| Continuing the discussion between Cal and I |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Martin ® 12/13/2002, 18:03:43 Author Profile Mail author |
... On whether and why we consider Paul and/or Joseph Smith to be worthy of the honorific epithet "genius". Our previous discussion has been shifted to the archives due to excessive space usage in the more recent threads, but we both would like to continue our talk. In the posts which follow, I'll start off where our dialog had been "recalibrated" and repost what was said by both parties till we get caught up.
Modified by Martin at Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 18:12:50 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Post 1 [Martin] Re: Continuing the discussion between Cal and I -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/13/2002, 18:04:39
Author Profile Mail author
I'm as delighted as you are that we're back on track! I'll back up a little and then continue on with my thoughts...
To start things anew ourselves, then, I'd like to focus at first on what we both imagine constituted their important motivations, goals, and intentions in crafting their work and inventing their new sects/religions and, from that perspective, offer justifications for or against personally awarding the epithet "genius" to the respective parties. (If that's acceptable to you, and emphasizing that I have no wish to focus on this question to the exclusion of others.)
Let me begin with Paul, then, in this first round...
I find the ideas and arguments most commonly associated with Robert Eisenman (see, for example, James The Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and The Dead Sea Scrolls) that Paul was intimately involved with the religious community described by several important Dead Sea Scroll documents and apparently associated with the community of "Hard" (my term) Essenes (if that's what they really were) at Qumran to be quite fascinating, if admittedly far from being established as fact. Eisenman postulates that Paul was a member of that community for the three years alluded to in the New Testament, and that at some point he became a special initiate to the inner mysteries of the cult. (He also provocatively argues with reasonable success that one of the names for the settlement at Qumran was "Damascus" and was the actual destination in relation to Paul's famous "road trip" rather than the usually assumed city in Syria.)The author of the review I cited above puts it quite well, in my opinion, when he writes: "To him [Eisenman] the early Christian writings, the DSS, and the letters of Paul represent a giant dialogue carried on between competing groups, each sharing an identical symbolic, ideological and theological vocabulary, but modifying, twisting and transmuting it as their purpose demands."
In Eisenman's plausible (but again, far from being compellingly demonstrated) scenario, James -- the so-called "Brother of Jesus" -- was the moral (if not also political) leader during the first century AD of the Qumran/Damascus apocalyptic Adam-Joshuan cult and was -- according to Eisenman -- referred to in key Qumranian scrolls as "The Teacher of Righteousness" (the reference actually exists, but it is still much open to debate whether his implied datings are accurate and whether New Testament's famous James is actually the intended target of the honorific title in question).
In that scenario, Eisenman argues that the identity of the person the same scrolls refer to as "The Liar" was Paul himself, and the scrolls very extensively vilify this "Liar", and you and I both know that such singular hatred from a religious cult is almost always reserved especially for very high-level leaders who then turned apostate.
Just to make it plain, I have no need to count on the historical truth or accuracy of Eisenman's interesting hypotheses to make my arguments, but either way his work provides at least the flavor of the background against which the foresight and philosophizing of Paul should, I contend, be seen as worthy of my accounting him a towering genius, heads and shoulders above Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and others like them. I'll elaborate...
Recent critical New Testament and Dead Sea Scroll scholarship reveals fairly persuasively that the dawn of the creation of what was to become the Christian Myth and Religion began well before the first century AD (by perhaps a century, possibly two), which directly challenges the traditional, conservative Christian view that it began with a physical Jesus' ministry in the early-mid first century. (This ascending view among critical scholars as well provides a serious answer to the perennial (if question-begging) charge that Christianity couldn't have achieved its alleged "speed" of growth and popularity without a historical Jesus to plant the seed and personally spur on proselytizers, which idea is no longer very credible in any case for other reasons.)
These pre-Christians and early CE Joshuans/Jesusians (at least the most active and influential ones) largely consisted of nationalistic xenophobes and frustrated messianic/apocolyptic prophesiers (ala the Millerites two millennia later) who were deeply troubled by their nation's failure to repel or hold off the growing influence and territorial expansions of both Roman power and the frighteningly unorthodox cosmopolitan ideas into their own heartland and communities. Likely the Qumranians and other similar groups were exercising the very natural desire under such circumstances to hermit themselves away to try to avoid cultural, political, and religious "infection".
But whether Paul was a Qumranian apostate and the target of their epithet "Liar" or not, it is highly probable that he was for a time prior to his proselyte days pervasively enmeshed in that dark flavor of popular pre-Christian "meme". It is the entirely new and brilliant direction Paul then single-handedly took this ominously proto-violent, nationalistic, and xenophobic nascent Christian mythology that in my view more than earns him the distinction of towering genius: He cleansed and informed it!
Paul must be credited with a truly heroic act of bold and courageous genius in stripping out or rechannelling a great deal of the nationalist, violently apocalyptic extremism and xenophobia in what he had been given and then wisely imbuing it with extraordinarily rich, cosmopolitan, and progressive social ideas and rarely-matched philosophical depth for a theological thinker of his day and land. I tell you, my friend, that I am very much awed by his astonishing genius and daring!
It is just this brilliant re-symbolizing and cleansing and redirection of what had been an apocalyptic Joshuan warrior Messiah, rife with hostility and dangerous politics and xenophobia and then re-dramatizing it with a meek, gentle, de-politicized Christ as demiurgic star and Savior that impresses me so deeply, Cal. Does it not awe you rather considerably as well, my friend?
I feel it took towering genius-level foresight and insight to have recognized the body- and "soul"-strewn future that lay ahead should the Dark "Christianity" he "received" have succeeded (and as James and Peter and John would have probably preferred), and he performed his brilliantly stunning conversion -- evocative in my view of the Damascus Road story -- in an intellectually bold and powerful manner which was perhaps as impressive as miraculously turning water into wine!
