This second article is taking look at some NT texts and the other Isaiah 53 texts I didn't cover in a previous article, and I hope to cover them here. Let's take a look.
Mr Yosef raised this point with respect to Isaiah 53:5:
"As can be seen from the number of cross-referenced verses to it, the authors
of the New Testament quite fond of this verse in their efforts to design and.
promote the notion that the death of Jesus effected the atonement of the sins
of others. Yet, aside of the mistranslations in the KJV, human vicarious
atonement is strictly prohibited according to the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exodus
32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2Kings 14:6; Jeremiah
31:29[30]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7-9."
I want to take a look at these texts and examine them quickly.
Exodus 32:31-33, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 are easy to address. They do not refer to vicarious atonement. The latter two simply point out that we are responsible to God for our own sins. I touch upon Exodus briefly in my response to Eli Cohen: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html
Although not mentioned in my article, Jeremiah 31:29 follows the same principle, as does Ezekiel 18:4.
As for Psalm 49, let's read it.
Psalm 49:1 Hear this, all you peoples;
listen, all who live in this world,
2 both low and high,
rich and poor alike:
3 My mouth will speak words of wisdom;
the meditation of my heart will give you understanding.
4 I will turn my ear to a proverb;
with the harp I will expound my riddle:
5 Why should I fear when evil days come,
when wicked deceivers surround me—
6 those who trust in their wealth
and boast of their great riches?
7 No one can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for them—
8 the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough—
9 so that they should live on forever
and not see decay.
10 For all can see that the wise die,
that the foolish and the senseless also perish,
leaving their wealth to others.
11 Their tombs will remain their houses[b] forever,
their dwellings for endless generations,
though they had[c] named lands after themselves.
The subject of the ransom here in the initial context is in referrence to wealth, rather than dealing with the subject of vicarious atonement, However if it were to do with a man ransoming another by his death, the Psalm would not pose a problem. Psalm 47:9 shows that one is incapable of ransoming another, I can't and Uri can't. Yet Jesus claims to be able to ransom MANY lives, because if he is rightous, which I am convinced he is, then he is able to redeem us because he is the God-Man.
Now I want to spent this next part looking at Isaiah 53:9, but I want to look at the New Testament questions in the article in particular. Let's go.
"There are two cross-referenced passages in the New Testament that point to
portions of this verse. The first, Matthew 27:57-60, describes a wealthy man,
Joseph of Arimathaea, who placed the body of Jesus in his own grave, which
was most likely located in an exclusive section where the deceased rich
people were entombed. Yet, just a few verses earlier Jesus is described as
having died among the wicked:
Matthew 27:38(KJV) – Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the
right hand, and another on the left. [See also Mark 15:27.]
So, aside from the problem created by the fact that the servant is a group, not
an individual, it appears that the circumstances described in the New
Testament were reversed from those stated in the literal sense of the verse in
the Hebrew Bible. "
Arnold Fructhenbaum has suggested the following regarding this subject of Jesus and the grave:
"In verse 9, the burial of the Servant is described. After His death, those who executed Him assigned a criminal's grave for Him along with other criminals. A criminal is what they considered Him to be, and that is the way He was executed. Yet He would be buried in a rich man's tomb! This is true poetic justice since, in actuality, the Servant had done nothing wrong nor was there anything wrong in His character. The fulfillment of this is found in all four Gospels (Mat. 27:57-60; Mk. 15:42-46; Lk. 23:50-54; Jn. 19:38-42)."
As for the subject of Isaiah 53 containing a group, on a side note, it can be argued that the Messiah can suffer on behalf of the rightous remnant.
"The second reference, 1Peter 2:22, points to the last two phrases in the
verse, alleging that Jesus committed no violence and did not speak a lie.
The accounts in the New Testament belie these claims.
Did Jesus engage in any activities that could be described as violent? Noting
that violence, whether or not it is justified, is still violence, consider the
following account in New Testament:
John 2:15(KJV) – So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple
area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and
overturned their tables. [See also Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.]
If this account is true, Jesus committed acts of violence when he attacked the
merchants, dispersed their coins, and overturned the furniture in the Temple.
Would the following be words of a peaceful and non-violent person?
Matthew 10:34-36(KJV) – (34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
came not to send peace, but a sword. (35) For I am come to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law. (36) And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household. [See also Luke 12:51-53.]
Luke 19:27(KJV) – But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
In the actual context of Luke 12:49-53, Jesus is speaking about a metaphorical sword of division within families that will occur if someone chooses to follow him. he says the same thing in Matthew 10:34 but expands on it and is saying in essence if you don't love me more than your family, don't follow me because by doing so you will have opposition.
Here is what he says:
"34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."
Also, I hardly think that casting people out with whips is remotely a violent act, considering no one was hurt. Jesus only used the whip to send them out of the temple and cleanse it. If he stood by and let the house get defiled and do nothing about it, then he would of sinned.
"Jesus appears to be coming not to bring peace but strife to humanity, and orders to have his foes brought before him and slain.
The New Testament describes other examples of behavior by Jesus which
can be characterized as violent acts. For example, Jesus caused the
drowning death of a herd of swine by having demons possess them (Matthew 8:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33); and he destroyed a fig tree for not bearing fruit
out of season (Matthew 21:18-21, Mark 11:13-14)."
I am not sure how these would classify as violent acts, they are miracles being performed.
"Concerning deceit in the servant's mouth, did Jesus ever speak a lie or
deceive someone? The New Testament includes accounts which testify to
the fact that Jesus was guilty of lying and deceiving:
Matthew 16:27-28(KJV) – (27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
(28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of
death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Are any of those whom Jesus allegedly addressed with these words still alive
today awaiting his (second) coming? After all, Jesus (the Son of man) has
not yet returned to establish his kingdom. Similarly, Jesus did not speak the
truth when he assured his disciples that the end of the world order and his
own triumphant return to judge all men would occur before the generation
then living had passed away:
Matthew 24:34(KJV) – Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
these things be fulfilled. [See also Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32.]
In fact, in the era following the alleged resurrection of Jesus, the author of the
Book of Revelation, the last book in the New Testament, still quotes him as
promising to return in the near future and reward all his followers:
Revelation 22:7,12,20(KJV) – (7) Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth
the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man
according as his work shall be.
(20) He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so,
come, Lord Jesus.
What does “quickly” mean? After nearly two millennia beyond the days when
those words were allegedly spoken, Jesus has still not returned. "
Generation can be understood as this nation or people or group will not pass away rather than refering to the generation he was in. It could simply mean the Jews will not pass away. Also, When it says Behold I am coming quickly, it doesn't mean he will return immediately, it means his return will be quick, that is all it means.
"Are there any followers of Jesus alive today who can safely drink poison, and
heal the sick without medical knowledge?
Then there is the following promise by Jesus:
John 14:12-14(KJV) – (12) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the
works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because
I go unto my Father. (13) And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do,
that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (14) If ye shall ask any thing in my
name, I will do it.
Does someone know of any Christians who have had all of their wishes
granted? Why are not all Christians healthy, wealthy, and in charge of the
world? This passage is reminiscent of the story about the genie inside a
bottle who grants an endless number of wishes to its owner."
Jesus is claiming in this context that he is able to grant our requests and we will be answered no matter where we are. However, the catch is we need to pray in God's will in order for our prayers to be answered, which is mentioned in 1 John. Jesus is not saying he'll grant EVERY request on the planet, that would be unhealthy if he did.
As for the subject of poison being consumed. Sam Shamoun has written a good response on this issue. I will underline his keypoints:
"If the Christian backs down from the challenge this is then taken to mean that the Christian speaker lacks true faith in Christ.
The Muslim is guilty of misinterpreting Jesus' meaning in this passage since a sound rule of exegesis is to interpret scripture in light of scripture. Once this is done, we discover the true meaning of Jesus' words:
"The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down from here. For it is written: "He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."' Jesus answered, 'It says: "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."'" Luke 4:9-12
In light of this passage, Jesus was not telling his followers to go around picking up snakes or drinking poison. Christ's point was that no matter what the enemy tries to do in thwarting the efforts of the believers, he will never succeed. This is based solely on the promises of Christ that his authority rests upon all true believers to accomplish his will in our lives:
"'The seventy-two returned with joy and said, 'Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.' He replied, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.'" Luke 10:17-20"
I am not accusing Uri of doing what some of the Muslims are doing, I am simply pointing out that Jesus was not lying regarding the snake issue. That's my point.
"The New Testament contains other examples of deceitful behavior by Jesus:
He deceived his disciples by promising a hundredfold of material possessions in
this life to those who left everything in order to follow him (Mark 10:28-30), which
has not happened!"
He is promising them wealth in heaven, not earthly wealth. That is essentially what Jesus is saying in the context. In exchange also, the disciples will have each other and those who will believe Jesus message to be their new family because their old ones may revile them because of their faith.
"He claims to have spoken openly to everyone when he was questioned by the
Jewish authorities (John 18:19-21). Yet, several accounts describe instances when
Jesus demanded secrecy of those to whom he spoke (Matthew 16:20; Mark 8:30;
Luke 9:21)."
Jesus in the context of John 18:19-21 is certainly not lying in that context. This is why and Gill's exposition says the following:
"Jesus answered him,.... Not to the first of these questions, concerning his disciples; not because they had all now forsaken him, and one was denying him; nor because he would not betray them; nor because he would suffer alone; but because if his doctrine was good; it could not be blameworthy to have disciples, and to teach them: and the charge of sedition, blasphemy, and idolatry, they wanted to fasten on him, would sufficiently appear to be groundless by the doctrine he preached; and as to that he answers not directly what he taught, but declares the manner in which he delivered it, and which was such, that they that heard him could not be strangers to it.
I spake openly to the world; with all plainness, freedom, and boldness, without any reserve or ambiguity; and that not to a few persons only, to his own particular disciples, but to all the people of the Jews, who crowded in great numbers to hear him; insomuch that it was said by his enemies, that the world was gone after him.
I ever taught in the synagogue; the Arabic, "the synagogues"; the places of public worship in all parts of the nation, where the Jews met to pray, and read, and hear the word:
and in the temple; at Jerusalem, whenever he was in that city;
whither the Jews always resort; for prayer, and to offer sacrifice, and particularly at the three grand festivals of the year, the passover, Pentecost, and feast of tabernacles, when all the males from all parts appeared before the Lord. Accordingly, the Alexandrian copy, and some others, read, "whither all the Jews resort"; and so read the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions. "
The next point that is raised by Uri is the following on his article.
"And in secret have I said nothing; not but that our Lord taught in other places than what are here mentioned, as on mountains, in deserts, by the sea shore, and in private houses, yet generally to great multitudes; and though he sometimes conversed alone, and in secret with his disciples, yet what he taught them was either an explanation of what he had said in public, or was perfectly agreeable to it."
"He admonished his disciples not to divulge the fact that he was the Messiah.
He demanded of the devils he exorcised to keep his deeds a secret (Mark 1:34,
3:11-12; Luke 4:41)"
For a reason, it was not time to reveal himself as the Messiah in those contexts. The time had not yet come to pass for him to do so. No deception at all.
"Of those who he healed, he demanded that they not tell he cured them (Matthew
8:3-4, 12:15-16; Mark 1:44, 5:43, 7:36; Luke 5:14, 8:56).
Do these actions describe works of an upright person? Quite to the contrary,
they testify that Jesus acted violently and deceptively. "
Here are some commentaries that deal with this subject.
Pulpit Commentary:
"Verse 4. - And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; i.e. of those who were not present (Bengel). The command may have been given
(1) to save the man from temptation to self-importance; or
(2) to prevent any rumour of the miracle coming to the ears of the recognized authorities, and thus prejudicing them in their verdict upon his case; or, and more probably,
(3) for the Lord's sake, for this seems to be the reason for the command in all the other occasions when it is given (Matthew 9:30; Matthew 12:16; Matthew 17:9; Mark 5:43; Mark 7:36; Mark 8:26; cf. Mark 1:34; Mark 3:12). The Lord did not desire to be thronged with multitudes who came only to see his miracles; he would work in quiet (cf. the quotation from Isaiah in Matthew 12:18-21). But go thy way, show thyself to the priest. The latter clause belongs verbally to Leviticus 13:49, but the thought is that of Leviticus 14:2, sqq. Without the official verdict, the man could not be restored to communal privileges (so also Luke 17:14)."
And on Matthew 12:16:
"Verse 16. - And charged them that they should not make him known. Publicity as such was rather hindering to his work than otherwise. Only those who had no spiritual affinity with him (John 7:3-5), or at most but little (Matthew 9:31), desired him to have it. "
Also Luke 5:14:
"Verse 14. - And he charged him to tell no man. We find this desire of Jesus to check publicity after he had worked one of his great works, especially in the earlier part of his ministry. Chrysostom attributes this to the Master's regard for the one who had been healed, desiring that his gratitude to God for the mercy vouchsafed to him should not be frittered away in words, in idle talk with curious persons. It is, however, more likely that the Master wished to stem rather than to fan the tide of popularity which such mighty works would be sure to excite among the people. What he determined to check was a false and mistaken desire among the people to make him king. "
Here is Jamieson-Fausset-Brown's Bible Commentary. This is what he says regarding Mark 5:43:
"43. And he charged them straitly—strictly.
that no man should know it—The only reason we can assign for this is His desire not to let the public feeling regarding Him come too precipitately to a crisis.
and commanded that something should be given her to eat—in token of perfect restoration. "
Lastly Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible where he says:
" And her parents were astonished,.... At the miracle that was wrought, to see their child restored to life; to see her arise, walk, and eat, being in perfect health and strength, and no disorder attending her;
but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done. The Ethiopic version reads, "what he had done, nor any thing that was done" not that the thing itself could be concealed, but the way and manner in which, and the means by which it was done, and the circumstances of it; how that by taking her by the hand, and commanding her to arise, she forthwith arose, and walked and ate: Christ's meaning is, that he would not have them take any pains to publish this affair, or to make it more known than was necessary; not to acquaint any person with the particulars of it, but keep them as private as they could: his reasons for this; see Gill on Mark 5:43."
Hopefully this covers the points that have been raised. I shall continue my response if the Lord wills in another article
Answering Judaism.
Monday, 4 November 2013
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Response to Uri Yosef on Isaiah 53
Although I have responded to a false prophet by the name of Maestro M. Erano Evangelista on Isaiah 53, it will be worth writing an article on this subject of Isaiah 53 again, this time on the subject of Isaiah 53.
Many points from that article may be mentioned here but this is specifically also for a response to the Rabbinic Jews on this subject.
For those who want to know who Uri Yosef is, I'll let his site speak for itself:
"Professor Uri Yosef was born, raised, and educated in Israel, and completed his higher education (Ph.D. and M.B.A.) in the US. A researcher, scholar, and former tenured professor, Uri speaks at various Jewish venues about the efforts to counter Christian missionary groups. Uri's background in languages includes: Hebrew (native tongue), English, German, and Yiddish on a fluent level."
