An extraordinary degree of inconsistency presents itself in numerous points, when we compare the doctrine of the Christians with the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles.If Jesus had openly called himself God, that would have only confused the crowds. They believed that God is immaterial and in heaven. And in a sense, that is true. The Hasidic sects have noted that God is both a fountain of unity and of diversity. They see God's being like a branching tree. It is unified, and yet complex in its unity. I have answered this objection a previous post, so I will only go over a few points.
In the first place, we find that Jesus does not, in any part of the New Testament, call himself "God" but continually calls himself "Man" or "the Son of Man." The title of Divinity attributed to Jesus is consequently conferred upon him without the sanction of that Book, the authority of which can alone be of value to the Christians.
The earliest generation of the followers of Jesus considered him to be God (Philippians 2:9).
Jesus freely received worship.
Jesus freely took on divine prerogatives such as the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus applied Tanakh passages that describe the God of Israel and applied them to himself.
Jesus' teaching is the best explanation for why Paul, the other apostles, and the entire early church worshiped him as God in the flesh.
Again, Troki writes:
In the second place, we notice that Jesus expresses himself, in various places, that he did not come to abolish the law of Moses, but to uphold it. Thus we read in Matthew 5:17, 18, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil: for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." In a similar manner, we find in Luke 16:17, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Nevertheless, the Christians persist in believing that the Mosaic dispensation is no longer in force, but; has been superseded by that of Jesus.This is a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said that the law would not pass away. As N.T. Wright noted repeatedly in his material, the Tanakh does not answer the question "how do I go to heaven after I die?" All of the blessings and curses regarding the law were linked to rewards and punishments on this earth. It is only later, by people like Rabbi Akiva, when the teaching that obedience to the law is how you get to heaven. Being a Jew was no guarantee of salvation, nor was being a non-Jew any guarantee of damnation. Non-Jews like Job and Melchizedek were righteous in the eyes of God, while many of the kings were wicked and damned.
The purpose of the law was as a treaty between God and Israel as a collective whole. The nation as a single unit was rewarded and punished. Paul, Timothy, and other Jews who followed Jesus kept the law. The book of Acts is very clear about this. They knew that the law was not abolished. Why then do most Christians not follow the Mosaic law?
First, most Christians are not Jews, and hence would not be bound by the Mosaic law in the first place. For the majority of Christians, this objection is irrelevant. For the Jewish Christians, there was no need to follow the law once Israel was destroyed and scattered in the year 135. To follow the law today is something like trying to follow the United States tax law after the nation is obliterated.
The rabbis acknowledge this. In Midrash Vayikra Rabbah, all sacrifices except the thanksgiving offerings will be annulled, since there will be no need for them. In Midrash Schochar Tov, God will permit what is now forbidden. The Babylonian Talmud (Niddah 61b and Shabbat 151b) states that in the world to come, most of the mitzvot (commands of the Jewish law) will not be in force.
Troki again:
In the third place, we observe, from the words of Jesus, that he thought everlasting bliss depended on the obedience to the holy laws of Moses, for when asked by the rich man, what he was to do in order to earn beatitude in life everlasting, Jesus answered (Matthew 19:17, 18, 19, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. The rich man said unto him, Which commandment? Jesus answered, Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; honour thy father and thy mother; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." The Christian of our day adds, that the sole condition on which life eternal depends, is the belief in Jesus as the Saviour of the soul. Jesus moreover taught the young man (Matt 19:21) "If thou be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor." This precept we have never yet seen performed by any Christian.Troki makes a good point. If we manage to keep God's commands perfectly, we can inherit eternal life. This means that we do not inherit sin from Adam. We are not born guilty of sin. Instead, we commit sins, and are damned for it. This was still beside the point for the conversation in Matthew 19. In this story, Jesus was approached by a rich young ruler who thought he had it all together. The man thought he was righteous, and Jesus had to ask him a series of questions so that he might listen. Jesus then directly challenged the man's illusion of piety. If he was so perfectly righteous, he would value God more than any material possession. Of course, the ruler was unwilling to do this, and so his illusion of piety was dissolved in front of the whole crowd.
Jesus then makes his point in the next paragraph. It is very difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God, since people who make a lot of money tend to make wealth the focus of their lives. Peter then asked Jesus "who can be saved?" Jesus replied "with men this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible." The rich young ruler represented the height of Jewish piety, the rich man that Tevye wanted to be. Jesus was making a point that even someone like that cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Humanity has too many weaknesses. Everyone has sinned, and continues to sin. No one can be perfect, and thus we need God's grace in order to have any hope of obtaining salvation.
Troki's fourth point:
In the fourth place, we do not anywhere find the Christian who submits to the humiliation enjoined by Jesus on his disciples, when he said (Luke 6:29) "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also," etc.Apparently, Troki has not read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, or all the other stories of Christians doing just that. The Amish are pacifists and do take this advice literally, although the intent of Jesus was to teach through rabbinic hyperbole. This is similar to saying "tear out your eye and cut off your foot." The point of the passage is to love your enemies, and to be better than the surrounding world. Another way of summarizing this passage is "be proactive, not reactive."
Troki's fifth point
In the fifth place, we have to point out that, while the Christians believe that Mary, after having given birth to Jesus, still remained a virgin, Jesus himself was not of that opinion; for, according to John 2:4, he said, "Woman what have I to do with thee"?Troki is right, although John 2:4 is not the best passage for this. Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with her until she had a son. This implies that he did have relations with her afterward, otherwise the passage simply should have said "he had no relations with her."
And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:53-58)Even Josephus notes this, mentioning in book 20 of his Antiquities about the death of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Even if, somehow, the church used the term "brother" in this non-literal way, Josephus did not.
Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:19-21)Luke 8 seals the deal. Here, he is comparing his figurative use of mother and brothers to a literal use. If he was not told about his literal biological mother and brothers in the first part of this passage, then it would break the parallel and render it meaningless.
Troki's sixth point:
In the sixth place, we find the Christians at variance, not only differing from the Mosaic, or rather Noachic prohibition of eating blood, but even from the injunction we read in Acts 15:20, "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." See also ibid. 15:29 and 21:25.Michael Horudmann answers this question quite well. "These four commands from Jerusalem to Antioch all dealt with pagan practices associated with idolatry. Most, if not all, of the Gentile converts in Antioch were saved out of paganism. The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church. The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church."
Paul writes in Colossians 2 that "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." The laws given to Noah were for his protection. He was for the first time allowed to eat meat, but God warned against eating it raw. Peter and Paul both recognized (in their letters and in Acts) that we have been set free from dietary restrictions, but must make sure that our actions do not cause others to stumble.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.