It is my honest view that the meek, gentle, and apolitical "Teacher" Jesus we most commonly see portrayed in most Gospel myths of the budding Christian Church simply would not be found there or at all were it not for Paul's bold, creative genius. For if the apocalyptic, political, warrior Jesus/Joshua of the first Jesusians/Christians had not faced Paul's powerful, disciplined, and philosophically adept mind, Christianity would have been virtually stillborn and would never have outlasted the sack of Jerusalem or ever exceed the bounds of Jewish culture and history.
- - -
As for Joseph Smith, I'm afraid I just can't envision any way he could match the brilliant candle that is Paul's intellectual and theological achievements. While I will gladly credit Joseph as a far wiser, kinder, and moral man than his immediate successor, to me personally a number of Joseph's intellectual and theological accomplishments can be seen as sort of a antithesis of Paul's more socially progressive and intellectually laudable goals.
Paul strove to de-politicize the Christian myth, thereby substantially lessening the likelihood of both inner and outer conflict and hostility and persecution. Smith was a warrior who very much wanted his myth to vanquish all rivals and to serve as the springboard of an exclusive, total theocracy within his own lifetime.
Paul wanted to eliminate or minimize the harsh, intolerant, and xenophobic aspects of the exclusively Judaic Christianity and thereby widen the appeal and benefit he envisioned from his new Church to all peoples without requiring substantial sacrifice from converts and potential converts. Joseph quite intransigently demanded a very great deal indeed from converts, such as strict tithing, secrecy, and total and utter submission to his own absolute authority.
Paul very much sought to minimize the rites and rituals and sacrifices demanded of Christians, so much so that he declared that the Law had been fulfilled and that it would no longer burden gentile converts at all; all he asked of them was faith. Joseph did very much the opposite and mandated new rites and rituals and secret progression in "degrees" as robbed from his beloved Freemasonry.
In saying this, Cal, please note that I do not wish to be unduly harsh and judgmental towards Joseph Smith, who I am all too willing to credit for his wiser and more beneficial ideas and insights. It's just that I honestly don't feel the two men are of close to equal stature, from as objective a viewpoint as I am able achieve at the moment. I hope you can enlighten me on points I haven't properly appreciated.
I am entirely delighted to open up my impressions to criticism and to learn from your always thoughtful and instructive discussion and ideas!
With great admiration as ever,
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Post 2&3 [Cal] Re: Post 1 [Martin] -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/13/2002, 18:08:29
Author Profile Mail author
As for Eisenman: I haven't read him, though I've looked at his book a few times. It's one of those really fat books, so I've put it on the list of things I might someday read when I've got lots of time. Your link is helpful though. At any rate, I think you're right that your argument doesn't directly depend on the correctness of some of Eisenman's more controversial claims. This is going to be fun, and my suspicion is that we're fairly close in our actual views on Paul, and that I take JS to be a little higher on the scale than you do. I'll get something back soon.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
[From Cal]: Hey Martin,
I'm just going to respond to cites from your post to make inroads on my sense of these issues.
Just to make it plain, I have no need to count on the historical truth or accuracy of Eisenman's interesting hypotheses to make my arguments, but either way his work provides at least the flavor of the background against which the foresight and philosophizing of Paul should, I contend, be seen as worthy of my accounting him a towering genius, heads and shoulders above Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and others like them.
1. Last thing first: Almost anyone is, in my view, a "towering genius" compared to Mary Baker Eddy. We can't cover everything in one shot, and maybe we should postpone this issue to later. But to think aright about Joseph Smith, to get a sense of the strengths and weaknesses of his religious imagination, one has to distinguish starkly what he accomplished (and failed to accomplish) from her repetive, monotone, nihilistic and unimaginative ramblings. Perhaps there's something to the usual grouping of indigenous American sects such as Mormonism, Christian Science, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and so forth, but then I think there's something misleading about it too, at least when it comes to one thing: The quality of the religious imagination of the two most important figures in early Mormonism--Joseph and Brigham (plus some of their brighter associates)--compared to the founders of these other groups. I'll just leave this as an assertion for now. Perhaps you'll find it worth considering, if only to reject it. But it has nothing to do with Paul, who'll be my focus here. So let's go.
2. I agree that, for the most part, the truth or falsity of Eisenman's theses doesn't affect your argument because, as you say, his work "provides at least the flavor of the background" against which Paul's "foresight and philosophizing" have to be understood. But there is a sense in which turning to Eisenman's claims (as they're working to shape your picture here) shift the context of Paul's thought in a way that may make Paul's achievement appear greater than it really was in virtue of the contrast between Paul's own writings and the cult he perhaps left.
The point is that if the Qumran folk, with their extreme cultishness and tribalism, their monotonous self-obsession [think of the "peshers" where they insistently read all of scripture as if it referred to them and so often their contemporary enemies], their gruesome and prolific apocalyptic fantasies [think of the War Scrolls], and so forth, serve as an implicit baseline for judging Paul's achievement, then Paul's achievement may well get exaggerated.
I know you're using Eisenman's book to suggest something of the flavor of the 1st-century situation in Judea and nearby regions. But then when one considers the usual background scholars attribute to Paul, then perhaps things look a bit different, for then he's working from a more cosmopolitan background as a Diaspora Jew, influenced by Hellenism and Pharasaism, with something more at his disposal culturally, and more on his mind, than what's suggested by this:
These pre-Christians and early CE Joshuans/Jesusians (at least the most active and influential ones) largely consisted of nationalistic xenophobes and frustrated messianic/apocolyptic prophesiers (ala the Millerites two millennia later) who were deeply troubled by their nation's failure to repel or hold off the growing influence and territorial expansions of both Roman power and the frighteningly unorthodox cosmopolitan ideas into their own heartland and communities. Likely the Qumranians and other similar groups were exercising the very natural desire under such circumstances to hermit themselves away to try to avoid cultural, political, and religious "infection".