Now onto some of the points he raised in his article on Isaiah 53. I haven't read the first article on the Defense of it talking about Israel, but I have read the second regarding Jesus, that I will definitely respond to. The points I will look at in particular are the New Testament questions which are found in the article itself.
One thing I will say off the bat, I don't dismiss the interpretation in the historical context or the Messianic context speaking of Israel, but even granting it as Israel will not deal with the Messianic application. For example the RMBM (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon aka Maimonedes), treats Isaiah 9:6 as messianic or Isaiah 9:5 as the Hebrew Bible has it numbered. He also differs from Christians, particularly Trinitarians in his application of the titles of the person, including El Gibbor or Mighty God. That's one example. But moving on.
Let's begin with the first point, Isaiah 53:12:
"The New Testament contains explicit references to several Biblical
personalities who were God's servants – David (Luke 1:69), Moses
(Revelation 15:3), and "the prophets" (Revelation 10:7). However, nowhere
do the authors of the New Testament refer to Jesus as God's servant, nor
does anyone ever explicitly call him My servant. The expression My servant
appears only once in the New Testament (with several variations on the
capitalization, depending on version and, at times, the phrase is also modified
with an added adjective), at Matthew 12:18, where it is an allusion to Jesus,
although it occurs there in a reference to Isaiah's First Servant Song (Isaiah
42:1-4).
According to Christian theology, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and is the
Son “personage” in the triune godhead for most Christians, all of which
components are claimed to be of "equal" status. But, how can Jesus be
God's servant if they are "equals"? After all, a servant is lower in status, or
"subservient", to his master. Complex, convoluted, and unconvincing
answers to this question, which are often based on circular reasoning, are
offered by missionaries. Contrary to those explanations, the authors of the
New Testament state the "bottom line" on several occasions, such as:
John 15:15(KJV) – Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not
what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of
my Father I have made known unto you. [See also Luke 7:8, 12:47.]
Therefore, from a Trinitarian Christian perspective, it would not be appropriate
to associate the title My servant with Jesus as being God's servant. Are not
the three components of the triune godhead co-equals in every way?
A further search of the New Testament for indications that Jesus prospered,
or acquired wisdom, yields the following passage:
Luke 2:52(KJV) – And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with
God and man.
Once again, one must question whether this can be an attribute of God. After
all, the Hebrew Bible teaches that God does not change (Malachi 3:6), yet
here the New Testament clearly states that Jesus was "growing up", i.e.,
changing. Secondly, since God is omniscient, i.e., all-knowing, how was it
possible for Jesus to learn more if he were this omniscient God?
The authors of the New Testament refer to Jesus being exalted (Acts 5:31;
Philippians 2:9). However, there is nothing found within the New Testament
to support the rest of the verse Isaiah 52:13. Concerning the matter of the
servant being lifted up and made high, how could this possibly refer to a
divine being? Recall that the prophet Malachi declares how God does not
change! The only (implicit) reference in the New Testament to any kind of
"lifting up" of Jesus is during the event of his crucifixion, when he had to be literally raised unto the cross, which placed him in a higher position than the
people who may have stood around on the ground. "
To accuse Trinitarians of circular reasoning when it comes to responding to the objection against the Trinity is not a response unless you can show that we are engaging in this. Firstly, The Trinity is the teaching there is ONE God and only one, but this one God is also three distinct persons. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father. That's the first point. Second, when we say that the persons are co-equal and co-eternal, that is in referrence to their essence and nature, not their position and status.
Philippians 2:5-11 says the following:
"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
Not only is Christ in nature deity, he also did not consider his equality something to be grasped or held onto. He willingly laid aside his divine perogatives, not his divinity, and took the form of a servant. Christ is God, but he is not the Father and is the servant of the Father, there is no problem with Isaiah 53:12 applying to Jesus in light of the Trinitarian context. Jesus IS hyper-exalted by the Father, he regains his divine perogatives after going back to heaven. As for Jesus growing and other issues like him not knowing the day or the hour, that demonstrates he is fully human, but doesn't refute him being fully God for the reasons above, regarding his perogatives.
As for being lifted up and made high, that does refer to Christ's exaltation, which Isaiah 53 does confirm.
If Uri is interested, he can check out my articles on the Trinity, especially my response to Tovia Singer on the subject.
Also, on a quick note, Malachi doesn't deny God the ability to become man, it says:
3 “I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.
2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, 4 and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the Lord, as in days gone by, as in former years.
5 “So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty.
6 “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty.
The text doesn't have anything to do with the hypostatic union, in context, it demonstrates that God is still the same, Yesterday, Today and Forever. He is the same God who blesses and curses those who obey or disobey.
Next we shall move on to Isaiah 53:14:
"The accounts of the events leading up to the crucifixion include several
descriptions of how Jesus was handled by the Roman soldiers. Apparently
the Romans (verbally) mocked him, they placed a crown of thorns on his
head, spat on him, and hit him on the head, either with a reed or with their
hands (e.g., Matthew 27:27-30, John 19:2-3).
From the treatment described in the New Testament, and given that this took
place over a short period of time prior to his crucifixion, could the appearance
of Jesus have been marred and his features disfigured to such an extent that
he was unrecognizable as a person?
What did Jesus look like throughout his entire life span prior to this
treatment? Was he also in this condition? If he were in this condition, why
would God have chosen such a damaged body for Himself? Quite to the
contrary, the authors of the New Testament describe Jesus as handsome
and popular with the multitudes (e.g., Matthew 21:9; Luke 2:52), an image
that is depicted in many later works of art. "
Isaiah 53:14 doesn't speak of Jesus' entire life as a whole, the description of his visage was how he looked in his suffering. As he went to Calvary, his appearance was marred, the people mocked him amongst other things. Also the appeal to Jesus seen as handsome in works of art is to be honest a red herring, not to mention those who did the art work didn't know what Jesus looked like to begin with.
Next, Isaiah 53:1
"This verse is cross-referenced with two verses in the New Testament, John
12:38 and Romans 10:16, both of which allege that the Jews who, even after
having seen Jesus perform miracles, refused to accept him. How could the
context change so drastically and have the “voice” suddenly switch to the
Jews when the previous verse speaks of the startled kings of many nations?
Rather than it being the Jews who speak here, starting at this verse, those
kings of the nations begin to realize that what they had perceived in the past
is not what they are witnessing. Thus, the authors of these cross-referenced
passages in the New Testament either misrepresented or misunderstood
Isaiah's words and attributed them to the wrong "speakers"."
Uri goes back to Isaiah 52:10 briefly regarding the arm of the Lord and the Gentile Kings, but what I will focus on here is the New Testament question. Uri's interpretation that it's referring to the kings and not the Jews, while interesting, doesn't take into consideration that it is NOT just the Kings that didn't believe the report, the wicked remnant among the Jews did not believe it either. It is not a case of John attributing it to the wrong people, he as actually applying it correctly.
Think about it, the Rabbinic Jews often say Isaiah 53 is referring to the rightous remnant of Israel or both the Messiah and the rightous remnant right? But does that mean every Jew in the land believed the report? The answer is yes to the first question and the answer is no to the second. If there is a rightous remnant, there have to also be unbelievers around them. Unbelieving Jews would also be alongside the Gentile Kings in not believing the report. John's application of the verse is correct and valid, considering the Pharisees DID NOT BELIEVE. Also in Isaiah's day, only the rightous remnant among the Jews believed the report given by Isaiah, not the Jews as a whole.
Now we shall move onto Isaiah 53:2.
"It was noted in connection with Isaiah 52:13 how the New Testament depicts
Jesus, with his handsome appearance, charismatic personality, and wisdom, as constantly gaining popularity among ever growing multitudes. If that was
true, how could the present verse possibly refer to the massive rejection of
Jesus' message by the Jews at the time of his death? Quite to the contrary,
the New Testament indicates that, even within Jerusalem itself, great
multitudes were still loyal to Jesus as he was on his way to being crucified:
Luke 23:27(KJV) – And there followed him a great company of people, and of
women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
As it regards his followers outside of Jerusalem, it is most likely that they were
unaware of the events that transpired in the capital and, thus, they would not
have rejected him at that time.
With approximately 2/3rd of the world's Jewry in the first century C.E. living
outside the Land of Israel, it is also likely that the majority of his Jewish
contemporaries in the Diaspora never even heard of Jesus. Even the well known historian Philo of Alexandria [20 B.C.E-50 C.E], a contemporary of Jesus, never mentioned him in his works. Clearly, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews was not yet an issue at the time of his death."
Again, the text in Isaiah 53:2 is referring to the suffering of Christ, not his life as a whole. People mocked him and rejected him as I mentioned earlier in this article. This issue has already been covered.
Moving on to Isaiah 53:3
"Terminology similar to the language found in Isaiah 53:3 is used by the
authors of the Gospels in reference to Jesus for the very short duration of the
events that led up to his crucifixion. Otherwise, and quite to the contrary, the
Gospels abound with language that gives a very different picture of Jesus.
The phrase "… despised and forsaken by men …" cannot be reconciled with the
way Jesus is described in the New Testament, according to which he was
immensely popular:
In his youth, he was loved by all (Luke 2:40,47,52)
He was a popular preacher (Mark 3:7-9)
He was "praised by all" (Luke 4:14-15)
He was followed by multitudes who later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 4:25, 21:9-11)
When it was time to take him away to be crucified, Jesus had to be spirited away since the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mark 14:1-2)
The cross-referenced verse, Luke 18:31, is out of context with respect to the
language in the Hebrew Bible, where the expression בותֹ אֹ כְ מַ אישִׁ (ISH
mach'oVOT), a man of pains, appears in connection with the servant. When
a person is described in the Hebrew Bible as "a man of …", the common
implication is that such a condition has been present for a prolonged period of
time.
For example, the phrase היםÏִ אֱ אישִׁ (ISH E-loHIM), a man of God, in
the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 1Samuel 9:6) signifies that the person was devoted to
God for a long time, perhaps even for a lifetime. Other examples of this kind
include references to tribal affiliations, such as מיןִ יָנְבִּ אישִׁ (ISH BinyaMIN), a
man of [the Tribe of] Benjamin (e.g., Judges 20:41). Therefore, when the
phrase "… a man of pains, and accustomed to illness …" is said to apply to Jesus,
one must ask:
Where in the New Testament is Jesus described as having
been afflicted with disease, and for how long did this condition last? If he
were in this condition, one would have to wonder why God would choose to
put Himself into such an afflicted and decrepit body, and how Jesus could qualify as an "unblemished sacrifice" being in such an "imperfect" body."
I'll deal with the last point first. The NT commonly uses typology to point to Christ. Christians are aware that an unblemished lamb refers to it not having any physicial defects on the lamb itself. The point of Jesus being the unblemished lamb is in referrence his sinlessness. That's the typology used by the NT.
Second, Despised and forsaken of men refers again to his suffering before the cross, not his life as a whole as mentioned already. One way of Jesus being a man of pains and accustomed to illness is not his condition as such, but what he observed around him regarding the people, even those rightous people, certainly that was for a long time.
Third, Barnes in his commentary has suggested the following which can be found here http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/53-3.htm:
"A man of sorrows - What a beautiful expression! A man who was so sad and sorrowful; whose life was so full of sufferings, that it might be said that that was the characteristic of the man. A similar phraseology occurs in Proverbs 29:1, 'He that being often reproved,' in the margin, 'a man of reproofs;' in the Hebrew, 'A man of chastisements,' that is, a man who is often chastised. Compare Daniel 10:11 : 'O Daniel, a man greatly beloved,' Margin, as in Hebrew, 'A man of desires; that is, a man greatly desired. Here, the expression means that his life was characterized by sorrows. How remarkably this was fulfilled in the life of the Redeemer, it is not necessary to attempt to show.
And acquainted with grief - Hebrew, חלי וידוע viydûa‛ choliy - 'And knowing grief.' The word rendered 'grief' means usually sickness, disease Deuteronomy 7:15; Deuteronomy 28:61; Isaiah 1:5; but it also means anxiety, affliction Ecclesiastes 5:16; and then any evil or calamity Ecclesiastes 6:2. Many of the old interpreters explain it as meaning, that he was known or distinguished by disease; that is, affected by it in a remarkable manner. So Symm. Γνωστός νόσῳ Gnōstos nosō. Jerome (the Vulgate) renders it, Scientem infirmitatem. The Septuagint renders the whole clause, 'A man in affliction (ἐν πληγῇ en plēgē), and knowing to bear languor, or disease' (εἰδὼ; φέρειν μαλακίαν eidōs pherein malakian). But if the word here means disease, it is only a figurative designation of severe sufferings both of body and of soul. Hengstenberg, Koppe, and Ammon, suppose that the figure is taken from the leprosy, which was not only one of the most severe of all diseases, but was in a special manner regarded as a divine judgment.
They suppose that many of the expressions which follow may be explained with reference to this (compare Hebrews 4:15). The idea is, that he was familiar with sorrow and calamity. It does not mean, as it seems to me, that he was to be himself sick and diseased; but that he was to be subject to various kinds of calamity, and that it was to be a characteristic of his life that he was familiar with it. He was intimate with it. He knew it personally; he knew it in others. He lived in the midst of scenes of sorrow, and be became intimately acquainted with its various forms, and with its evils. There is no evidence that the Redeemer was himself sick at any time - which is remarkable - but there is evidence in abundance that he was familiar with all kinds of sorrow, and that his own life was a life of grief."
Onto Isaiah 53:4 this time.
"The use of the cross-referenced verse, Matthew 8:17, is likely to have been
motivated by the author’s desire to promote the idea of vicarious punishment,
an unfortunate misinterpretation of Isaiah 53:4.
Where in the New Testament is Jesus ever described in terms of such
language, especially as being smitten by God? Nowhere is Jesus described
as being sickly, oppressed, and smitten by God. While on the cross, Jesus
allegedly complained to God about being forsaken (Matthew 27:46; Mark
15:34), yet King David said that a righteous person is not forsaken by God:
Psalms 37:25 – I was young, I also aged, and I have not seen a righteous man
forsaken and his seed seeking bread.
Was Jesus righteous? If, as missionaries claim, he was God, how could he
forsake himself, or be unable to help himself while on the cross? "
Once again there is a lack of understanding regarding the subject of the Trinity here. When we say Jesus is God, that doesn't mean he is the Father in heaven. It is the Son speaking to the Father, not speaking to himself. Also, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 22, recognised universally among Christians as such and is also a vindication of God's servant not only in the Messianic application but also in the historical one I.E David. Matthew understood Isaiah 53:4 as referring to Jesus bearing our disease and infirmities by healing people from them and setting them free from it. He is not suggesting Christ literally became sick or infected by them in that sense.
Furthermore, When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken me?", The judgement he bore for our sake was over. There was no complaining at all, nor did he become a sinful reprobate either, he simply bore our sins and God's wrath was poured out on him. the phrase it is finished, or at the end of Psalm 22, for he has done it, signified the end to which the servant is vindicated.
