Scriptures and oral traditions. He also wanted to ask me and my listening audience why Christians didn’t seem to ever actively ask scholarly Orthodox Jews (not, to use his words, “Messianic” or “Completed” Jews) their views on what the Hebrew Scriptures said and meant regarding a promised messiah since, after all, they were indisputably the original scribes, teachers and custodians of the Hebrew Scriptures and oral traditions. Excited and looking forward to hear his views, I invited him to be a guest on my talk show on a number of occasions over the course of the following year. At the time that I extended each invitation, I was convinced that with my vast knowledge of Christian apologetics and experience as a former trial lawyer and legislator, I could easily counter his various arguments.
Much to my surprise, once I began to listen to what he was saying, as opposed to reacting to the challenges I quickly realized my views faced in light of what he was saying about the same Scriptures that I thought I had thoroughly studied and knew, I was dumbfounded and, frankly, a little embarrassed by how much I didn’t know and had never even considered. It wasn’t long before I how inadequate my arguments really were when made to someone outside of the theological circles in which I had enveloped myself over the course of the preceding twenty plus years. For example, he pointed out that the Messiah promised in the Hebrew Scriptures must necessarily be “of the Seed of David” and that the introduction of the virgin birth by the Gospel writers alone was reason enough for any knowledgeable Jew to reject Jesus as the Messiah described in the Hebrew Scriptures and oral traditions. He further pointed out that the genealogies of Joseph found in Matthew and Luke, which incidentally contradicted each other, were totally irrelevant since Joseph was not, according to the Christian Scriptures own words, Jesus’ father any way. I could go on and on with other valid arguments that he made during his various guest appearances, but two additional points, in particular, caused me to rethink my original conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Hebrew Scriptures. One was that most Christians acknowledge that when Jesus returns “at the end of the Age,” he will again establish the Temple for which the Jews have been awaiting since the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 CE and that, if, as Christians claim, Jesus’ shed blood on the cross was to be a permanent, once and for all, atonement for the sins of all who acknowledge and accept him, then what would be the point in Jesus establishing a third and final Temple.
He also made the point that, as anyone who’s ever listened to Handel’s “Messiah” or read Isaiah 7:14-18 knows, Christians believe that Isaiah 7:14-18 was a very specific messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfilled in very specific and undeniable ways. My Jewish friend then pointed out that, even if the Hebrew word for “young woman” used in Isaiah 7:14 did mean “a young virgin” (which, in actuality, it doesn’t), no one can deny that Jesus was not named “Immanuel” as would be required if Jesus were, in fact, the subject of Isaiah’s prophecy,, the fact remains that Jesus did not fulfill any of the other specifics contained in the remainder of Isaiah 7:14-18 (i.e. He didn’t eat “curds and honey;” there was never, if He were God incarnate, a time when he would not have known enough to “reject the wrong and choose the right;” and, finally, “the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste” has no application to the life or times of Jesus.
In closing, my friend pointed out a very obvious, but, nonetheless, profound fact. Specifically, he pointed out that, since Christianity grew out of a belief in the truth and validity of the Hebrew Scriptures, Christianity can not be true and valid UNLESS the Hebrew Scriptures are true and valid. Conversely, if Christian Scriptures are not true and valid, that fact in no way impacts the truth and validity of the Hebrew Scriptures. In their totality, my Jewish friend’s arguments, most of which I did not delineate here, answer the question of why, for the most part, the generation of Jews who were alive when Jesus lived and died did not accept his followers’ claims that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Jewish Scriptures. While I still do not accept my Jewish friend’s belief in the absolute reliability of the Hebrew Scriptures regarding history and what God has to say to His creatures, I found his criticisms of the New Testament to be sound and worthy of serious consideration.
Your post tracing the evolution of your religious belief is well-written and interesting. I sort of ‘tried on’ the Christian religion from about age 13 to age 18. My aunt and uncle were deacons in the local Presbyterian church and were very involved. Mom went occasionally and Dad rarely. I did not find out until many years later that Dad was an atheist. At any rate, my involvement was rather superficial compared to yours. When I went to college I started to read the bible, I compared the teachings in church with the fairly incomprehensible bible and decided that very few members observed even the simplified lessons from Sunday sermons and one day I thought this is total nonsense and gave up on religion all together. Never missed it, never felt I was lacking anything.