But whether Paul was a Qumranian apostate and the target of their epithet "Liar" or not, it is highly probable that he was for a time prior to his proselyte days pervasively enmeshed in that dark flavor of popular pre-Christian "meme". It is the entirely new and brilliant direction Paul then single-handedly took this ominously proto-violent, nationalistic, and xenophobic nascent Christian mythology that in my view more than earns him the distinction of towering genius: He cleansed and informed it!
I'll just add a few things to this. Hopefully they'll help focus the discussion.
1. If this picture is correct, then we should view Paul's achievement as a vast improvement beginning from a very low baseline. We could marvel at this yeoman's effort and imaginative achievement, even if the end-result were, by standards less tied to that baseline, severely wanting. But then the result may still be severely wanting in ways that go directly to one's judgment of the quality of Paul's religious imagination.
For one thing, it's Paul's severe apocalypticism that has long made me personally recoil from some of the main strands of this thought. There's a strong dose of the "dark" meme in Paul, a stronger dose than even in his successors, who had to minimize its presence.
There's (i) the typically apocalyptic dualism, its picture of good and evil cosmic forces arrayed against each other in the one most important battle in the history of the cosmos. And the inevitable demonization of forces not just hostile but different from what the apocalyticist thinks is cosmically good. In Paul's case, there's the transformation of pagan gods into "demons," and of course all of pagandom into demon-worshippers.
There's (ii) the wholesale and nihilistic denigration of the present world and all distractions, bodily and otherwise, which comes with the expectation that this battle is just about to reach its culmination, the groaning of the universe and the believer's own pain and suffering to be relieved in a grand cosmic victory, if only they can keep themselves focused, undistracted by the world, and in holy readiness. There's
There's (iii) the hubris and self-centeredness of identifying one's own community with this cosmic battle, all history leading to the culminating moment, all scripture read so as to point to it, all that's outside the range of the good embodied (if always imperfectly) in this community missing the community's extreme and urgent centrality.
There's also (iv), the Millerite problem: No meeting in the air of the dead, Paul and his flocks ever took place.
Paul's writings are suffused with this dark apocalytic sense of the world, with its nihilism, its hatred of this life, its encounter with nationalistic xenophobia involving a redirection of the xenophobic bent onto a cosmic plane, one that, thank God, was less tribalistic but still extraordinarily xenophobic in the end. (BTW, as a theologically liberal soon-to-be exmormon, reading Paul for the first time not entirely under the sway of what I expected from him as a precursor to the Mormon restoration and all things good, or even Protestantism or Catholicism, but rather in terms of the 1st century apocalyptic outlook basic to his writings, I was taken aback by the brutality of his treatment of the world, and by how wrong he was about its course--and the cosmic import and place of his enemies.)
2. If the picture opens up to include the ideas open, say, to a Pharisee who's a diaspora Jew who's read his Stoics, been educated in Greek, and so forth, one's got a more varied background than suggested by the apocalyptic xenophobia of the most zealous Judeans. And it's a picture that opens up other possibilities for the expression of religious genius. One wouldn't need to think of Paul's cultural pipeline as so empty, so lacking in the resources for religious genius to flourish at a distance from, and even repulsed by, well, the apocalyptic element that he so imaginatively reworked.
3. Which leads to the last point: Paul did rework this apocalyptic scenario with ingenuity and imagination. None of what I've written is meant to suggest anything different. There's something tremendous in his universalism, in the images of Jew and Greek, man and woman, slave and slaveholder, uniting in all equality as they participate in the cosmic plane of Christ's body, expecting their Lord's imminent return. There's ingenuity in his ad hoc reworkings of such myths as God's promise to Abraham, and so forth.
---
Dear Lord, I've gone on too long. I look forward to your reply.
Regards, Cal
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Post 4 [Martin] -- Now caught up Re: Post 2&3 [Cal] -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/13/2002, 18:09:25
Author Profile Mail author
I'm sorry for the delay in responding, but it might be a while yet before I can offer a sufficiently detailed reply, because my brain just isn't cooperating fully with me at the moment.
In any case, I am puzzled by -- and my confusion may well be a consequence of the problem I mentioned above -- your comments which seem to me to suggest that I doubt or discount the fact that Paul was profoundly influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, and other Greek philosophical traditions via Philo's Hellenistic Judaism as well as several other exciting intellectual and social ideas. Over and over again here I have argued precisely that and I was under the impression that you were well aware of my position, so I must conclude that I have misunderstood you. Again, I'm sure I'm at fault here, but may I ask that you help me straighten out my misapprehension in that regard?
I have but a few brief points to contribute to the debate at this point:
(1) Regarding 1.(i), (ii), and (iii), and elsewhere, I don't accept that Paul's writings are best seen as apocalyptic, but rather eschatological. To my way of thinking, there is a very important distinction between the two. It seems to me that this particular aspect of your perspective on Paul may have led you to an unduly harsh judgement.
(2) Regarding (iv), you mention that Paul's predictions (such as meeting in the sky) were not fulfilled, but I contend that this shouldn't detract from Paul's genius. After all, I submit that if properly read, Paul didn't assert that his predictions would necessarily come to pass in the empirical world. His predictions are not, in my view, correctly understood as being worldly and empirical, unlike the substantial number of unambiguously dated empirical predictions of Joseph Smith which never came to pass.