Let's move on the Isaiah 53:5
"As can be seen from the number of cross-referenced verses to it, the authors
of the New Testament quite fond of this verse in their efforts to design and.
promote the notion that the death of Jesus effected the atonement of the sins
of others. Yet, aside of the mistranslations in the KJV, human vicarious
atonement is strictly prohibited according to the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exodus
32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2Kings 14:6; Jeremiah
31:29[30]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7-9. "
The texts below will need a separate article to address. However I will briefly mention that Moed Qatan 28 a (or b), speaks about the death of the rightous making atonement. However, the interpretation of this tradition in the Talmud will need a discussion page for people to speak about this text, because I have come across other interpretations of that text.
Now then, Time for Isaiah 53:6
"The New Testament contains many references to Jesus taking on the
people's sins and dying for them (e.g., Matthew 26:28; 1Corinthians 15:3;
1Peter 2:24; 1John 3:5), though none testify to the text of Isaiah 53:6,
according to which this was inflicted on him by the people at God's request.
In fact, some passages in the New Testament claim that Jesus may have
done this at his own behest:
Galatians 1:3-4(KJV) – (3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and
from our Lord Jesus Christ, (4) Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver
us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
The closest the New Testament approaches the concept that God may have
had a hand in the event is in passages such as the following:
John 3:16(KJV) – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1John 4:10(KJV) – Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
However, none of these passages reflect the context of Isaiah 53:6 and,
perhaps, that is the reason they are not cross-referenced to this verse.
Even though the alternative rendition is neither found nor acknowledged in
Christian translations, does the New Testament describe any situations where
Jesus interceded on behalf of someone who oppressed him? While no such
accounts are recorded about the Pharisees, who were alleged to be his
enemies, one such passage concerns the Roman soldiers who put Jesus on
the cross:
Luke 23:34(KJV) – Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what
they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Based on this passage, Jesus is given the benefit of the doubt with respect to
Isaiah 53:6. "
Jesus' intercession not only would refer to the Romans, but also the intercession he makes for the people of God in heaven. Regarding Isaiah 53:6, why would it need to be? 1 Peter 2:24 actually paraphrases that verse and the others would have no need to quote it, the writers of the New Testament counted on the fact their audience would know the TANAKH inside and out.
Isaiah 53:7 next.
"There are several cross-referenced citations of this verse in the New
Testament, as indicated below the translation. All cited verses, except for
Acts 8:32, describe how Jesus stood silently when questioned by Pilate and
the High Priest. Acts 8:32 is a "quote" of Isaiah 53:7, which, according to the
context in Acts 8, was the passage the Ethiopian eunuch read and asked
Philip to teach him of whom Isaiah was speaking. Philip responded that it
was speaking of Jesus. So, the overall impression of these references to this
verse is that Jesus was quiet on his way to be crucified.
The Gospel accounts contain (conflicting) accounts that describe Jesus as
anything but silent in his own defense before the High Priest:
John 18:19-23(KJV) – (19) The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of
his doctrine. (20) Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in
the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret
have I said nothing. (21) Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I
have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. (22) And when he had thus
spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand,
saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? (23) Jesus answered him, If I have
spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Jesus also protested when questioned by Pontius Pilate: John 18:33-37(KJV) – (33) Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and
called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? (34) Jesus
answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
(35) Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have
delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? (36) Jesus answered, My kingdom is
not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,
that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
(37) Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou
sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the
world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth
heareth my voice.
Jesus also prayed at the cross, as was noted in the discussion of Isaiah 53:6.
Then, according to the Gospel accounts, Jesus did not remain silent when he
was on the cross, with his last words being reported differently in three of the
four Gospels:
Matthew 27:46(KJV) – And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me? [See also Mark 15:34; Luke 23:46; John 19:30.]
In fact, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus screamed so loudly while
on the cross that it might have even caused an earthquake:
Matthew 27:50-51(KJV) – (50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice,
yielded up the ghost. (51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain
from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Moreover, it seems that Jesus tried to save himself from death with prayers:
Matthew 26.39(KJV) – And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed,
saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not
as I will, but as thou wilt. [See also Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42]
Hebrews 5:7(KJV) – Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him
from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Jesus did not go willingly to his death, and he protested loudly against it,
contrary to Galatians 1:4, cited earlier in reference to Isaiah 53:6.
These accounts in the New Testament contradict the claim that Jesus was
silent before his accusers, and that he humbled himself and did not open his
mouth. The encounters with the Jewish and Roman authorities involved
strong verbal confrontations and did not feature a silent and meek Jesus.
Quite to the contrary, he is depicted as presenting a strong defense of himself
and for his teaching."
Jesus only prayed that if it was possible to have the cup or God's wrath taken from him, but submitted to the Father's will, as he said "I came NOT to do my will, but the will of him who sent ME". Regarding the subject of Jesus being silent, that is easy to address. The phrase not opening his mouth doesn't mean he didn't speak, it means Jesus is not opening his mouth to resist his death. He doesn't plead to the Jews to spare his life, but rather goes through with it, though he is not suffering for wrong doing. Psalm 22 has already been covered. His speech is not opening his mouth to plead for freedom.
Next Isaiah 53:8
"The New Testament does not describe Jesus as being taken out of
imprisonment and from judgment, and cut off from the land of the living, i.e.,
exiled from the Land of Israel.
Even with the numerous references in the New Testament to the idea that
Jesus died for the sins of mankind, according to the description of the servant
in this verse, and as further supported in the Hebrew Bible, this could not
possibly be the case. First, it was already demonstrated that the servant
described here in terms of a compound noun is a plurality, a group of people,
not an individual. Second, the claim in the New Testament is that Jesus,
who, according to Christian beliefs, is God incarnate in the flesh as a human
being, was offered as a sacrifice in order to pay the ransom for people's sins
and thereby providing their salvation through the shedding of the human
blood of his human flesh. In other words, it was Jesus the human being and
not Jesus the divine being that allegedly served as the sacrificial offering for
the atonement of humanity's sins. Yet, according to the Hebrew Bible, this
scenario is not possible:
Psalms 49:8 – A brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God.
Compare this with the KJV “Old Testament” rendition:
Psalms 49:7(KJV) – None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give
to God a ransom for him: Both versions clearly convey the same message, that one human being
cannot redeem another. On the other hand, according to the New Testament,
the human, not the divine, aspect of Jesus was offered as a ransom for the
salvation of mankind. Which source should be accepted as the authoritative
one – the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament?"
It was not the human Jesus who died on the cross, it was the God-Man. Jesus as the God Man DIED. The objection to God dying is also covered in the objection here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/classical-trinitarian-objections.html.
Psalm 47:9 shows that one is incapable of ransoming another, I can't and Uri can't. Yet Jesus claims to be able to ransom MANY lives, because if he is rightous, which I am convinced he is, then he is able to redeem us because he is the God-Man. In light of this, Both the OT and the NT can be accepted.
I shall address the other texts in another article if the Lord Wills.
Answering Judaism.
Many points from that article may be mentioned here but this is specifically also for a response to the Rabbinic Jews on this subject.
For those who want to know who Uri Yosef is, I'll let his site speak for itself:
"Professor Uri Yosef was born, raised, and educated in Israel, and completed his higher education (Ph.D. and M.B.A.) in the US. A researcher, scholar, and former tenured professor, Uri speaks at various Jewish venues about the efforts to counter Christian missionary groups. Uri's background in languages includes: Hebrew (native tongue), English, German, and Yiddish on a fluent level."
Now onto some of the points he raised in his article on Isaiah 53. I haven't read the first article on the Defense of it talking about Israel, but I have read the second regarding Jesus, that I will definitely respond to. The points I will look at in particular are the New Testament questions which are found in the article itself.
One thing I will say off the bat, I don't dismiss the interpretation in the historical context or the Messianic context speaking of Israel, but even granting it as Israel will not deal with the Messianic application. For example the RMBM (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon aka Maimonedes), treats Isaiah 9:6 as messianic or Isaiah 9:5 as the Hebrew Bible has it numbered. He also differs from Christians, particularly Trinitarians in his application of the titles of the person, including El Gibbor or Mighty God. That's one example. But moving on.
Let's begin with the first point, Isaiah 53:12:
"The New Testament contains explicit references to several Biblical
personalities who were God's servants – David (Luke 1:69), Moses
(Revelation 15:3), and "the prophets" (Revelation 10:7). However, nowhere
do the authors of the New Testament refer to Jesus as God's servant, nor
does anyone ever explicitly call him My servant. The expression My servant
appears only once in the New Testament (with several variations on the
capitalization, depending on version and, at times, the phrase is also modified
with an added adjective), at Matthew 12:18, where it is an allusion to Jesus,
although it occurs there in a reference to Isaiah's First Servant Song (Isaiah
42:1-4).
According to Christian theology, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and is the
Son “personage” in the triune godhead for most Christians, all of which
components are claimed to be of "equal" status. But, how can Jesus be
God's servant if they are "equals"? After all, a servant is lower in status, or
"subservient", to his master. Complex, convoluted, and unconvincing
answers to this question, which are often based on circular reasoning, are
offered by missionaries. Contrary to those explanations, the authors of the
New Testament state the "bottom line" on several occasions, such as:
John 15:15(KJV) – Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not
what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of
my Father I have made known unto you. [See also Luke 7:8, 12:47.]
Therefore, from a Trinitarian Christian perspective, it would not be appropriate
to associate the title My servant with Jesus as being God's servant. Are not
the three components of the triune godhead co-equals in every way?
A further search of the New Testament for indications that Jesus prospered,
or acquired wisdom, yields the following passage:
Luke 2:52(KJV) – And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with
God and man.
Once again, one must question whether this can be an attribute of God. After
all, the Hebrew Bible teaches that God does not change (Malachi 3:6), yet
here the New Testament clearly states that Jesus was "growing up", i.e.,
changing. Secondly, since God is omniscient, i.e., all-knowing, how was it
possible for Jesus to learn more if he were this omniscient God?
The authors of the New Testament refer to Jesus being exalted (Acts 5:31;
Philippians 2:9). However, there is nothing found within the New Testament
to support the rest of the verse Isaiah 52:13. Concerning the matter of the
servant being lifted up and made high, how could this possibly refer to a
divine being? Recall that the prophet Malachi declares how God does not
change! The only (implicit) reference in the New Testament to any kind of
"lifting up" of Jesus is during the event of his crucifixion, when he had to be literally raised unto the cross, which placed him in a higher position than the
people who may have stood around on the ground. "
To accuse Trinitarians of circular reasoning when it comes to responding to the objection against the Trinity is not a response unless you can show that we are engaging in this. Firstly, The Trinity is the teaching there is ONE God and only one, but this one God is also three distinct persons. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father. That's the first point. Second, when we say that the persons are co-equal and co-eternal, that is in referrence to their essence and nature, not their position and status.
Philippians 2:5-11 says the following:
"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
Not only is Christ in nature deity, he also did not consider his equality something to be grasped or held onto. He willingly laid aside his divine perogatives, not his divinity, and took the form of a servant. Christ is God, but he is not the Father and is the servant of the Father, there is no problem with Isaiah 53:12 applying to Jesus in light of the Trinitarian context. Jesus IS hyper-exalted by the Father, he regains his divine perogatives after going back to heaven. As for Jesus growing and other issues like him not knowing the day or the hour, that demonstrates he is fully human, but doesn't refute him being fully God for the reasons above, regarding his perogatives.
As for being lifted up and made high, that does refer to Christ's exaltation, which Isaiah 53 does confirm.
If Uri is interested, he can check out my articles on the Trinity, especially my response to Tovia Singer on the subject.
Also, on a quick note, Malachi doesn't deny God the ability to become man, it says:
3 “I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.
2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, 4 and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the Lord, as in days gone by, as in former years.
5 “So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty.
6 “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty.
The text doesn't have anything to do with the hypostatic union, in context, it demonstrates that God is still the same, Yesterday, Today and Forever. He is the same God who blesses and curses those who obey or disobey.
Next we shall move on to Isaiah 53:14:
"The accounts of the events leading up to the crucifixion include several
descriptions of how Jesus was handled by the Roman soldiers. Apparently
the Romans (verbally) mocked him, they placed a crown of thorns on his
head, spat on him, and hit him on the head, either with a reed or with their
hands (e.g., Matthew 27:27-30, John 19:2-3).
From the treatment described in the New Testament, and given that this took
place over a short period of time prior to his crucifixion, could the appearance
of Jesus have been marred and his features disfigured to such an extent that
he was unrecognizable as a person?
What did Jesus look like throughout his entire life span prior to this
treatment? Was he also in this condition? If he were in this condition, why
would God have chosen such a damaged body for Himself? Quite to the
contrary, the authors of the New Testament describe Jesus as handsome
and popular with the multitudes (e.g., Matthew 21:9; Luke 2:52), an image
that is depicted in many later works of art. "
Isaiah 53:14 doesn't speak of Jesus' entire life as a whole, the description of his visage was how he looked in his suffering. As he went to Calvary, his appearance was marred, the people mocked him amongst other things. Also the appeal to Jesus seen as handsome in works of art is to be honest a red herring, not to mention those who did the art work didn't know what Jesus looked like to begin with.
Next, Isaiah 53:1
"This verse is cross-referenced with two verses in the New Testament, John
12:38 and Romans 10:16, both of which allege that the Jews who, even after
having seen Jesus perform miracles, refused to accept him. How could the
context change so drastically and have the “voice” suddenly switch to the
Jews when the previous verse speaks of the startled kings of many nations?
Rather than it being the Jews who speak here, starting at this verse, those
kings of the nations begin to realize that what they had perceived in the past
is not what they are witnessing. Thus, the authors of these cross-referenced
passages in the New Testament either misrepresented or misunderstood
Isaiah's words and attributed them to the wrong "speakers"."
Uri goes back to Isaiah 52:10 briefly regarding the arm of the Lord and the Gentile Kings, but what I will focus on here is the New Testament question. Uri's interpretation that it's referring to the kings and not the Jews, while interesting, doesn't take into consideration that it is NOT just the Kings that didn't believe the report, the wicked remnant among the Jews did not believe it either. It is not a case of John attributing it to the wrong people, he as actually applying it correctly.
Think about it, the Rabbinic Jews often say Isaiah 53 is referring to the rightous remnant of Israel or both the Messiah and the rightous remnant right? But does that mean every Jew in the land believed the report? The answer is yes to the first question and the answer is no to the second. If there is a rightous remnant, there have to also be unbelievers around them. Unbelieving Jews would also be alongside the Gentile Kings in not believing the report. John's application of the verse is correct and valid, considering the Pharisees DID NOT BELIEVE. Also in Isaiah's day, only the rightous remnant among the Jews believed the report given by Isaiah, not the Jews as a whole.
Now we shall move onto Isaiah 53:2.
"It was noted in connection with Isaiah 52:13 how the New Testament depicts
Jesus, with his handsome appearance, charismatic personality, and wisdom, as constantly gaining popularity among ever growing multitudes. If that was
true, how could the present verse possibly refer to the massive rejection of
Jesus' message by the Jews at the time of his death? Quite to the contrary,
the New Testament indicates that, even within Jerusalem itself, great
multitudes were still loyal to Jesus as he was on his way to being crucified:
Luke 23:27(KJV) – And there followed him a great company of people, and of
women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
As it regards his followers outside of Jerusalem, it is most likely that they were
unaware of the events that transpired in the capital and, thus, they would not
have rejected him at that time.