My daughter went to various churches with her friends over the years, but it never took with her either, although the I did not specifically discourage her from believing in a religion. Now that she is married and is raising my grandson unchurched I figured I should become more educated in things biblical because his other grandmother is a church-goer and occasionally mentions the “heathens”. That’s me, I guess. I was so fortunate to discover Dr. Erhman’s books and blog. I do so much appreciate the historical rather than theological approach! Now I will be able to discuss the Christian religion from a knowledge base rather than an emotional one should my grandson ever ask me about it.
I would like to suggest that you read two books about the founding and practice of two religions recently established and compare the growth of those religions with what can be ascertained currently about the founding and spread of the Christian religions so many years ago. The two books I found most interesting are “An American Fraud” by Kay Burningham and “Going Clear” by Lawrence Wright. Kay Burningham grew up Mormon but eventually became a disbeliever. She is a lawyer and writes extremely well. She traces her journey through the faith and out of it and also provides a well-documented history of the faith from its inception by Joseph Smith to the present day. Wright’s book documents the founding and growth of Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard, who should have stuck with writing science fiction books.
I wonder if your reaction to these two books would influence your belief in a supernatural being Christians identify as God? All the world’s religions, present and past, have in common that they provide an explanation of why things happen as they do, and attempt to control events through some sort of ritual. They provide a justification for the wielding of power by some over others and control members by fear of some sort, either bad happenings like a poor harvest in the present time or eternal torture after death. Lovely. I hope that humans can strive to care for each other better. And, no, not believing in a god or in gods does not make one a better or worse human being, it just eliminates the magic and hocus-pocus from everyday life. The Golden Rule is a good place to start.
I appreciate your comments and will definitely read the two books you have recommended. I am fairly well versed on Mormon beliefs and systematic changes in its positions on issues such as slavery and the treatment of Blacks since its founding. Your reference to the history of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) reminded me of something one of my Jewish friends once told me that, though meant to be at least partially in humor, provoked me to think about parallels that exist between Mormon history, Christian history and Jewish history. Specifically, my Jewish friend asked me, “Why do you think God created Mormons? When I responded that, “I had no idea,” he proceeded to answer his own question. His answer: “So Christians would have some idea how Jews felt about Christianity springing from its Jewish roots.” He then went on to point out that the original texts or tablets that were divinely revealed to Joseph Smith had disappeared soon after they were revealed to Mr. Smith. Before he was able to become too smug in his own religion, I pointed out the fact that shortly after the tablets were revealed to Mr. Smith and he had dictated the contents of the tablets for posterity, the sacred tablets disappeared leaving only Mr. Smith and his successors to vouch for their authenticity. I then proceeded to how those alleged facts and occurrences bore a remarkable remarkable resemblance to God’s supposedly giving Moses “the Laws” on Mount Sinai, Moses’ subsequently writing down the laws God had entrusted to him and his people and the subsequent mysterious disappearance of the original tablets, along with the Ark of the Covenant, centuries later. I further pointed out that, despite the fact that Hebrew historians painstakingly wrote about the whereabouts and handling of the Ark and its contents from the time Moses’ received it until the Ark and its contents inexplicably disappeared many years later. There is not, at least to my knowledge, a single word written in Hebrew Scriptures about what became of the Ark and its contents, nor precisely when or how they disappeared. I also find that to be strikingly similar, in Christianity, to the lack of any evidence whatsoever in NT Scriptures that during his first time on our planet, Jesus did none of the things the Hebrew Scriptures assured the Hebrew people that their long anticipated messiah would accomplish when he appears on Earth (e.g. rebuild the temple, have lambs lie down with lions, the painful process mother’s must endure as a result of Eve’s original sin, universal peace, and so on).
What interesting observations. I had not thought of the parallels between the feelings of the Jews about the Christians springing from Jewish roots as similar to those of Christians towards Mormons. It is indeed true that the foundational documents, if stone tablets and gold plates can be considered documents, have mysteriously and conveniently disappeared for several religions. Sort of the original ‘the dog ate my homework’ excuse. Neither have we any of those turtles that ‘go all the way down’, nor the sword Excaliber for that matter.
I have been listening to Amy-Jill Levine’s lectures on the Old Testament for The Great Courses as an audiobook. She points out that Adam was standing with Eve when she picked and ate of the fruit of the tree, handing him a fruit also. As Amy-Jill puts it, Eve did not “wiggle her hips, flip her hair and say come here big boy, I have something for you”, Adam was right next to her the whole modeltime. Does that absolve Eve or just implicate Adam in sin. I have no idea.