(3) I can't even imagine how you came to see Paul as being xenophobic! The very notion strikes me as incredible. Over and over and over again, Paul struggled against the xenophobic and nationalistic James and his church in Jerusalem. Paul did NOT condemn or fear other cultures -- quite the opposite! Completely contrary to the rabidly xenophobic James and his cult, Paul fought to bring his gospel of the Risen Christ to everyone without demanding that they eschew their own cultural identity. You quite unjustly and unjustifiably seem to have misinterpreted his railing and bitter condemnation of other teachings (such as from xenophobes like James, et. al.) as if he were condemning other cultures! Paul was clearly one of the most enlightened and cosmopolitan Jews of his milieu, possibly even more so than Josephus. I find your charge of xenophobia against Paul to be singularly unjust and perplexing.
Perhaps we're at or rapidly approaching the same impasse Alf identified between his and my own views regarding Joseph Smith: That of our own subjectivity?
At any rate, I would be grateful if you gave me more time to contemplate these issues. I think it would be remarkably helpful in the pursuit of this discussion if you cited passages from the genuine Pauline corpus which have led you to your views. Do you agree?
Most respectfully,- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 18:09:51
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Marvelous and Terrible Paul, Again Re: Post 4 [Martin] -- Now caught up -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
12/14/2002, 12:47:28
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks for setting up the new thread. I'll just launch into responses to your last post, which I doubly appreciate given that you wrote it under difficult circumstances. [Note for readers: All italics in my own responses are for logical emphasis, and no one should mistake them for shouting or exasperation.]
You write:I am puzzled by . . . your comments which seem to me to suggest that I doubt or discount the fact that Paul was profoundly influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, and other Greek philosophical traditions via Philo's Hellenistic Judaism as well as several other exciting intellectual and social ideas. Over and over again here I have argued precisely that and I was under the impression that you were well aware of my position, so I must conclude that I have misunderstood you. Again, I'm sure I'm at fault here, but may I ask that you help me straighten out my misapprehension in that regard?
First, I am aware of your position on the Hellenistic influences on Paul's thought, though surely I'm cloudy on some of its details. Remember that the gist of my argument was that the Eisenman scenario, if taken as the baseline from which to judge Paul's achievement, could prejudice things in Paul's favor. It's a very low baseline, one in contrast to which Paul may come out better than he should, especially if one keeps in mind the wide variety of sources at his disposal as a diaspora Jew with a Pharasaical bent and some exposure to and training in Hellenestic culture.
The point isn't that Paul was exposed to a Hellenism you thought never worked on him. It's that he was exposed to this range of Greek influences and to various trends in Judaism itself that perhaps offered a better range of options than suggested by the low baseline provided by the Eisenman scenario.
So I wasn't suggesting you ignored or discounted the Greek influence on Paul. The argument was that the picture of Paul intervening into a nationalistic, xenophobic group and making some leaps from that starting-point might make his achievement look larger than it was. I know my argument may still be unclear, but I hope it's clearer than it was before.
You write:Regarding 1.(i), (ii), and (iii), and elsewhere, I don't accept that Paul's writings are best seen as apocalyptic, but rather eschatological. To my way of thinking, there is a very important distinction between the two. It seems to me that this particular aspect of your perspective on Paul may have led you to an unduly harsh judgement.
My points (i)-(iii) were gestures (or promissory notes) to the core of my argument about Paul. There are lots of reasons they may have seemed unduly harsh, one of which was that they were meant to focus on some of the most (I think) troubling aspects of Paul's thought. In which case they'd naturally appear exaggerated taken on their own, the mitigating features of Paul's writings thrown into the background. I nevertheless think these aspects pervade the atmosphere of his thought, and that they are indeed very troubling, especially if their nihilism is given its due. And this nihilism, I'd argue, stems precisely from his particular brand of apocalyticism.
So your distinction between apocalypticism and Paul's eschatological outlook is especially important. What is the difference that makes a difference, in your view, if one takes Paul's vision to be more eschatological than apocalyptic? I'll reserve for later arguments that Paul is a apocalytpicist so I can make them knowing something of the distinction you're trying to draw.
You write: I can't even imagine how you came to see Paul as being xenophobic! The very notion strikes me as incredible. Over and over and over again, Paul struggled against the xenophobic and nationalistic James and his church in Jerusalem. Paul did NOT condemn or fear other cultures -- quite the opposite! Completely contrary to the rabidly xenophobic James and his cult, Paul fought to bring his gospel of the Risen Christ to everyone without demanding that they eschew their own cultural identity. You quite unjustly and unjustifiably seem to have misinterpreted his railing and bitter condemnation of other teachings (such as from xenophobes like James, et. al.) as if he were condemning other cultures! Paul was clearly one of the most enlightened and cosmopolitan Jews of his milieu, possibly even more so than Josephus. I find your charge of xenophobia against Paul to be singularly unjust and perplexing.
Remember, I was arguing for Paul's transposition of tribalistic, nationalistic xenophobia onto a cosmic plane, one that isn't particularistic and narrow when one compares it to the Qumran zealots or to the picture of James that Eisenman draws or to the various other forms of nationalistic brutishness and credulity documented, say, by Josephus. I wasn't claiming that Paul was a xenophobe in that sense. Paul's grandiose cosmic drama certainly involved no demand that one "eschew their cultural identity" to absorb themselves into the tribal hopes of some narrowly construed "Israel." (Of course, it did usually place the believer in conflict with that cultural identity, in my view often a good thing, though surely at times a mixed blessing.)
What, then, was my point? Well, it rests partly on certain "apocalyptic" features of Paul's thought.