With approximately 2/3rd of the world's Jewry in the first century C.E. living
outside the Land of Israel, it is also likely that the majority of his Jewish
contemporaries in the Diaspora never even heard of Jesus. Even the well known historian Philo of Alexandria [20 B.C.E-50 C.E], a contemporary of Jesus, never mentioned him in his works. Clearly, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews was not yet an issue at the time of his death."
Again, the text in Isaiah 53:2 is referring to the suffering of Christ, not his life as a whole. People mocked him and rejected him as I mentioned earlier in this article. This issue has already been covered.
Moving on to Isaiah 53:3
"Terminology similar to the language found in Isaiah 53:3 is used by the
authors of the Gospels in reference to Jesus for the very short duration of the
events that led up to his crucifixion. Otherwise, and quite to the contrary, the
Gospels abound with language that gives a very different picture of Jesus.
The phrase "… despised and forsaken by men …" cannot be reconciled with the
way Jesus is described in the New Testament, according to which he was
immensely popular:
In his youth, he was loved by all (Luke 2:40,47,52)
He was a popular preacher (Mark 3:7-9)
He was "praised by all" (Luke 4:14-15)
He was followed by multitudes who later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 4:25, 21:9-11)
When it was time to take him away to be crucified, Jesus had to be spirited away since the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mark 14:1-2)
The cross-referenced verse, Luke 18:31, is out of context with respect to the
language in the Hebrew Bible, where the expression בותֹ אֹ כְ מַ אישִׁ (ISH
mach'oVOT), a man of pains, appears in connection with the servant. When
a person is described in the Hebrew Bible as "a man of …", the common
implication is that such a condition has been present for a prolonged period of
time.
For example, the phrase היםÏִ אֱ אישִׁ (ISH E-loHIM), a man of God, in
the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 1Samuel 9:6) signifies that the person was devoted to
God for a long time, perhaps even for a lifetime. Other examples of this kind
include references to tribal affiliations, such as מיןִ יָנְבִּ אישִׁ (ISH BinyaMIN), a
man of [the Tribe of] Benjamin (e.g., Judges 20:41). Therefore, when the
phrase "… a man of pains, and accustomed to illness …" is said to apply to Jesus,
one must ask:
Where in the New Testament is Jesus described as having
been afflicted with disease, and for how long did this condition last? If he
were in this condition, one would have to wonder why God would choose to
put Himself into such an afflicted and decrepit body, and how Jesus could qualify as an "unblemished sacrifice" being in such an "imperfect" body."
I'll deal with the last point first. The NT commonly uses typology to point to Christ. Christians are aware that an unblemished lamb refers to it not having any physicial defects on the lamb itself. The point of Jesus being the unblemished lamb is in referrence his sinlessness. That's the typology used by the NT.
Second, Despised and forsaken of men refers again to his suffering before the cross, not his life as a whole as mentioned already. One way of Jesus being a man of pains and accustomed to illness is not his condition as such, but what he observed around him regarding the people, even those rightous people, certainly that was for a long time.
Third, Barnes in his commentary has suggested the following which can be found here http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/53-3.htm:
"A man of sorrows - What a beautiful expression! A man who was so sad and sorrowful; whose life was so full of sufferings, that it might be said that that was the characteristic of the man. A similar phraseology occurs in Proverbs 29:1, 'He that being often reproved,' in the margin, 'a man of reproofs;' in the Hebrew, 'A man of chastisements,' that is, a man who is often chastised. Compare Daniel 10:11 : 'O Daniel, a man greatly beloved,' Margin, as in Hebrew, 'A man of desires; that is, a man greatly desired. Here, the expression means that his life was characterized by sorrows. How remarkably this was fulfilled in the life of the Redeemer, it is not necessary to attempt to show.
And acquainted with grief - Hebrew, חלי וידוע viydûa‛ choliy - 'And knowing grief.' The word rendered 'grief' means usually sickness, disease Deuteronomy 7:15; Deuteronomy 28:61; Isaiah 1:5; but it also means anxiety, affliction Ecclesiastes 5:16; and then any evil or calamity Ecclesiastes 6:2. Many of the old interpreters explain it as meaning, that he was known or distinguished by disease; that is, affected by it in a remarkable manner. So Symm. Γνωστός νόσῳ Gnōstos nosō. Jerome (the Vulgate) renders it, Scientem infirmitatem. The Septuagint renders the whole clause, 'A man in affliction (ἐν πληγῇ en plēgē), and knowing to bear languor, or disease' (εἰδὼ; φέρειν μαλακίαν eidōs pherein malakian). But if the word here means disease, it is only a figurative designation of severe sufferings both of body and of soul. Hengstenberg, Koppe, and Ammon, suppose that the figure is taken from the leprosy, which was not only one of the most severe of all diseases, but was in a special manner regarded as a divine judgment.
They suppose that many of the expressions which follow may be explained with reference to this (compare Hebrews 4:15). The idea is, that he was familiar with sorrow and calamity. It does not mean, as it seems to me, that he was to be himself sick and diseased; but that he was to be subject to various kinds of calamity, and that it was to be a characteristic of his life that he was familiar with it. He was intimate with it. He knew it personally; he knew it in others. He lived in the midst of scenes of sorrow, and be became intimately acquainted with its various forms, and with its evils. There is no evidence that the Redeemer was himself sick at any time - which is remarkable - but there is evidence in abundance that he was familiar with all kinds of sorrow, and that his own life was a life of grief."
Onto Isaiah 53:4 this time.
"The use of the cross-referenced verse, Matthew 8:17, is likely to have been
motivated by the author’s desire to promote the idea of vicarious punishment,
an unfortunate misinterpretation of Isaiah 53:4.
Where in the New Testament is Jesus ever described in terms of such
language, especially as being smitten by God? Nowhere is Jesus described
as being sickly, oppressed, and smitten by God. While on the cross, Jesus
allegedly complained to God about being forsaken (Matthew 27:46; Mark
15:34), yet King David said that a righteous person is not forsaken by God:
Psalms 37:25 – I was young, I also aged, and I have not seen a righteous man
forsaken and his seed seeking bread.
Was Jesus righteous? If, as missionaries claim, he was God, how could he
forsake himself, or be unable to help himself while on the cross? "
Once again there is a lack of understanding regarding the subject of the Trinity here. When we say Jesus is God, that doesn't mean he is the Father in heaven. It is the Son speaking to the Father, not speaking to himself. Also, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 22, recognised universally among Christians as such and is also a vindication of God's servant not only in the Messianic application but also in the historical one I.E David. Matthew understood Isaiah 53:4 as referring to Jesus bearing our disease and infirmities by healing people from them and setting them free from it. He is not suggesting Christ literally became sick or infected by them in that sense.
Furthermore, When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken me?", The judgement he bore for our sake was over. There was no complaining at all, nor did he become a sinful reprobate either, he simply bore our sins and God's wrath was poured out on him. the phrase it is finished, or at the end of Psalm 22, for he has done it, signified the end to which the servant is vindicated.
Let's move on the Isaiah 53:5
"As can be seen from the number of cross-referenced verses to it, the authors
of the New Testament quite fond of this verse in their efforts to design and.
promote the notion that the death of Jesus effected the atonement of the sins
of others. Yet, aside of the mistranslations in the KJV, human vicarious
atonement is strictly prohibited according to the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exodus
32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2Kings 14:6; Jeremiah
31:29[30]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7-9. "
The texts below will need a separate article to address. However I will briefly mention that Moed Qatan 28 a (or b), speaks about the death of the rightous making atonement. However, the interpretation of this tradition in the Talmud will need a discussion page for people to speak about this text, because I have come across other interpretations of that text.
Now then, Time for Isaiah 53:6
"The New Testament contains many references to Jesus taking on the
people's sins and dying for them (e.g., Matthew 26:28; 1Corinthians 15:3;
1Peter 2:24; 1John 3:5), though none testify to the text of Isaiah 53:6,
according to which this was inflicted on him by the people at God's request.
In fact, some passages in the New Testament claim that Jesus may have
done this at his own behest:
Galatians 1:3-4(KJV) – (3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and
from our Lord Jesus Christ, (4) Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver
us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
The closest the New Testament approaches the concept that God may have
had a hand in the event is in passages such as the following:
John 3:16(KJV) – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1John 4:10(KJV) – Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
However, none of these passages reflect the context of Isaiah 53:6 and,
perhaps, that is the reason they are not cross-referenced to this verse.
Even though the alternative rendition is neither found nor acknowledged in
Christian translations, does the New Testament describe any situations where
Jesus interceded on behalf of someone who oppressed him? While no such
accounts are recorded about the Pharisees, who were alleged to be his
enemies, one such passage concerns the Roman soldiers who put Jesus on
the cross:
Luke 23:34(KJV) – Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what
they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Based on this passage, Jesus is given the benefit of the doubt with respect to
Isaiah 53:6. "
Jesus' intercession not only would refer to the Romans, but also the intercession he makes for the people of God in heaven. Regarding Isaiah 53:6, why would it need to be? 1 Peter 2:24 actually paraphrases that verse and the others would have no need to quote it, the writers of the New Testament counted on the fact their audience would know the TANAKH inside and out.
Isaiah 53:7 next.
"There are several cross-referenced citations of this verse in the New
Testament, as indicated below the translation. All cited verses, except for
Acts 8:32, describe how Jesus stood silently when questioned by Pilate and
the High Priest. Acts 8:32 is a "quote" of Isaiah 53:7, which, according to the
context in Acts 8, was the passage the Ethiopian eunuch read and asked
Philip to teach him of whom Isaiah was speaking. Philip responded that it
was speaking of Jesus. So, the overall impression of these references to this
verse is that Jesus was quiet on his way to be crucified.
The Gospel accounts contain (conflicting) accounts that describe Jesus as
anything but silent in his own defense before the High Priest:
John 18:19-23(KJV) – (19) The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of
his doctrine. (20) Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in
the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret
have I said nothing. (21) Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I
have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. (22) And when he had thus
spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand,
saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? (23) Jesus answered him, If I have
spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Jesus also protested when questioned by Pontius Pilate: John 18:33-37(KJV) – (33) Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and
called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? (34) Jesus
answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
(35) Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have
delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? (36) Jesus answered, My kingdom is
not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,
that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
(37) Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou
sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the
world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth
heareth my voice.
Jesus also prayed at the cross, as was noted in the discussion of Isaiah 53:6.
Then, according to the Gospel accounts, Jesus did not remain silent when he
was on the cross, with his last words being reported differently in three of the
four Gospels:
Matthew 27:46(KJV) – And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me? [See also Mark 15:34; Luke 23:46; John 19:30.]
In fact, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus screamed so loudly while
on the cross that it might have even caused an earthquake:
Matthew 27:50-51(KJV) – (50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice,
yielded up the ghost. (51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain
from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Moreover, it seems that Jesus tried to save himself from death with prayers:
Matthew 26.39(KJV) – And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed,
saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not
as I will, but as thou wilt. [See also Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42]
Hebrews 5:7(KJV) – Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him
from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Jesus did not go willingly to his death, and he protested loudly against it,
contrary to Galatians 1:4, cited earlier in reference to Isaiah 53:6.
These accounts in the New Testament contradict the claim that Jesus was
silent before his accusers, and that he humbled himself and did not open his
mouth. The encounters with the Jewish and Roman authorities involved
strong verbal confrontations and did not feature a silent and meek Jesus.
Quite to the contrary, he is depicted as presenting a strong defense of himself
and for his teaching."
Jesus only prayed that if it was possible to have the cup or God's wrath taken from him, but submitted to the Father's will, as he said "I came NOT to do my will, but the will of him who sent ME". Regarding the subject of Jesus being silent, that is easy to address. The phrase not opening his mouth doesn't mean he didn't speak, it means Jesus is not opening his mouth to resist his death. He doesn't plead to the Jews to spare his life, but rather goes through with it, though he is not suffering for wrong doing. Psalm 22 has already been covered. His speech is not opening his mouth to plead for freedom.
Next Isaiah 53:8
"The New Testament does not describe Jesus as being taken out of
imprisonment and from judgment, and cut off from the land of the living, i.e.,
exiled from the Land of Israel.
Even with the numerous references in the New Testament to the idea that
Jesus died for the sins of mankind, according to the description of the servant
in this verse, and as further supported in the Hebrew Bible, this could not
possibly be the case. First, it was already demonstrated that the servant
described here in terms of a compound noun is a plurality, a group of people,
not an individual. Second, the claim in the New Testament is that Jesus,
who, according to Christian beliefs, is God incarnate in the flesh as a human
being, was offered as a sacrifice in order to pay the ransom for people's sins
and thereby providing their salvation through the shedding of the human
blood of his human flesh. In other words, it was Jesus the human being and
not Jesus the divine being that allegedly served as the sacrificial offering for
the atonement of humanity's sins. Yet, according to the Hebrew Bible, this
scenario is not possible:
Psalms 49:8 – A brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God.
Compare this with the KJV “Old Testament” rendition:
Psalms 49:7(KJV) – None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give
to God a ransom for him: Both versions clearly convey the same message, that one human being
cannot redeem another. On the other hand, according to the New Testament,
the human, not the divine, aspect of Jesus was offered as a ransom for the
salvation of mankind. Which source should be accepted as the authoritative
one – the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament?"
It was not the human Jesus who died on the cross, it was the God-Man. Jesus as the God Man DIED. The objection to God dying is also covered in the objection here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/classical-trinitarian-objections.html.
Psalm 47:9 shows that one is incapable of ransoming another, I can't and Uri can't. Yet Jesus claims to be able to ransom MANY lives, because if he is rightous, which I am convinced he is, then he is able to redeem us because he is the God-Man. In light of this, Both the OT and the NT can be accepted.
I shall address the other texts in another article if the Lord Wills.
Answering Judaism.
Edit: 16th of September 2017. The link to my response to Shadid has been removed because the references to Rabbinic Commentators had been removed 3 years ago.
Thursday, 31 October 2013
Pauline Conspiracy: Examining the claims of Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal 3
Let us carry on with our refutation of Yisroel Blumenthal in the claims that he makes about Paul. He posed the question that "If the Jewish Christians suspected Paul of lying with his mouth, why would they be so naive to think that he could he not lie with his actions?" which I have already covered. But now onto his next point.
"The more likely explanation is that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem could not care less what it was that Paul believed in his heart. What they wanted with this public demonstration was an act of repudiation of his teaching. They wanted to make clear, that in the presence of the disciples of Jesus, Paul did not have the backbone to stand for his own principles. This was not to be a demonstration of loyalty, it was to stand as a public renunciation of Pauline Christianity."