Another interesting thing I picked up from her lectures was that there is a problem with the translation of Genesis 3-16. She refers to a translation by Carol Meyers in which the meaning is not that woman will not be cursed to bring forth children in pain and grief, but that the original Hebrew meant that woman would have to endure increased physical toil (in daily work) and increased numbers of pregnancies. I did purchase a ebook of Carol Meyer’s book “Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Isealite Women in Context”. It is a very fascinating survey of OT treatment of women. She parses the ancient Hebrew text convincingly to me in support of her re-translation of several of the verses and supplies a great deal of information about the daily life of women in ancient times. While her interpretations seem very logical and well supported to me, I have no knowledge of the Hebrew language or of ancient history by which to judge her. Perhaps Dr. Erhman can remark on her standing in the scholarly biblical history community. I consider my $10 well invested in her book.
We are on an interesting journey.
I look forward to reading the Amy-Jill Levine book you recommended. As I’ve previously indicated, I’m particularly interested, as I think we all should be, in what informed Jews have to say about what the scriptures that they wrote and preserved actually say, based on their interpretations and perspectives. After reading her bio, especially the fact that she earned her undergraduate degree from Duke University where my wife earned her degree in psychology and religion, I’m impressed that Amy-Jill is, to quote her bio, “[a] self-described ‘Yankee Jewish feminist who teaches in a predominantly Christian divinity school in the buckle of the Bible Belt,’…” Her credentials and experiences “in the buckle of the Bible Belt” alone merit my reading what she has to say.
I have no idea if you are still a member, but I enjoyed the post.
The question that is the title for the post asks why so many gentile converts. There were many divisions in Judaism and many times Jewish converts were not completely accepted by some (and were accepted wholeheartedly by others). The record shows that one reason for distrust of or fear of Judeans was their ability to increase in number rather quickly. It seems their increase must be attributed to a legacy of conversion. I am not sure they had to preach to gentiles. The case of Claudius banishing Jews from Rome is said to prevent further interest in their strange customs as their numbers increased.
I wonder if Judaism would not have conquered the Roman Empire as Christianity eventually did. It had some of the same qualities cited in the Triumph of Christianity.
In short, as a branch of Judaism, Christianity may have been simply following the footsteps of the Judeans.
Jesus didn’t say he came only to Jews. He certainly was primarily interested in reaching out to his co-religionists (for one thing, they were the majority in Palestine, and spoke the same language as him), but there is ample evidence he didn’t think only Jews would be in the Kingdom–and clearly he didn’t think all Jews would be.
To be clear, Jesus thought that if you never heard of him, or knew what Judaism was, you could still lead a good life, and be saved. And you could be an outwardly devout Jew, know the scriptures backwards and forwards, and end up being destroyed in Gehenna.
Jesus wasn’t trying to convert anyone. He wasn’t trying to create a new religion. He wouldn’t be happy there was a religion devoted to him now (all the less since many members of it have persecuted his people for centuries). He believed Judaism was the only true religion, but religion isn’t the most important thing. Religion is just a means of teaching people what’s right and wrong. Your deeds matter, not your words. Your deeds and your faith–you can have faith without religion, and vice versa.
It’s pretty clear Jesus welcomed gentiles if they came to him in the right spirit. But he didn’t actively seek them out. He knew he couldn’t reach more than a handful of people in the time he believed was remaining–and of course his own time was extremely limited, even if he was wrong about the larger timetable.
As to why most Jews didn’t become Christians, Bart has explained that very well–Christians claimed Jesus was Messiah, but to most Jews it was impossible to believe the Messiah was a crucified Galilean who had failed to bring about the restoration of Israel as an independent nation. I think we also have to say that Jews were more attached to their religion as a sense of personal and ethnic identity than most pagans were, so there was a lot more growth potential among gentiles, as Paul recognized very quickly. Judaism was an exclusive faith–paganism was more open. But Christianity, while open to pagan ideas, still insisted that you had to give up all other faiths to join it–as Judaism did–so it gradually crowded paganism out. It clearly offered some things paganism didn’t, but could embrace certain cultural aspects of paganism, making it more comfortable for pagans to join up.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)