I.e.: it rests on Paul's ethical dualism (good vs. evil), itself rooted in a foreshortened eschatological sense of a salvation history elevated onto a cosmic plane, in a world fraught with Pagan gods seen as demons, with an evil ruler or ruling-principle of the cosmic forces of the age, and so forth, all of which provided the frame for his "condemnation of others' teachings." There's a true cosmic depth to the evil ruling the religious life of those on the wrong side of the cosmic divide, including the "flesh" that could sorely afflict the believers. This is what I meant by xenophobia (literally, of course, "fear of the other") in Paul's thought. Those whom he subjected to criticism were in communion with the darkest and most important of evil forces, forces that dwarfed in significance anything bound up with simple cultural identity.
---
Picking up some of the other points, in a scattered way:
1. I'm not sure the empirical/extraempirical distinction mitigates much Paul's expectation that the world would end soon. Perhaps I've missed the boat on what you mean. But my own reading of him is that, when he wrote 1 Thessalonians and even Romans, he really did expect the horrific world that he and his beloved converts lived in to end. He believed this in a way that could be undermined by certain kinds of simple facts, such as that the world is still going on centuries after he thought it would end. This, I'm sure you know, is the most common way that scholars read his view of the future. We shouldn't be having this discussion of Paul's metaphysical commitments, because the world as you and I know it shouldn't be here on Paul's view.
2. You're absolutely right: The simple fact that Paul was wrong about the future course of the world doesn't necessarily compromise his religion-making genius. The "Millerite Problem" can afflict even religious geniuses. I wouldn't, for example, argue that a Jehovah's Witness religious imagination even begins to compare with Paul's, even though JW's and Paul have this one Millerite mistake in common.
The same goes for Jesus himself, at least on many versions of the--so-called?--historical Jesus. The historical Jesus, many scholars think, thought the world as we know it would soon end. He was an apocalyptic prophet of the end of the world and the coming of the Kingdom. It wouldn't follow that he was a mere Millerite when it comes to the quality of his religious imagination.
3. I don't think we've reached a judgment-impasse given our own "subjectivity," like you and Alf did. I'm not giving up so easily. We share too much of the same subjectivity. A lot still depends on how we read Paul and his history.
--
Last thing: I'm sorry that I've not been citing passages from the Pauline corpus. I've actually been trying to limit myself to claims that are pretty much widely recognized as authentically Pauline because it's more time-consuming to provide cite after cite. But I'll provide references tomorrow or Sunday if you need them. Please, though, take me on my word that everything I'm writing is rooted, to the best of my knowledge, in the authentic Pauline corpus and reputable works by scholars commenting on it.
Regards, Cal
Modified by Cal at Sat, Dec 14, 2002, 12:58:04
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
[ -- Interruption --] Re: Marvelous and Terrible Paul, Again -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/14/2002, 19:56:17
Author Profile Mail author
But if you (and others) were to help me deal with his assault, we might be able to return to it before too long.
I hope you will accept my sincerity in wanting to pursue this further with you given the fact that I took the trouble to repost what you see here! If we work together, perhaps we can keep from having this thread slide off into the archives as well!
Sincerely,- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Fine, but don't get lost in the mikwutian mist Re: [ -- Interruption --] -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
12/15/2002, 10:31:34
Author Profile Mail author
At any rate, I may be able to help on the mikwut front, though there are two problems:
One, I actually believe there was a historical Jesus whose preaching and deeds are one source amongst many of the biblical texts, including Paul's ministry.
Two, I find it hard to get a sense of mikwut's arguments, his posts being so sloppily organized. This last "cluster bomb" is no exception. Alf once referred to his arguments as the mikwutian mist. And it's hard and time-consuming work to get a handle on the mist enough to know how to respond to it. I don't have time for it, and I personally would rather you not waste your time on it until mikwut starts using different posting strategies.
I actually would like a concerted effort to get mikwut to write and argue more clearly if he wants to post here and get some serious responses. His mixture of a few focused arguments with ramblings and free associations is pretty unlawyerly, if you ask me, spouse of a lawyer. If he wants us to respond to his "cluster bombs," then he can take the care that you, I or others here take to present a well-organized set of claims. This is my first contribution to that task.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
here, here Re: Fine, but don't get lost in the mikwutian mist -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
12/15/2002, 10:47:18
Author Profile Mail author
Not so much for your take on a historical Jesus, but on your characterization of Mikwut's posts. Perhaps its a lawyerly device to obfuscate the opposition and leave them so confused that the judge looses patience and throws the case out of court.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Fine, but don't get lost in the mikwutian mist Re: Fine, but don't get lost in the mikwutian mist -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
12/15/2002, 23:18:15
Author Profile Mail author
If you could offer me just on example of the mist, I would surely take it into deep consideration as to better afford you a clear dialoging environment.
I don't understand your "free association" - for I am parroting a scholarly position and "substantiating" it with sources. Maybe just take the first post and dismiss the others for now and show me the examples of what you mean as not to waste your time.
The existence of Jesus even according to Martin is "thorny and complex". Do you simply expect a short paragraph? I would assert without yet verifying that if we were to put my post up against the posts Martin has recently put up for which I am responding to the length would be very comparable.
"His mixture of a few focused arguments with ramblings and free associations is pretty unlawyerly, if you ask me, spouse of a lawyer."
Then just respond to the focused arguments. As to the lawyerly nature of it, I would assume your wife doesn't see the courtroom very often, ramblings have often been my only straw to grasp at, and my colleagues would readily agree.
"to present a well-organized set of claims"
Strange, I began with introduction concerning the scholarly balance of opinion, I proceeded with Josephus and Tacitus as non-biblical witnesses, I then addressed the mythic parallels Martin had asserted/ Now I did throw in a ironic twist concerning Mormonism but I clearly pointed that out. Your help in making me more organized, and devoid of ramblings is welcome.