No, it was a demonstration of loyality to the Torah. To accuse Paul of lacking a spine against the apostles backtracks against the fact that Paul did confront Peter for his mishandling of the Gospel. Now that is one with a backbone, confronting an apostle when he made a mistake. Paul was not one who tolerated compromise at all. To accuse the Jewish Christians of wanting to make it clear that Paul had no spine when speaking with the apostles, is simply a false statement by Blumenthal.
"Whether you believe that this activity on the part of Paul was to serve as a demonstration of loyalty, or you feel as I do, that this was a forced retraction, there are several questions that the author of Acts leaves unanswered. Of all the activities proscribed by the law of Moses, why did James choose a Temple rite for this public presentation? If the only purpose of this demonstration was to reassure the Jewish Christians that Paul was loyal to the law, a public act of observance of any point in the law would have served. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves, why was this particular Temple rite chosen by James? Why did it have to be a Nazirite offering? Why would a simple burnt offering not have served the same purpose? It is clear that nothing less than a Nazirite offering on the part of Paul would satisfy the Jerusalem Christians. Why not?
The answer is staring us in the face. A Nazirite offering includes a sacrifice that is offered for the explicit purpose of the expiation of sin (Numbers 6:14). Paul’s central teaching is that the only valid method of expiating sin is through the blood of Jesus. The Jewish Christians did not accept this teaching. They believed that the Law of Moses provided for the expiation of sin through various methods including the offering of animals in the Temple for this purpose. When Paul would participate in this rite, he would be publicly repudiating his own teaching on the matter."
This is already answered in my article on Acts 21: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html
Then of course Blumenthal is once again not satisfied with some responses Christians have given, although when this and the other articles had been posted for the first time, he hasn't read them yet. Anyway onto his points.
"Some Christians have argued that these offerings on the part of the Jewish Christians would not serve as a repudiation of Pauline Christianity. These offerings were understood to be pointing back to the sacrifice of Jesus. This explanation fails for several reasons. First, the offerings were to be processed by the non-Christian Temple establishment. The priests who processed the offerings would have understood them as Moses explains: that these offerings themselves atoned for sin. The concept that the sacrifices no longer atoned stands as a polar opposite of the soul and spirit of the Temple establishment. The idea of handing offerings to these people as an expression of loyalty to Christian doctrine is flatly ridiculous."
The Levites if they were unbelievers wouldn't even care about what Paul taught. The argument offered by Christians here still stands, Why? Because Paul knew what he was teaching was not repudiated by James. IT IS IRRELEVANT what the unbelievers attitude to the teaching of the atonement was.
"The second reason that this Christian explanation does not work is because this act was meant as a public demonstration. Paul was not given an opportunity to explain his actions. He was simply to go into the Temple and participate in this offering for the expiation of sin. James trusted that the onlookers would fully understand the message that is inherent in these actions. How would the Jerusalem crowds have understood this message? There is no question that these people would have read the message of Paul’s actions as an affirmation of the efficacy of the Temple sacrifices. No one ever taught these people a different understanding of the sacrifices. The entire concept of “sacrifices pointing back to Jesus” was invented recently under polemical pressure. This concept is not mentioned anywhere in the Christian scriptures or in the writings of any Christian theologian until recently. We can be sure that this concept was not popular currency in the Jerusalem Church of James."
Invented by who? and when? By Paul? Jesus himself said he came to give his life as a ransom for many, which is found in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28. Jesus DID teach his death was a vicarious atonement, which he taught to the apostles, Paul has it revealed to him AND GOES TO CHECK WITH THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES. Furthermore, Let's turn Blumenthal's arguments against him.
He believes in the concept of the Oral Torah, yet this concept is not mentioned anywhere in the TANAKH, let alone the NT writings. Blumenthal may reject what I have to say regarding Paul's teaching going back to Jesus, but by his own criteria. Let's have a conspiracy hypothesis of my own.
Why should I accept this idea of an oral Torah going back to Moses which was convieniently written down AFTER the time of Jesus? I could easily say that the Rabbis invented this concept, thus is a later invention under polemical pressure. Blumenthal can say otherwise and give an explaination but then I can try to refute his point.
"Finally, this explanation (the sacrifices pointed back to Jesus) fails to explain why the members of the JerusalemChurch saw in this act of Paul a declaration of loyalty to the principles they held so dear. Why would this act stand as a symbol of their zeal for the Law?
Let us summarize what we have learned. Paul claimed that no living person taught him anything. He claimed that the teachings that Jesus imparted during his lifetime were meant for the Jews, while the teachings that Paul learned in his visions were meant for the gentiles. Paul accuses the Jewish followers of Jesus for failing to respect this division and attempting to influence the gentiles. Paul tells us that there were people who were very influential in the Church who preached a different gospel than his own. Despite the fact that Paul’s disciples redacted the synoptic gospels, it is still difficult to find a clear Pauline statement attributed to Jesus in these books. The book of Acts makes clear that the JerusalemChurch never acknowledged Paul’s claim to prophecy. The book of Acts also makes clear that there were deep differences between Paul and the members of the JerusalemChurch. (There is more to discuss here, such as the tone and the emphasis of the book of James, the fact that the Jewish disciples of Jesus were shocked by his death, and the fact that the Church of James was allowed to flourish in Pharisaic Jerusalem, but the discussion has already become too lengthy.)".
These bottom points have been addressed in previous articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
Also, Paul's act would show that the rumours about him telling the Jews to abandon the Torah was a rumour. Simple as that.
"We have an abundance of evidence that Paul, and not Jesus, was the inventor of Christianity. How does Brown deal with this accusation? In the thirteen pages that Brown devoted to this subject, there are only a few sentences that deal with the issues we raised here. On page 201 Brown tells us that Paul was “recognized as a key player by the other key leaders in Acts 15″. Brown does not explain how the description of the author of Acts contradicts Paul’s own version of the event. Brown also does not tell us that the episode as described in Acts makes clear that the leaders of the JerusalemChurch did NOT accept Paul’s claim to prophecy."
I have already showed in the previous articles that the point about Paul's prophecy was NOT an important point at the council and that the apostles accepted him in Acts 14, in the very book that Blumenthal quotes to demonstrate his point. The articles above also cover the "contradictions" between Paul and Luke's accounts.
"Brown tells us that Paul “dispelled any doubts about his teachings and personal practices in Acts 21″ (page 201). This is quite a bizarre statement. The story in Acts 21 reveals the deep friction that existed between all of the Jewish believers and Paul. The JerusalemChurch saw the core of their differences in the Temple offerings. And Brown is satisfied with the pat assurance that Paul “dispelled any doubts”?! Why was there this deep distrust between Paul and the JerusalemChurch? Why were the members of the JerusalemChurch busy with Temple offerings after the crucifixion of Jesus? Why could Paul not reassure the Jewish believers with a simple speech? Why did James and Peter not reassure their own followers? Why did Paul have to do it? Why were the members of the JerusalemChurch so zealous for the Law of Moses? Brown does not seem to have answers for these questions."
Don't actions speak louder than words? What's amazing is that Jews often emphasise the deeds of a man. Surely that principle of Paul's ACTIONS would speak louder than his words? There is a certain hypocrisy in this section of the article by Blumenthal.
"Brown tells us that Paul “passed on what he received”. Brown does not make clear to his readership that when Paul says the word “received” he does not mean that he received the teaching from the Jewish disciples of Jesus, but rather, that he personally received these teachings in visions from the dead Jesus."
This point about the "dead" Jesus giving Revelation to Paul has already been covered. Also, Keith Thompson on his article regarding the apostleship of Paul says the following:
"Disinterested Comment about James
We can know Paul was a reliable true Apostle because of his disinterested comment about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:19:
“18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.” (Galatians 1:18-19)
Notice the disinterested off the cuff remark from Paul about James. The point is if Paul was a false Apostle inventing stories we would not expect him to just mention James in passing without making a point. The fact that Paul merely mentions James in this off the cuff way persuades historians that Paul is trustworthy showing that he wasn’t out to merely prove he was an Apostle with fanciful detailed stories, but that he was actually recalling real events about his association with the early church and Apostles.
Paul’s Gospel in the 1 Corinthians 15 Apostles Creed is the original Gospel
We can know Paul was a genuine Apostle preaching the original Gospel because his 1 Corinthians 15 Creed, which he received very early from the Apostles (Peter and James), is dated very closely to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion by scholarship which shows that Paul’s message was not some later innovation. The creed states:
“3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
Here Paul reminds the Corinthian church that this Gospel message or creed which he previously preached to them orally was first given to him. It is important to note that Paul mentions that he received this creed before giving it to them. The 1st century evidence demonstrates that Paul received this creed from Peter and James around A.D. 35 in Jerusalem. This demonstrates that Paul’s Gospel (Jesus’ sacrifice for sins, the resurrection and appearances) was not some later corruption but that it goes right back to the beginning – coming from the original Apostles who walked with Jesus. I will demonstrate this by constructing a timeline based on the early data."
I highly recommend this article to you guys, as well as the documentary that Keith has put together, considering the length of legwork he has done with respect to the issue of Paul:
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRI8nLuwn-A
"Brown tells us that “with the exception of some heretical groups (like the Ebionites), Paul’s teachings were received by the second generation of believers, including men who were disciples of the original apostles (such as Polycarp).” I find this sentence quite astounding. Brown tells us nothing about the deep opposition to Paul from within the Church in his own lifetime. This opposition came straight from Jerusalem, the place where Jesus lived and taught. Instead Brown is satisfied to pass on to his readers a piece of Christian mythology. None of the original Hebrew and Aramaic writings of the Jewish disciples of Jesus and their subsequent followings survived the blind fury of the Pauline Church. All of the writings we have from the early Christians were either written or redacted by the gentile followers of Paul. The writings of the early Church fathers tell us precious little about the life and teachings of the Jewish disciples of Jesus. There is one association that Brown and other fundamentalist Christians seize upon. Polycarp! It is claimed that Polycarp was a disciple of John. Polycarp died approximately in the year 160 C.E. If he ever saw John, it could only have been at a time that he was a small boy and John was an old man. Polycarp does not quote John. He does not tell us anything about the life and teachings of John. The entire claim of Polycarp’s discipleship of John, is at best, an exaggeration of a brief sighting in his youth."
Paul had opposition in his day, he mentions this in his letters, again, They were FALSE CHRISTIANS who attacked Paul, NOT the apostles. In this article: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html, Tetonics.org has suggested the following and the quotes I have highlighted in italics are the key points:
"Against the identification of this person with the apostle John, Kümmel objects:
It is unclear that Polycarp is referring to the apostle John. Some have suggested that there is a confusion between the apostle John and a later disciple named John in Polycarp's statement [Stree.4G, 434]. However, Robinson [Robin.PJ, 102-3; see also Gund.Mk, 1027ff] makes the following points:
Polycarp makes no appeal in his epistles to a relationship with an apostle. This is an argument from silence, and assumes that we have all of Polycarp's extant material and that there was a need for such an appeal, a most gratuitous assumption especially from a high-context document and society in which such background facts if true would be taken for granted. Blomberg [Blom.Jn, 24] notes that Polycarp's epistle is exhortational in nature and thus has no place for direct appeal to John's Gospel or John himself."
This covers that section regarding Polycarp.
"If you are a Christian, I beg of you, please absorb what you have just read. The accusation that Paul invented Christianity has deep foundations in the Christian scriptures and in the history of the early Church. Dr. Brown, who is a very capable person (and I do not mean this sarcastically), could not provide a defense against this accusation aside from four hollow sentences. So what is the basis of your faith?"
Yet the quotations provided by Blumenthal were grossly taken out of context. This Pauline Conspiracy has been shredded for a long time. Any accusation that Jesus and Paul taught 2 different things, is simply an unwillingness to read the context.
I hope these articles regarding the Pauline conspiracy have helped and I hope you may find them useful.
Answering Judaism.
"The more likely explanation is that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem could not care less what it was that Paul believed in his heart. What they wanted with this public demonstration was an act of repudiation of his teaching. They wanted to make clear, that in the presence of the disciples of Jesus, Paul did not have the backbone to stand for his own principles. This was not to be a demonstration of loyalty, it was to stand as a public renunciation of Pauline Christianity."
No, it was a demonstration of loyality to the Torah. To accuse Paul of lacking a spine against the apostles backtracks against the fact that Paul did confront Peter for his mishandling of the Gospel. Now that is one with a backbone, confronting an apostle when he made a mistake. Paul was not one who tolerated compromise at all. To accuse the Jewish Christians of wanting to make it clear that Paul had no spine when speaking with the apostles, is simply a false statement by Blumenthal.
"Whether you believe that this activity on the part of Paul was to serve as a demonstration of loyalty, or you feel as I do, that this was a forced retraction, there are several questions that the author of Acts leaves unanswered. Of all the activities proscribed by the law of Moses, why did James choose a Temple rite for this public presentation? If the only purpose of this demonstration was to reassure the Jewish Christians that Paul was loyal to the law, a public act of observance of any point in the law would have served. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves, why was this particular Temple rite chosen by James? Why did it have to be a Nazirite offering? Why would a simple burnt offering not have served the same purpose? It is clear that nothing less than a Nazirite offering on the part of Paul would satisfy the Jerusalem Christians. Why not?
The answer is staring us in the face. A Nazirite offering includes a sacrifice that is offered for the explicit purpose of the expiation of sin (Numbers 6:14). Paul’s central teaching is that the only valid method of expiating sin is through the blood of Jesus. The Jewish Christians did not accept this teaching. They believed that the Law of Moses provided for the expiation of sin through various methods including the offering of animals in the Temple for this purpose. When Paul would participate in this rite, he would be publicly repudiating his own teaching on the matter."
This is already answered in my article on Acts 21: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html
Then of course Blumenthal is once again not satisfied with some responses Christians have given, although when this and the other articles had been posted for the first time, he hasn't read them yet. Anyway onto his points.
"Some Christians have argued that these offerings on the part of the Jewish Christians would not serve as a repudiation of Pauline Christianity. These offerings were understood to be pointing back to the sacrifice of Jesus. This explanation fails for several reasons. First, the offerings were to be processed by the non-Christian Temple establishment. The priests who processed the offerings would have understood them as Moses explains: that these offerings themselves atoned for sin. The concept that the sacrifices no longer atoned stands as a polar opposite of the soul and spirit of the Temple establishment. The idea of handing offerings to these people as an expression of loyalty to Christian doctrine is flatly ridiculous."
The Levites if they were unbelievers wouldn't even care about what Paul taught. The argument offered by Christians here still stands, Why? Because Paul knew what he was teaching was not repudiated by James. IT IS IRRELEVANT what the unbelievers attitude to the teaching of the atonement was.
"The second reason that this Christian explanation does not work is because this act was meant as a public demonstration. Paul was not given an opportunity to explain his actions. He was simply to go into the Temple and participate in this offering for the expiation of sin. James trusted that the onlookers would fully understand the message that is inherent in these actions. How would the Jerusalem crowds have understood this message? There is no question that these people would have read the message of Paul’s actions as an affirmation of the efficacy of the Temple sacrifices. No one ever taught these people a different understanding of the sacrifices. The entire concept of “sacrifices pointing back to Jesus” was invented recently under polemical pressure. This concept is not mentioned anywhere in the Christian scriptures or in the writings of any Christian theologian until recently. We can be sure that this concept was not popular currency in the Jerusalem Church of James."