Good to see Cal,
mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Fine, but don't get lost in the mikwutian mist Re: Re: Fine, but don't get lost in the mikwutian mist -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/16/2002, 06:41:40
Author Profile Mail author
First, you openly chastised me for saying that I wouldn't venture to post my 20,000 word essay on the non-existence of Jesus here on this forum.
Second, in responding to your 3000+ word OP I replied with a 3000+ word response. Of course I am going to have to reply at length to your hyperprolific posts!
Third, I don't see anywhere in Cal's post where he criticized the mere length of your ramblings, but rather remarked on their relative incoherence and fogginess (or, to use Alf's apropos term, "mistiness").
It would also be more honest of you to claim that you are parroting several different orthodox or neo-orthodox arguments and position, which should be considered against your shameful accusation that I was foolish not to parrot just one single person!
And let's look at how mikwut describes his own miserably anti-rational campaign: "Strange, I began with introduction concerning the scholarly balance of opinion..."Which he strongly claimed pretty much answered all objections.
"... I proceeded with Josephus and Tacitus as non-biblical witnesses..."
Neither of which ever witnessed or recorded anything at all about a biological, historical Jesus.
"... I then addressed the mythic parallels Martin had asserted..."
Which is yet another sophist misdirection of a strawman argument, of course, as I merely referenced them and cited reference pages and even went out of my way to make sure no one thought that I imagined that the Christian Myth relied heavily on them or merely copied them.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
I appreciate the assistance Re: Fine, but don't get lost in the mikwutian mist -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
12/16/2002, 06:52:45
Author Profile Mail author
I respect the fact that you believe in a historical Jesus, but I would find it hard to credit that you accept the fraudulent passages in Josephus or the parotting of Christian mythology in the absolutely unreliable Annals, which we can't even know if Tacitus actually wrote and whose contents were unknown for more than a millennium, for examples. In other words, if you find an area in which you find mukwit's arguments lacking, I would be grateful if you added your voice where, when, and if you find it appropriate.
Also, I quite agree with your remarks viz. the befuddled and extemporaneous nature of mikwut's posts and arguments.
As far as our discussion goes, I expect to be back to join you within a week, which if not too much space is consumed, should allow us another week or so before being exiled again. If we're bumped off again before I can dedicate more time to it, I'll simply repost them anew again so we can continue our interesting talk.
Best regards,- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, Dec 16, 2002, 06:53:17
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Post 1 [Martin] Re: Post 1 [Martin] -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grman ®
12/13/2002, 20:42:37
Author Profile Mail author
Recent critical New Testament and Dead Sea Scroll scholarship reveals fairly persuasively that the dawn of the creation of what was to become the Christian Myth and Religion began well before the first century AD (by perhaps a century, possibly two), which directly challenges the traditional, conservative Christian view that it began with a physical Jesus' ministry in the early-mid first century. (This ascending view among critical scholars as well provides a serious answer to the perennial (if question-begging) charge that Christianity couldn't have achieved its alleged "speed" of growth and popularity without a historical Jesus to plant the seed and personally spur on proselytizers, which idea is no longer very credible in any case for other reasons.)
These pre-Christians and early CE Joshuans/Jesusians (at least the most active and influential ones) largely consisted of nationalistic xenophobes and frustrated messianic/apocolyptic prophesiers (ala the Millerites two millennia later) who were deeply troubled by their nation's failure to repel or hold off the growing influence and territorial expansions of both Roman power and the frighteningly unorthodox cosmopolitan ideas into their own heartland and communities. Likely the Qumranians and other similar groups were exercising the very natural desire under such circumstances to hermit themselves away to try to avoid cultural, political, and religious "infection".
This clearly confirms my statement that presupposition and belief affect our interpretation of data in a fundamental way. This same piece of empirical evidence lends credibility to my belief as well as yours. To me, this is simply documentation of the fact that just before Christ came, there was widespread expectaion of or hope for His coming.
Modified by grman at Fri, Dec 13, 2002, 20:43:39
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
How?? Re: Re: Post 1 [Martin] -- grman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/14/2002, 01:07:32
Author Profile Mail author
Martin clearly discusses multiple: "Jesusians/messiah's/prophesiar's." A friend discussed her conversion class and the quantity of "Messiah" at any given time was approximately 300. The end result, lack of fulfillment of prophecy/world peace proved the Messiah false.
Following your logic, I would think the second coming should have happened already.I am also confused by the second coming itself. Why a need? Didn't Jesus do it "right" the first time? BTW, the lack of fulfillment of prophesy is the reason for the lack of acceptance as messiah by jews.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: How?? Re: How?? -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grman ®
12/15/2002, 13:31:59
Author Profile Mail author
Although it's obvious from other posts that I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, I didn't say that the people were expecting Jesus specifically. rather, I said that they were expecting the Anointed One -- Christ. And I agree with you that Jesus did not meet the hopes of his contemporaries.
I think that people were expecting Messiah around the time that Martin describes, because the book of Daniel prophesied that 483 years after issuance of the decree to rebuild the temple (around 445 BC), the Anointed One would come. I wasn't aware of the information that Martin posted, but given what I already believed, his post makes sense to me.
I think that Isaiah 53 clearly predicts that the Anointed One will be rejected, forsaken by men, thought to be an offense, despised, and estimated to be of little or no value to anyone. I believe that this speaks of Jesus, and that these predictions continue to be vehemently played out today. (I mean no disrespect to anyone here who does not see the value of Jesus, because the Gospels tell us that many who walked with him turned away.)