Invented by who? and when? By Paul? Jesus himself said he came to give his life as a ransom for many, which is found in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28. Jesus DID teach his death was a vicarious atonement, which he taught to the apostles, Paul has it revealed to him AND GOES TO CHECK WITH THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES. Furthermore, Let's turn Blumenthal's arguments against him.
He believes in the concept of the Oral Torah, yet this concept is not mentioned anywhere in the TANAKH, let alone the NT writings. Blumenthal may reject what I have to say regarding Paul's teaching going back to Jesus, but by his own criteria. Let's have a conspiracy hypothesis of my own.
Why should I accept this idea of an oral Torah going back to Moses which was convieniently written down AFTER the time of Jesus? I could easily say that the Rabbis invented this concept, thus is a later invention under polemical pressure. Blumenthal can say otherwise and give an explaination but then I can try to refute his point.
"Finally, this explanation (the sacrifices pointed back to Jesus) fails to explain why the members of the JerusalemChurch saw in this act of Paul a declaration of loyalty to the principles they held so dear. Why would this act stand as a symbol of their zeal for the Law?
Let us summarize what we have learned. Paul claimed that no living person taught him anything. He claimed that the teachings that Jesus imparted during his lifetime were meant for the Jews, while the teachings that Paul learned in his visions were meant for the gentiles. Paul accuses the Jewish followers of Jesus for failing to respect this division and attempting to influence the gentiles. Paul tells us that there were people who were very influential in the Church who preached a different gospel than his own. Despite the fact that Paul’s disciples redacted the synoptic gospels, it is still difficult to find a clear Pauline statement attributed to Jesus in these books. The book of Acts makes clear that the JerusalemChurch never acknowledged Paul’s claim to prophecy. The book of Acts also makes clear that there were deep differences between Paul and the members of the JerusalemChurch. (There is more to discuss here, such as the tone and the emphasis of the book of James, the fact that the Jewish disciples of Jesus were shocked by his death, and the fact that the Church of James was allowed to flourish in Pharisaic Jerusalem, but the discussion has already become too lengthy.)".
These bottom points have been addressed in previous articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
Also, Paul's act would show that the rumours about him telling the Jews to abandon the Torah was a rumour. Simple as that.
"We have an abundance of evidence that Paul, and not Jesus, was the inventor of Christianity. How does Brown deal with this accusation? In the thirteen pages that Brown devoted to this subject, there are only a few sentences that deal with the issues we raised here. On page 201 Brown tells us that Paul was “recognized as a key player by the other key leaders in Acts 15″. Brown does not explain how the description of the author of Acts contradicts Paul’s own version of the event. Brown also does not tell us that the episode as described in Acts makes clear that the leaders of the JerusalemChurch did NOT accept Paul’s claim to prophecy."
I have already showed in the previous articles that the point about Paul's prophecy was NOT an important point at the council and that the apostles accepted him in Acts 14, in the very book that Blumenthal quotes to demonstrate his point. The articles above also cover the "contradictions" between Paul and Luke's accounts.
"Brown tells us that Paul “dispelled any doubts about his teachings and personal practices in Acts 21″ (page 201). This is quite a bizarre statement. The story in Acts 21 reveals the deep friction that existed between all of the Jewish believers and Paul. The JerusalemChurch saw the core of their differences in the Temple offerings. And Brown is satisfied with the pat assurance that Paul “dispelled any doubts”?! Why was there this deep distrust between Paul and the JerusalemChurch? Why were the members of the JerusalemChurch busy with Temple offerings after the crucifixion of Jesus? Why could Paul not reassure the Jewish believers with a simple speech? Why did James and Peter not reassure their own followers? Why did Paul have to do it? Why were the members of the JerusalemChurch so zealous for the Law of Moses? Brown does not seem to have answers for these questions."
Don't actions speak louder than words? What's amazing is that Jews often emphasise the deeds of a man. Surely that principle of Paul's ACTIONS would speak louder than his words? There is a certain hypocrisy in this section of the article by Blumenthal.
"Brown tells us that Paul “passed on what he received”. Brown does not make clear to his readership that when Paul says the word “received” he does not mean that he received the teaching from the Jewish disciples of Jesus, but rather, that he personally received these teachings in visions from the dead Jesus."
This point about the "dead" Jesus giving Revelation to Paul has already been covered. Also, Keith Thompson on his article regarding the apostleship of Paul says the following:
"Disinterested Comment about James
We can know Paul was a reliable true Apostle because of his disinterested comment about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:19:
“18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.” (Galatians 1:18-19)
Notice the disinterested off the cuff remark from Paul about James. The point is if Paul was a false Apostle inventing stories we would not expect him to just mention James in passing without making a point. The fact that Paul merely mentions James in this off the cuff way persuades historians that Paul is trustworthy showing that he wasn’t out to merely prove he was an Apostle with fanciful detailed stories, but that he was actually recalling real events about his association with the early church and Apostles.
Paul’s Gospel in the 1 Corinthians 15 Apostles Creed is the original Gospel
We can know Paul was a genuine Apostle preaching the original Gospel because his 1 Corinthians 15 Creed, which he received very early from the Apostles (Peter and James), is dated very closely to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion by scholarship which shows that Paul’s message was not some later innovation. The creed states:
“3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
Here Paul reminds the Corinthian church that this Gospel message or creed which he previously preached to them orally was first given to him. It is important to note that Paul mentions that he received this creed before giving it to them. The 1st century evidence demonstrates that Paul received this creed from Peter and James around A.D. 35 in Jerusalem. This demonstrates that Paul’s Gospel (Jesus’ sacrifice for sins, the resurrection and appearances) was not some later corruption but that it goes right back to the beginning – coming from the original Apostles who walked with Jesus. I will demonstrate this by constructing a timeline based on the early data."
I highly recommend this article to you guys, as well as the documentary that Keith has put together, considering the length of legwork he has done with respect to the issue of Paul:
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRI8nLuwn-A
"Brown tells us that “with the exception of some heretical groups (like the Ebionites), Paul’s teachings were received by the second generation of believers, including men who were disciples of the original apostles (such as Polycarp).” I find this sentence quite astounding. Brown tells us nothing about the deep opposition to Paul from within the Church in his own lifetime. This opposition came straight from Jerusalem, the place where Jesus lived and taught. Instead Brown is satisfied to pass on to his readers a piece of Christian mythology. None of the original Hebrew and Aramaic writings of the Jewish disciples of Jesus and their subsequent followings survived the blind fury of the Pauline Church. All of the writings we have from the early Christians were either written or redacted by the gentile followers of Paul. The writings of the early Church fathers tell us precious little about the life and teachings of the Jewish disciples of Jesus. There is one association that Brown and other fundamentalist Christians seize upon. Polycarp! It is claimed that Polycarp was a disciple of John. Polycarp died approximately in the year 160 C.E. If he ever saw John, it could only have been at a time that he was a small boy and John was an old man. Polycarp does not quote John. He does not tell us anything about the life and teachings of John. The entire claim of Polycarp’s discipleship of John, is at best, an exaggeration of a brief sighting in his youth."
Paul had opposition in his day, he mentions this in his letters, again, They were FALSE CHRISTIANS who attacked Paul, NOT the apostles. In this article: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html, Tetonics.org has suggested the following and the quotes I have highlighted in italics are the key points:
"Against the identification of this person with the apostle John, Kümmel objects:
It is unclear that Polycarp is referring to the apostle John. Some have suggested that there is a confusion between the apostle John and a later disciple named John in Polycarp's statement [Stree.4G, 434]. However, Robinson [Robin.PJ, 102-3; see also Gund.Mk, 1027ff] makes the following points:
- The issue is that a "John" is mentioned twice in a statement by Eusebius, referring back to Papias, once in a list of "elders"/"Lord's disciples" (along with Matthew, Peter, Thomas, etc) and immediately thereafter, once paired with an "Aristion" and named as "John the Elder" who are "disciples of the Lord." But Robinson notes that it is Eusebius who "introdudes the distinction" between apostles and elders; Papias calls all of the people elders.
- Eusebius had a specific interest in finding two Johns in the list: He desired to attribute Revelation to another person besides the apsotle, following Dionysius of Alexanrdia.
- The order of words in the listing with Aristion is not "John the elder" but "the elder John" which can be understood to mean "the aforementioned John" in the previous list.
- The purpose of the listing of John twice is that Papias is distinguishing between a list of those he conferred with long ago, and those who were still alive. Only John among the apostles was still in this class at the time of Papias.
Polycarp makes no appeal in his epistles to a relationship with an apostle. This is an argument from silence, and assumes that we have all of Polycarp's extant material and that there was a need for such an appeal, a most gratuitous assumption especially from a high-context document and society in which such background facts if true would be taken for granted. Blomberg [Blom.Jn, 24] notes that Polycarp's epistle is exhortational in nature and thus has no place for direct appeal to John's Gospel or John himself."
This covers that section regarding Polycarp.
"If you are a Christian, I beg of you, please absorb what you have just read. The accusation that Paul invented Christianity has deep foundations in the Christian scriptures and in the history of the early Church. Dr. Brown, who is a very capable person (and I do not mean this sarcastically), could not provide a defense against this accusation aside from four hollow sentences. So what is the basis of your faith?"
Yet the quotations provided by Blumenthal were grossly taken out of context. This Pauline Conspiracy has been shredded for a long time. Any accusation that Jesus and Paul taught 2 different things, is simply an unwillingness to read the context.
I hope these articles regarding the Pauline conspiracy have helped and I hope you may find them useful.
Answering Judaism.
Wednesday, 30 October 2013
Pauline Conspiracy: Examining the claims of Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal 2
Well folks here is some more responding to the claims of Yisroel Blumenthal again, let's take a look at them shall we?
"The book of Acts was written by a follower of Paul. It is clear that he was motivated to present a picture in which Paul and the Jewish followers of Jesus agreed on the fundamental issues. The story that the book of Acts relates is quite different than Paul’s version of the events."
To those who have been reading my responses to Blumenthal, Didn't he already claim that Acts 21 has the Jewish Believers and James telling Paul to repudiate the idea that Jesus was a final sacrifice? Now he saying the writer presented a picture of Paul and the Jewish followers agreeing on the fundamentals. He has completely shot his own thesis in the foot. Question, Did the writer make it seem Paul was in agreement? or is the text clear Paul's teaching was wrong? You can't have it both ways.
"When Paul speaks of his own conversion, he finds it important to tell us that “straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up toJerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days” (Galatians 1:16,17,18).
But when the book of Acts describes the same events we get an entirely different picture. No word is mentioned of a trip to Arabia. Paul spends time with the disciples in Damascus, then he preaches in Damascus. It is then told that he arrives in Jerusalem where the Christians were not convinced of the sincerity of Paul’s conversion to the degree that they were afraid of him. (This gives the impression that it was much less than three years between Paul’s conversion and his arrival in Jerusalem.) But Barnabas reassures the apostles and Paul was “with them going in and going out at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:28)."
The trip to Arabia was probably not a relevant point when Luke was writing his book. Paul is speaking of his own testimony in his letter to the Galatians and what he did when Jesus came to him. Blumenthal does admit this "contradiction" can be reconciled, but in the next paragraph he asks his audience regarding the bigger picture.
"I am well aware that all of these contradictions can be reconciled by agile minds. But there is a deeper question to be asked. Why the differences? Why does Paul consider it of utmost importance to tell us of his trip to Arabia, of the three-year period that elapses before he comes to Jerusalem, and of the fact that he saw none of the apostles aside from Peter and James? Why does Paul start out his post-conversion story by telling us that “he conferred not with flesh and blood”? And why does the author of Acts regard these same facts to be so insignificant that the picture he paints leaves us with the opposite impression?"
For the reasons I gave above, It is not something that Luke was concerned with. Luke doesn't need to record everything that Paul did. In fact Paul's later execution is not recorded in the Book of Acts either.
"It is clear that the author of the book of Acts was motivated to present Paul’s preaching as a smooth progression from the preaching of the other apostles. Paul, on the other hand, was motivated to show that his preaching is from a source that is superior to the preaching of the other apostles. It was not important to Paul to show a smooth progression. It was enough for Paul to tell us of a begrudging acknowledgment of his preaching by the apostles who saw the live Jesus."
Where is Blumenthal getting this conspiracy from? Luke is not claiming any superiority of Paul or supremacy of him. Also, Why would Luke be motivated to present a false view of Paul if he knew that Paul was a fraud? The conspiracy theory doesn't work. As I mentioned in my previous paper, Ignatius and Polycarp would not side with Paul if they knew he was a false apostle, it's the same thing with Luke. Why would they invent this story if they knew in their hearts that Paul was some uspurper of the church? This isn't Shabbatai Tsvi we are dealing with, this is the apostles of Christ we are tackling. In fact ha-Yakini was guilty of forging a document to try and prove the Messiahship of Tszi
For info about this incident with ha-Yakini, read here the following article: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13480-shabbethai-zebi-b-mordecai
"The story that Paul tells us in Galatians 2;7-9 is also roundly contradicted by the author of Acts. Paul claims that the leaders of the JerusalemChurch “saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision”. Paul is claiming that these men recognized that the dead Jesus had spoken to him and authorized him to teach just as the live Jesus had spoken to Peter and authorized Peter to preach in his name.
The book of Acts tells us that no such acknowledgment ever took place. In chapter 15 of the book of Acts we are told that when a question arose concerning gentile observance of the Law, Peter and James speak and present their understanding of the matter. If, as Paul claimed, Peter and James truly acknowledged Paul’s apostleship, they should have simply said; Jesus appointed Paul as an apostle to the gentiles, let us obey him. According to the book of Acts, they did nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the book of Acts describes the last meeting between James and Paul, and again the issue of gentile observance comes up, and again James makes reference to the previous decision of the Jerusalem Church and says not a word about Paul’s apostleship (Acts 21:25)."
Why should he mention Paul's apostleship? It wasn't even an issue that James raised in Acts 21 to begin with. Acts 14 already shows Paul was accepted by the apostles, Again, I ask, Did the writer make it seem Paul was in agreement? or is the text clear Paul's teaching was wrong? Which is it? Blumenthal is going back and forth between these options judging by what I am reading. I am amazed. Anyway, there is no contradiction, it's simply Blumenthal forcing something onto the text that is simply not there.
"Another revealing episode is described in chapter 21 of the book of Acts. Paul arrives in Jerusalem and is informed by James that “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law. and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.What is it therefore? They will certainly hear that thou art come.” (Acts 21:20-22).
According to James, all the Jewish Christians are zealous for the law. The word that James uses (zealous), implies ardor, enthusiasm, passion and excitement. Is this Pauline Christianity? Which Christian denomination encourages Jewish people to be “zealous for the law”?"
Er.. Gentiles were not required to keep certain ordinances of the Torah, only the moral minus the death penalty. I have already covered this issue of what laws Gentiles follow in this article: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html
There is no question that the Jewish Christians kept the Torah, I have no problem with this personally. If a Messianic Jew wants to keep the Torah because they believe it pleases the Lord and they are convinced in their conscience, then that's ok. It's only if they have the attitude of the Judaizers I have a problem because they are forcing it on others. If they keep it to themselves that's fine. Romans 14 speaks on this issue of food, as does Colossians 2:16, I am NOT to act as their judge if they feel that keeping certain ordinances honors their Messiah. As long as they are not Judaizers, I will not confront them.
"According to James, it is not the JerusalemChurch that oversteps its boundaries by trying to influence the gentiles (as per Galatians 2:14), but it is Paul who is overstepping his boundaries in trying to influence the Jews. The author of the book of Acts gives us the impression that this was a false accusation that was not accepted by James, but he does acknowledge that all the Jewish believers believed this accusation.
The author of the book of Acts does not explicitly tell us how the members of the JerusalemChurch felt about this accusation. But from the little he says, we can understand that this was no friendly misunderstanding. The words “they will certainly hear that thou art come”, imply that the mere fact of Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem will stir up agitation amongst the Jewish Christians. This agitation was not something that could have been settled by James reassuring his following that this was an innocent misunderstanding, and that Paul was truly loyal to the law. The conflict was so deep that a verbal explanation on Paul’s part would also not put the issue to rest. It is clear that the Jewish Christians did not trust Paul’s words."
Where is Blumenthal getting this "overstepping the boundaries" from? Paul was rebuking Peter for not handling the Gospel correctly, Peter was mistaken and CORRECTED by Paul, that's first an foremost. Second, As I pointed out in my article where I respond to Blumenthal on Acts 21, Rumours were spreading about Paul that he was telling the Jews to abandon the Torah, but James told Paul to demonstrate to the Jewish believers that he is NOT abandoning the Law of Moses and put down the rumours. You can find the article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html
"The only way James could end the conflict was by telling Paul; “Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men that have a vow on them; these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law.” (Acts 21:23,24).
The author of the book of Acts would have us believe that this action on Paul’s part would serve as a declaration of Paul’s true beliefs. Paul’s participation in the Temple rites, would demonstrate to one and all that he was truly loyal to the law of Moses. This explanation fits with the inclination of the author of Acts to minimize the conflict between Paul and the JerusalemChurch. But this explanation is highly unlikely. If this conflict could not be settled through a verbal declaration on Paul’s part, why would a public performance put the accusations to rest? If the Jewish Christians suspected Paul of lying with his mouth, why would they be so naive to think that he could he not lie with his actions?"
They would be satisfied with his actions, not because of naivety but because of Paul proving his very actions. Also the apostles already approved of Paul in the very book Blumenthal quotes. If Blumenthal is going to nitpick the text, there isn't much I can say to persuade him regarding the apostleship of Paul.
If the Lord Wills, more articles regarding this Pauline Conspiracy written by Blumenthal, may put his
arguments to rest.
Answering Judaism.
"The book of Acts was written by a follower of Paul. It is clear that he was motivated to present a picture in which Paul and the Jewish followers of Jesus agreed on the fundamental issues. The story that the book of Acts relates is quite different than Paul’s version of the events."
To those who have been reading my responses to Blumenthal, Didn't he already claim that Acts 21 has the Jewish Believers and James telling Paul to repudiate the idea that Jesus was a final sacrifice? Now he saying the writer presented a picture of Paul and the Jewish followers agreeing on the fundamentals. He has completely shot his own thesis in the foot. Question, Did the writer make it seem Paul was in agreement? or is the text clear Paul's teaching was wrong? You can't have it both ways.
"When Paul speaks of his own conversion, he finds it important to tell us that “straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up toJerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days” (Galatians 1:16,17,18).
But when the book of Acts describes the same events we get an entirely different picture. No word is mentioned of a trip to Arabia. Paul spends time with the disciples in Damascus, then he preaches in Damascus. It is then told that he arrives in Jerusalem where the Christians were not convinced of the sincerity of Paul’s conversion to the degree that they were afraid of him. (This gives the impression that it was much less than three years between Paul’s conversion and his arrival in Jerusalem.) But Barnabas reassures the apostles and Paul was “with them going in and going out at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:28)."
The trip to Arabia was probably not a relevant point when Luke was writing his book. Paul is speaking of his own testimony in his letter to the Galatians and what he did when Jesus came to him. Blumenthal does admit this "contradiction" can be reconciled, but in the next paragraph he asks his audience regarding the bigger picture.
"I am well aware that all of these contradictions can be reconciled by agile minds. But there is a deeper question to be asked. Why the differences? Why does Paul consider it of utmost importance to tell us of his trip to Arabia, of the three-year period that elapses before he comes to Jerusalem, and of the fact that he saw none of the apostles aside from Peter and James? Why does Paul start out his post-conversion story by telling us that “he conferred not with flesh and blood”? And why does the author of Acts regard these same facts to be so insignificant that the picture he paints leaves us with the opposite impression?"
For the reasons I gave above, It is not something that Luke was concerned with. Luke doesn't need to record everything that Paul did. In fact Paul's later execution is not recorded in the Book of Acts either.
"It is clear that the author of the book of Acts was motivated to present Paul’s preaching as a smooth progression from the preaching of the other apostles. Paul, on the other hand, was motivated to show that his preaching is from a source that is superior to the preaching of the other apostles. It was not important to Paul to show a smooth progression. It was enough for Paul to tell us of a begrudging acknowledgment of his preaching by the apostles who saw the live Jesus."
Where is Blumenthal getting this conspiracy from? Luke is not claiming any superiority of Paul or supremacy of him. Also, Why would Luke be motivated to present a false view of Paul if he knew that Paul was a fraud? The conspiracy theory doesn't work. As I mentioned in my previous paper, Ignatius and Polycarp would not side with Paul if they knew he was a false apostle, it's the same thing with Luke. Why would they invent this story if they knew in their hearts that Paul was some uspurper of the church? This isn't Shabbatai Tsvi we are dealing with, this is the apostles of Christ we are tackling. In fact ha-Yakini was guilty of forging a document to try and prove the Messiahship of Tszi
For info about this incident with ha-Yakini, read here the following article: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13480-shabbethai-zebi-b-mordecai
"The story that Paul tells us in Galatians 2;7-9 is also roundly contradicted by the author of Acts. Paul claims that the leaders of the JerusalemChurch “saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision”. Paul is claiming that these men recognized that the dead Jesus had spoken to him and authorized him to teach just as the live Jesus had spoken to Peter and authorized Peter to preach in his name.
The book of Acts tells us that no such acknowledgment ever took place. In chapter 15 of the book of Acts we are told that when a question arose concerning gentile observance of the Law, Peter and James speak and present their understanding of the matter. If, as Paul claimed, Peter and James truly acknowledged Paul’s apostleship, they should have simply said; Jesus appointed Paul as an apostle to the gentiles, let us obey him. According to the book of Acts, they did nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the book of Acts describes the last meeting between James and Paul, and again the issue of gentile observance comes up, and again James makes reference to the previous decision of the Jerusalem Church and says not a word about Paul’s apostleship (Acts 21:25)."
Why should he mention Paul's apostleship? It wasn't even an issue that James raised in Acts 21 to begin with. Acts 14 already shows Paul was accepted by the apostles, Again, I ask, Did the writer make it seem Paul was in agreement? or is the text clear Paul's teaching was wrong? Which is it? Blumenthal is going back and forth between these options judging by what I am reading. I am amazed. Anyway, there is no contradiction, it's simply Blumenthal forcing something onto the text that is simply not there.
"Another revealing episode is described in chapter 21 of the book of Acts. Paul arrives in Jerusalem and is informed by James that “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law. and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.What is it therefore? They will certainly hear that thou art come.” (Acts 21:20-22).
According to James, all the Jewish Christians are zealous for the law. The word that James uses (zealous), implies ardor, enthusiasm, passion and excitement. Is this Pauline Christianity? Which Christian denomination encourages Jewish people to be “zealous for the law”?"
Er.. Gentiles were not required to keep certain ordinances of the Torah, only the moral minus the death penalty. I have already covered this issue of what laws Gentiles follow in this article: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html
There is no question that the Jewish Christians kept the Torah, I have no problem with this personally. If a Messianic Jew wants to keep the Torah because they believe it pleases the Lord and they are convinced in their conscience, then that's ok. It's only if they have the attitude of the Judaizers I have a problem because they are forcing it on others. If they keep it to themselves that's fine. Romans 14 speaks on this issue of food, as does Colossians 2:16, I am NOT to act as their judge if they feel that keeping certain ordinances honors their Messiah. As long as they are not Judaizers, I will not confront them.
"According to James, it is not the JerusalemChurch that oversteps its boundaries by trying to influence the gentiles (as per Galatians 2:14), but it is Paul who is overstepping his boundaries in trying to influence the Jews. The author of the book of Acts gives us the impression that this was a false accusation that was not accepted by James, but he does acknowledge that all the Jewish believers believed this accusation.
The author of the book of Acts does not explicitly tell us how the members of the JerusalemChurch felt about this accusation. But from the little he says, we can understand that this was no friendly misunderstanding. The words “they will certainly hear that thou art come”, imply that the mere fact of Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem will stir up agitation amongst the Jewish Christians. This agitation was not something that could have been settled by James reassuring his following that this was an innocent misunderstanding, and that Paul was truly loyal to the law. The conflict was so deep that a verbal explanation on Paul’s part would also not put the issue to rest. It is clear that the Jewish Christians did not trust Paul’s words."
Where is Blumenthal getting this "overstepping the boundaries" from? Paul was rebuking Peter for not handling the Gospel correctly, Peter was mistaken and CORRECTED by Paul, that's first an foremost. Second, As I pointed out in my article where I respond to Blumenthal on Acts 21, Rumours were spreading about Paul that he was telling the Jews to abandon the Torah, but James told Paul to demonstrate to the Jewish believers that he is NOT abandoning the Law of Moses and put down the rumours. You can find the article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html
"The only way James could end the conflict was by telling Paul; “Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men that have a vow on them; these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law.” (Acts 21:23,24).
The author of the book of Acts would have us believe that this action on Paul’s part would serve as a declaration of Paul’s true beliefs. Paul’s participation in the Temple rites, would demonstrate to one and all that he was truly loyal to the law of Moses. This explanation fits with the inclination of the author of Acts to minimize the conflict between Paul and the JerusalemChurch. But this explanation is highly unlikely. If this conflict could not be settled through a verbal declaration on Paul’s part, why would a public performance put the accusations to rest? If the Jewish Christians suspected Paul of lying with his mouth, why would they be so naive to think that he could he not lie with his actions?"
They would be satisfied with his actions, not because of naivety but because of Paul proving his very actions. Also the apostles already approved of Paul in the very book Blumenthal quotes. If Blumenthal is going to nitpick the text, there isn't much I can say to persuade him regarding the apostleship of Paul.
If the Lord Wills, more articles regarding this Pauline Conspiracy written by Blumenthal, may put his
arguments to rest.
Answering Judaism.
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Pauline Conspiracy: Examining the claims of Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal
This article is going to be the first of a few looking at some of the claims of Yisroel Blumenthal and some of the points he makes about Christianity being invented by Paul and not being consistant with Jesus. Although I have written on the subject of Acts 21 to refute Blumenthal's claims, I want to examine some of the points he claims in his treatise, Supplement to Contra Brown. Any quotes from scripture, Blumenthal and other sources shall be placed in bold.
IV. 11. Objection 5.26
Here Brown attempts to address the argument that it was Paul who invented Christianity as it is known today and not Jesus. Brown responds with the claim that Paul’s teachings are in complete harmony with the teachings of Jesus. Brown states: “The consistent testimony of the New Testament … affirms this point”. This statement is incredible.
The most common conspiracy is trying to pit Jesus against Paul and vice versa, or Jamed and Paul and vice versa. I have seen this tactic among Muslims and Atheists and it's a shame that some of the Rabbinic communities are resorting to this.
You need to read the NT as a whole to see the consistent message running all the way through the books of the NT, which we may get into later.
A simple reading of Paul’s words reveals that Paul himself claimed to be the inventor of Christianity. Christians who want to believe that there was a smooth progression from the Jewish following of Jesus to the gentile following of Paul will find that there is no basis to their belief.
Really? Or is it Rabbi the fact you are not willing to reconcile the "contradictions"? One thing I can say is I can play the same game with the TANAKH, For example God instituted sacrifice, which became a staple part of the Law of Moses, yet if I were take Hosea 3:3-5, 14:1-2, Micah 6:6, Jeremiah 7:22 out of context and say "Well the prophets are contradicting Moses and they invented Judaism", I am sure BLumenthal will say "You have to read in context". If that's the case, thank you I return the complement.
Let us allow Paul to speak for himself. “For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through revelation of Jesus Christ.”(Galatians 1:11,12). Paul is telling us that the gospel that he preached was not taught to him by the disciples of Jesus. Paul is admitting that his gospel was revealed to him in a vision by the deceased Jesus. Paul takes his point a step further. “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man`s person)– they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only [they would] that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.” (Galatians 2:6-13).
Let us understand what Paul is saying here. He is telling us that “those of repute” imparted nothing to him. Who are these people “of repute”? Paul tells us in verse 9 that these people of repute were James, Peter (Cephas) and John. In other words the disciples of Jesus taught Paul nothing.
Where do you get that from the text Mr Blumenthal? The apostles were not teaching Paul "nothing", You can read the chapters here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+1&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202&version=NIV
In the contexts, Paul goes to the apostles to confirm his Revelation to see if what he had said was accurate and sure enough the apostles not adding to his message would indicate that they declared his message to be reliable and accurate.
Paul takes this a step further by drawing a distinct boundary between himself and the Jewish disciples of Jesus. He tells us that he and they were charged with two different missions. They (the Jewish disciples) were charged to minister to the Jewish people (“unto the circumcision”), while he (Paul) was charged to minister to the gentiles. This means that the teaching that Jesus imparted to his Jewish disciples in his lifetime was meant for the Jewish people, while the teaching that the deceased Jesus imparted to Paul was meant for the gentiles. What this implies is that the disciples of Jesus could teach Paul nothing because they were entrusted with a mission that was apart from his own.
Being sent to the uncircumcised or the circumcised simply refers to whom they were to be ministers to, not to what messages they are to bring with respect the Gospel. The apostles checked Paul's message to be reliable teaching and sent him to the Gentiles, While they themselves administered to the Jews, taking THE SAME message to both.
Paul claims that the Jewish disciples of Jesus acknowledged this division in the gospel. He then criticizes Peter and the Jewish followers of Jesus for violating this accepted boundary. He tells us that Peter and other believers from Jerusalem were trying to influence the gentiles to follow the teachings that were meant for the Jews.