Regarding the second coming, if Jesus is the Messiah, having been rejected, crucified, risen and ascended, He has yet to fulfill eschatologocal Messianic prophesies.
Dave
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: How?? Re: Re: How?? -- grman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/16/2002, 03:17:29
Author Profile Mail author
I used to be a Christian and I live in an area that is mainly Christian. I am now trying to live as a Buddhist. I would like information that proves that Jesus was NOT the Christ that the Christians claim. For instance, I do not see the end of war, the lion lying down with the lamb, or a changed world. Would you recommend a book or pamphlet that proves that Jesus is not the person who the Christians claim him to be.
Answer:
The reason why Judaism does not accept the Christian messiah is simple and clear: There is no relationship between what the Jewish scriptures teach about the messiah and Jesus of Nazareth.
What does scripture say about the messiah and the age he will bring to the world? I would encourage you to read Ezekiel 37. In this well known chapter, the prophet clearly teaches that we can recognize the coming of the messiah when: the resurrection of the dead, the building of the final Temple that will stand forever in Jerusalem, the universal knowledge of God and obedience to His Torah, the restoration of the lost tribes (Ephraim or the Kingdom of Israel whom Assyria carried off), and the complete restoration of the Jewish people to their land all take place.
When we carefully consider that none of this has occurred, we can be assured that although many thousands of individuals have claimed to be the messiah throughout the centuries, Jesus included, none of them is. Moreover, when we ponder whether Jesus is the messiah, it is obvious that the very opposite occurred immediately after the Christian movement began; that is: During the first century the Romans slaughtered many thousands of Jews, the Jewish people were exiled from their land, the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the knowledge of Torah and its observance decreased, and the nation of Israel was dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Clearly, there is no relationship between what the Bible says about the messiah and what the Messianic movement teaches about Jesus.
Missionaries often insist that Jesus will somehow accomplish these things in a second coming. While this notion conveniently explains away any failed messiahship, it is completely and utterly antithetical to the Bible.
Rabbi Tovia Singer
Who Was Jesus?
Question:
Apparently, you guys have not read about the foolishness of the Sanhedrin 2000 years ago. Or perhaps, God has hardened your hearts.
“Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?”
I’m sure you understand this as clearly as the Sanhedrin 2000 years ago understood this. Do you really believe that a poor carpenter born in Bethlehem of the lineage of David would be able to set circumstances in motion such that the prophets could be made to be fools? I believe that God and His prophets are bigger than that.
In the end you are forced to believe one of three things: Jesus was crazy and empowered by Satan for his miracles, or Jesus intentionally led people away from God and wanted to do this so much that he died at the hands of the Romans and Sanhedrin to fulfill this purpose, or that Jesus is Messiah -- and as Messiah, would save any -- even those who had him slain. My question to you is: Which do you believe that Jesus was? I would not mind this question and answer posted if you so choose to do so.
Answer:As I sit here preparing to write down the answers to your questions, it is beginning to sink into my mind that in the first three paragraphs of your letter, you are not asking anything at all.
Your first paragraph begins with the words “You guys . . . .” I have spent enough time in Brooklyn to know that this is your euphemism for “You Jews.” No need to get into a tizzy. We Hebrews have been called worse.
Your unsubtle sentiments in paragraphs one and three are not unfamiliar to the Jewish people. It is noticeably consistent with the long-held Christian notion that contemporary Jews bear the same loathsome characteristics as their first century forebears who were held accountable in the New Testament for Jesus’ crucifixion. Do not think that I have an unsympathetic ear. I understand your position. The New Testament paints the Jews in the darkest colors imaginable. Essentially, whatever it is that one considers detestable in a people, that is precisely how the Jews are portrayed in the Christian scriptures. The nation of Israel has paid a heavy price for this vilification.
Jews of subsequent generations retain the sinister reputation of the Jews who were said to have committed deicide, regardless of how far removed they are from the first century. This notion was vigorously espoused by virtually all the church fathers and reformers as well as their countless eager followers since time immemorial. The stories carefully fashioned in the New Testament of the Sanhedrin unjustly condemning Jesus are replete with so many contradictions and inconsistencies -- both within the Gospels and outside of the Christian canon -- that they immediately betray themselves as self-serving stories designed to heap all of the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus squarely on the yarmulke of the Jew. This portrayal of the Jews in the Gospels, particularly in the Passion Narratives, has been devastating for European Jewry and is ultimately responsible for the unspeakable misery of untold millions of my people. The world’s oldest hatred is alive and well.
With regard to the verse you cited from the New Testament in your second paragraph, this is a quote of Jesus’ supposed last exclamation on the cross. It was lifted from the lips of King David and placed in the mouth of Jesus by the first two Gospel writers.1 It comes from Psalm 22:22 where King David, who is its author and the one speaking throughout this chapter, is describing his own anguish and longing as he remained a fugitive from his enemies. It was from the very depths of David’s own pain from which he cries out his heart-felt supplication, “Eli, Eli, lamah azovtani . . . .”
Furthermore, the words of this verse do not fit into Jesus’ mouth from a Trinitarian viewpoint. The opening verses of this Psalm read,
My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent.
Why would Jesus, the man/god of Christianity, be complaining that “God is so far from helping me?” How could God, the first Person of the Trinity, not hear the cries of God, the second Person of the Trinity? To whom is this supposed “God” complaining? The speaker here is moaning that God is not listening to him day and night, and questions his feelings of abandonment when enumerating in the next few verses the times that God did listen and intervene for his ancestors. How can God not understand his own predicament? Applying the words of Psalm 22 to Jesus challenges even the most fertile imagination, and places an enormous strain on church teachings.