Peter was not handling the Gospel accurately because of the men who approached him. In the book of Acts, Peter is shown a vision from Jesus (Wonder why Blumethal doesn't go after Peter for this), to show that not only certain foods are clean, but Gentiles are also clean. Peter later retracts from the Gentiles to which Paul rebukes him, because he was not handling the Gospel accurately. The men who came to Peter were Judaizers trying to put Gentiles under the Law of Moses, something the Jerusalem Council told not to do, including James funnily enough. Feel free to also check out the following commentaries as well regarding the men from James: http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-12.htm
We can now understand the opening verses in the book of Galatians. “Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead),and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father: to whom [be] the glory for ever and ever. Amen. I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another [gospel] only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:1-9).
Paul is surprised that the gentile church of Galatia has so quickly abandoned his teachings. He is informing them that no man or angel has a right to disagree with him because his is the true teaching. Now who were these people that were trying to influence the people in Galatia to disobey Paul? It is clear that these would have been the Jewish disciples of Jesus, whom Paul accuses of duplicity (again – Paul claims that to his face they acknowledged that he had been appointed by the dead Jesus as an emissary to the gentiles, but behind his back they tried to influence the gentiles to follow their own version of the gospel. Remember, Paul accuses Peter; “…how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Galatians 2:14). Paul does not hide the fact that his teachings were considered false by people who were very influential in the early Church (1Corinthians 9:2, 2Corinthians 11:13).
Blumenthal fails to inform the audience that those who attacked Paul in 1 Corinhtians and 2 Corinthians were false teachers, false brethen, that is evident from the contexts.
1 Corinthians 9:1-6 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?
2 Corinthians 11: 11 I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”[a] 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. 7 Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10 As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
The apostles as I have already established approved of Paul's message, thus I can boldly say that those in the context of the 2 Corinthian letters that the people going after Paul were false Christians. The Galatians were swayed by the Judaizers into their false teachings and Paul made it clear that if ANY man was not preaching the Gospel of Christ or perverted it, they would be accursed. It is not Paul VS the Apostles at all, that's simply Blumenthal's fantasy, Just as it is the fantasy of Muslim apologists such as Shabir Ali, Osama Abdallah, Sami Zaatari, Bassam Zawadi, Nadir Ahmed, Gerald Dirks, Paul Williams, Ijaz Ahmad and many others. Not to mention it is the fantasy of heretics such as the Ebionites and modern day heretic and false prophet Sherry Shriner.
It should be noted that the writings of the Christian scriptures as we have them today were redacted by the gentile followers of Paul. The original Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew was destroyed by the gentile followers of Paul. Still, even the Pauline redactors had a difficult job attributing Pauline Christianity to Jesus. In the three Synoptic Gospels there is perhaps one statement attributed to Jesus that is a clear Pauline teaching (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). The origin of this statement is highly questionable. The last supper of Jesus is the onearea where Paul comments on Jesus’ lifetime activities. Paul explicitly states that he received this teaching directly from the dead Jesus (1Corinthians 11:23). The Pauline redactors of the gospels had what they considered a “reliable” source for this story. There is no reason to assume that there was any other source for this story. When this story is removed from the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is no longer a Christian.
The last point regarding Jesus not being a Christian is a non argument. Paul may of gotten the message from the Lord regarding the Supper and confirmed it with the apostles or he got it directly from the apostles, Either way, this wouldn't detract from the fact the apostles were on close terms with Paul from Acts 14 onwards. As for a supposed Hebrew or Aramaic version of Matthew, there is not a shred of evidence that Paul or ANY of his followers EVER destroyed either.
Another thing to consider is the attitudes of the Church Fathers, which I shall provide in this article.
Ignatius Letter to the Romans Chapter 4:
4:3 I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They
were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I
am a slave to this very hour. Yet if I shall suffer,
then am I a freed-man of Jesus Christ, and I shall
rise free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put
away every desire.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html
Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians Chapter 12:
12:1 I know who I am and to whom I write. I am a
convict, ye have received mercy: I am in peril, ye are
established.
12:2 Ye are the high-road of those that are on their
way to die unto God. Ye are associates in the
mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained
a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation; in
whose foot-steps I would fain be found treading, when
I shall attain unto God; who in every letter maketh
mention of you in Christ Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html
Ignatius was a student of the apostle John. Since John got his teaching from Jesus, Ignatius would of been aware of what Jesus taught, even as a Gentile. If Ignatius was convinced that Paul was a usurper and a false brother, he would of warned the apostles themselves, or confront Paul directly. Accusing Ignatius of a conspiracy, as well as Polycarp, also John's pupil, will not work, considering both were willing to go to the grave while acknowledging Paul was a true apostle of Jesus Christ.
Polycarp was also familiar with the Gospel that John presented. If Polycarp was convinced Paul was false, he would take the same actions that Ignatius would of taken as I have mentioned above.
Polycarp says the following in his letter to the Philippians:
Polycarp Letter to the Philippians 3:
Polycarp 3:2
For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the
wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you
taught face to face with the men of that day the word which
concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent,
wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye
shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,
Polycarp 3:3
which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love
goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For
if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment
of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin.
Polycarp 11:2
But he who cannot govern himself in these things, how doth he enjoin
this upon another? If a man refrain not from covetousness, he shall
be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the Gentiles
who know not the judgment of the Lord, Nay, know we not, that the
saints shall judge the world, as Paul teacheth?
Polycarp 11:3
But I have not found any such thing in you, neither have heard
thereof, among whom the blessed Paul labored, who were his
letters in the beginning. For he boasteth of you in all those
churches which alone at that time knew God; for we knew Him not as
yet.
Polycarp 12:1
For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings,
and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted.
Only, as it is said in these scriptures, Be ye angry and sin not,
and Let not the sun set on your wrath. Blessed is he that
remembereth this; and I trust that this is in you.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html
I could present more quotes, but I think that pretty much somes up what some of the early fathers think of Paul.
If the Lord Wills, I may address more of Blumenthal's conspiracy against Paul in future articles.
Answering Judaism.
IV. 11. Objection 5.26
Here Brown attempts to address the argument that it was Paul who invented Christianity as it is known today and not Jesus. Brown responds with the claim that Paul’s teachings are in complete harmony with the teachings of Jesus. Brown states: “The consistent testimony of the New Testament … affirms this point”. This statement is incredible.
The most common conspiracy is trying to pit Jesus against Paul and vice versa, or Jamed and Paul and vice versa. I have seen this tactic among Muslims and Atheists and it's a shame that some of the Rabbinic communities are resorting to this.
You need to read the NT as a whole to see the consistent message running all the way through the books of the NT, which we may get into later.
A simple reading of Paul’s words reveals that Paul himself claimed to be the inventor of Christianity. Christians who want to believe that there was a smooth progression from the Jewish following of Jesus to the gentile following of Paul will find that there is no basis to their belief.
Really? Or is it Rabbi the fact you are not willing to reconcile the "contradictions"? One thing I can say is I can play the same game with the TANAKH, For example God instituted sacrifice, which became a staple part of the Law of Moses, yet if I were take Hosea 3:3-5, 14:1-2, Micah 6:6, Jeremiah 7:22 out of context and say "Well the prophets are contradicting Moses and they invented Judaism", I am sure BLumenthal will say "You have to read in context". If that's the case, thank you I return the complement.
Let us allow Paul to speak for himself. “For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through revelation of Jesus Christ.”(Galatians 1:11,12). Paul is telling us that the gospel that he preached was not taught to him by the disciples of Jesus. Paul is admitting that his gospel was revealed to him in a vision by the deceased Jesus. Paul takes his point a step further. “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man`s person)– they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only [they would] that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.” (Galatians 2:6-13).
Let us understand what Paul is saying here. He is telling us that “those of repute” imparted nothing to him. Who are these people “of repute”? Paul tells us in verse 9 that these people of repute were James, Peter (Cephas) and John. In other words the disciples of Jesus taught Paul nothing.
Where do you get that from the text Mr Blumenthal? The apostles were not teaching Paul "nothing", You can read the chapters here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+1&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202&version=NIV
In the contexts, Paul goes to the apostles to confirm his Revelation to see if what he had said was accurate and sure enough the apostles not adding to his message would indicate that they declared his message to be reliable and accurate.
Paul takes this a step further by drawing a distinct boundary between himself and the Jewish disciples of Jesus. He tells us that he and they were charged with two different missions. They (the Jewish disciples) were charged to minister to the Jewish people (“unto the circumcision”), while he (Paul) was charged to minister to the gentiles. This means that the teaching that Jesus imparted to his Jewish disciples in his lifetime was meant for the Jewish people, while the teaching that the deceased Jesus imparted to Paul was meant for the gentiles. What this implies is that the disciples of Jesus could teach Paul nothing because they were entrusted with a mission that was apart from his own.
Being sent to the uncircumcised or the circumcised simply refers to whom they were to be ministers to, not to what messages they are to bring with respect the Gospel. The apostles checked Paul's message to be reliable teaching and sent him to the Gentiles, While they themselves administered to the Jews, taking THE SAME message to both.
Paul claims that the Jewish disciples of Jesus acknowledged this division in the gospel. He then criticizes Peter and the Jewish followers of Jesus for violating this accepted boundary. He tells us that Peter and other believers from Jerusalem were trying to influence the gentiles to follow the teachings that were meant for the Jews.
Peter was not handling the Gospel accurately because of the men who approached him. In the book of Acts, Peter is shown a vision from Jesus (Wonder why Blumethal doesn't go after Peter for this), to show that not only certain foods are clean, but Gentiles are also clean. Peter later retracts from the Gentiles to which Paul rebukes him, because he was not handling the Gospel accurately. The men who came to Peter were Judaizers trying to put Gentiles under the Law of Moses, something the Jerusalem Council told not to do, including James funnily enough. Feel free to also check out the following commentaries as well regarding the men from James: http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-12.htm
We can now understand the opening verses in the book of Galatians. “Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead),and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father: to whom [be] the glory for ever and ever. Amen. I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another [gospel] only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:1-9).
Paul is surprised that the gentile church of Galatia has so quickly abandoned his teachings. He is informing them that no man or angel has a right to disagree with him because his is the true teaching. Now who were these people that were trying to influence the people in Galatia to disobey Paul? It is clear that these would have been the Jewish disciples of Jesus, whom Paul accuses of duplicity (again – Paul claims that to his face they acknowledged that he had been appointed by the dead Jesus as an emissary to the gentiles, but behind his back they tried to influence the gentiles to follow their own version of the gospel. Remember, Paul accuses Peter; “…how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Galatians 2:14). Paul does not hide the fact that his teachings were considered false by people who were very influential in the early Church (1Corinthians 9:2, 2Corinthians 11:13).
Blumenthal fails to inform the audience that those who attacked Paul in 1 Corinhtians and 2 Corinthians were false teachers, false brethen, that is evident from the contexts.
1 Corinthians 9:1-6 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?
2 Corinthians 11: 11 I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”[a] 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. 7 Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10 As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
The apostles as I have already established approved of Paul's message, thus I can boldly say that those in the context of the 2 Corinthian letters that the people going after Paul were false Christians. The Galatians were swayed by the Judaizers into their false teachings and Paul made it clear that if ANY man was not preaching the Gospel of Christ or perverted it, they would be accursed. It is not Paul VS the Apostles at all, that's simply Blumenthal's fantasy, Just as it is the fantasy of Muslim apologists such as Shabir Ali, Osama Abdallah, Sami Zaatari, Bassam Zawadi, Nadir Ahmed, Gerald Dirks, Paul Williams, Ijaz Ahmad and many others. Not to mention it is the fantasy of heretics such as the Ebionites and modern day heretic and false prophet Sherry Shriner.
It should be noted that the writings of the Christian scriptures as we have them today were redacted by the gentile followers of Paul. The original Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew was destroyed by the gentile followers of Paul. Still, even the Pauline redactors had a difficult job attributing Pauline Christianity to Jesus. In the three Synoptic Gospels there is perhaps one statement attributed to Jesus that is a clear Pauline teaching (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). The origin of this statement is highly questionable. The last supper of Jesus is the onearea where Paul comments on Jesus’ lifetime activities. Paul explicitly states that he received this teaching directly from the dead Jesus (1Corinthians 11:23). The Pauline redactors of the gospels had what they considered a “reliable” source for this story. There is no reason to assume that there was any other source for this story. When this story is removed from the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is no longer a Christian.
The last point regarding Jesus not being a Christian is a non argument. Paul may of gotten the message from the Lord regarding the Supper and confirmed it with the apostles or he got it directly from the apostles, Either way, this wouldn't detract from the fact the apostles were on close terms with Paul from Acts 14 onwards. As for a supposed Hebrew or Aramaic version of Matthew, there is not a shred of evidence that Paul or ANY of his followers EVER destroyed either.
Another thing to consider is the attitudes of the Church Fathers, which I shall provide in this article.
Ignatius Letter to the Romans Chapter 4:
4:3 I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They
were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I
am a slave to this very hour. Yet if I shall suffer,
then am I a freed-man of Jesus Christ, and I shall
rise free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put
away every desire.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html
Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians Chapter 12:
12:1 I know who I am and to whom I write. I am a
convict, ye have received mercy: I am in peril, ye are
established.
12:2 Ye are the high-road of those that are on their
way to die unto God. Ye are associates in the
mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained
a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation; in
whose foot-steps I would fain be found treading, when
I shall attain unto God; who in every letter maketh
mention of you in Christ Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html
Ignatius was a student of the apostle John. Since John got his teaching from Jesus, Ignatius would of been aware of what Jesus taught, even as a Gentile. If Ignatius was convinced that Paul was a usurper and a false brother, he would of warned the apostles themselves, or confront Paul directly. Accusing Ignatius of a conspiracy, as well as Polycarp, also John's pupil, will not work, considering both were willing to go to the grave while acknowledging Paul was a true apostle of Jesus Christ.
Polycarp was also familiar with the Gospel that John presented. If Polycarp was convinced Paul was false, he would take the same actions that Ignatius would of taken as I have mentioned above.
Polycarp says the following in his letter to the Philippians:
Polycarp Letter to the Philippians 3:
Polycarp 3:2
For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the
wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you
taught face to face with the men of that day the word which
concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent,
wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye
shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,
Polycarp 3:3
which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love
goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For
if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment
of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin.
Polycarp 11:2
But he who cannot govern himself in these things, how doth he enjoin
this upon another? If a man refrain not from covetousness, he shall
be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the Gentiles
who know not the judgment of the Lord, Nay, know we not, that the
saints shall judge the world, as Paul teacheth?
Polycarp 11:3
But I have not found any such thing in you, neither have heard
thereof, among whom the blessed Paul labored, who were his
letters in the beginning. For he boasteth of you in all those
churches which alone at that time knew God; for we knew Him not as
yet.
Polycarp 12:1
For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings,
and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted.
Only, as it is said in these scriptures, Be ye angry and sin not,
and Let not the sun set on your wrath. Blessed is he that
remembereth this; and I trust that this is in you.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html
I could present more quotes, but I think that pretty much somes up what some of the early fathers think of Paul.
If the Lord Wills, I may address more of Blumenthal's conspiracy against Paul in future articles.
Answering Judaism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)