Your fourth paragraph essentially begins your first question. You ask how “a poor carpenter born in Bethlehem of the lineage of David would be able to set circumstances in motion such that the prophets could be made to be fools?” The prophets are never made fools of by the willful errors of mankind. Do you really think that people like Isaiah and Jeremiah were humiliated by the followers of deviant spiritual teachings and idolatry? Was it not these same men of God who pleaded without end that man should not turn away from the radical monotheism they vigorously proclaimed?
Moreover, your question could be asked of all the successful religions of the world. How is it that Joseph Smith was able to set into motion the fastest growing religion in North America? How is that Mohammed was able to set into motion the fastest growing religion in the world? What about Hinduism with nearly a billion adherents? I am sure the priests of Baal were very proud of what they had set into motion as well. The first Book of Kings chronicles their success among the Jewish people. I could just hear them saying, “Look at what we have set into motion! The entire nation of Israel, with the exception of 7,000 stubborn Jews, is following us. Let’s pray for these last 7,000 Jews that their hearts might not be hardened, that the scales over their eyes might be lifted, and they may worship Baal as do the rest of their brethren!”
Furthermore, from the Torah’s vantage point, membership in a large successful religion has little to do with truth. On the contrary, the Torah foretold that the Jewish people would remain few in number where they would live among the heathens (Deuteronomy 4:27). In Deuteronomy 7:7, the Bible makes it clear that the intense love that the Almighty has for His people is not because they are great in number, for they are the fewest among the nations. There were many great nations and religions set into motion that became very successful. Their success, however, has little to do with the purity and truth of their worship. In other words, if you belong to a religion that comprises more than a quarter of the world’s population, check your theology.
I am further puzzled by your reference to Jesus as being from “the lineage of David” when according to both Matthew and Luke Jesus was born of a virgin and would therefore be unable to claim the rights to the Davidic line because tribal lineage is traced exclusively through a person’s father. This is clearly articulated in Numbers 1:18. If you believe in the virgin birth -- and I’m going to assume that you do -- how do you proclaim that Jesus was from the line of David when according to your own doctrine Jesus lacked the human father with which to trace his lineage back to King David? According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, not a human Jewish father. This human Jewish father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.
Your last question has been asked of me by many Christians. It is a well-worn argument popularized by C.S. Lewis, and it seeks to cage a non-Christian into only three possible options regarding who Jesus was. These three options are: Was Jesus A) a liar B) a lunatic C) Lord? This line of questioning, however, is preposterous because there is a far more likely option that you had not offered me from which to choose: D) Jesus never claimed to be the messiah, but rather this was a claim placed in his mouth by others. In fact, option D is consistent with Jewish tradition regarding Jesus, which holds that Jesus never professed to be the messiah, although others would make this claim for him. It may be for this reason that Jesus almost3 never claims to be the messiah throughout the New Testament.
For the Jewish people, it is completely unimportant who Jesus or Hare Krishna really were. If they are not who Christianity or Hinduism says they are, then it matters little whether they were liars, lunatics, plumbers, or carpenters. Their veneration is to be avoided at all costs.
Yours truly,
Rabbi Tovia Singer
Footnotes:
1Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. In Luke 23:46, Jesus’ last statement is “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” and in John 19:30, it’s simply, “It is finished.”
2In a Christian Bible this verse appears as Psalm 22:1.
3Exceptions are: Matthew 16:15-17, John 4:26, and 17:3.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
and more Re: Re: How?? -- grman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/16/2002, 05:44:13
Author Profile Mail author
Here are some of the points which demonstrate the blatant discrepancies and inconsistancies in the Missionaries' arguments in favor of Jesus.
The Jewish Messiah is to be a mortal human being born to two mortal parents. He is neither to be a god, nor a man born of supernatural or virgin birth. There is nothing in the Bible that states that the Messiah would be a god or God-like, or that he would be born to a virgin. The concept of the former contradicts the Jewish concept of God being above and beyond taking human form and limitations. Jews believe that only God should be worshipped, not a being of His creation, not even the Messiah himself. Besides, nowhere in the Bible is there any virgins giving birth. This idea is only found in pagan mythology, where virgins often bare offsping of gods. The only purpose of the concept of virgin birth is to attract pagans to Christianity.
The Jewish Messiah is supposed to return the Jews to the Holy Land, but Jesus lived while the Jews were still there before they were exiled by the Romans. How can he return them to their land if they were still living in it?
The Messiah is to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, but Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing.
The Bible states that the Messiah will redeem Israel, but 30 years after Jesus died, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled by the Roman to suffer 1900 years of persecution, mostly by the followers of Jesus.
The Prophets of the Bible foretold that all the nations of the world will acknowlege and worship the one true God (Isaiah 11.9, 45, and Zephaniah 3), but nothing like this happened after Jesus died; in fact, Islam develpoed and became the religion of many nations while Christianity splintered into many sects which constantly fight each other, and almost two-thirds of the human race worships idols. The world is very far from monotheism even to this day.
The Messiah's influence will extend to all who will worship God in the Jerusalem Temple. As the Prophet states, "My House will become the House of Prayer for all the Nations. This has clearly not taken place yet; therefore, the Messiah hasn't come yet.
A new spirit will fill the world man will no longer sin or commit crimes, especially the Jews (Deutteronomy 30: 6, Isaiah 60:21, Jeremiah 50:20, and Ezekiel 36:21). Soon after the days of Jesus, ignorance of God, science, and philosophy filled the earth, and the Dark Ages began.
If Jesus was God, why did he pray to and talk to himself?
The true Messiah will reign as King of the Jews. Jesus' carrer as a wandering preacher and "faith healer" lasted only three years until he was crucified by the Romans as a common criminal without any official postition or authority whatsoever.
One of the Messiah's main tasks is to bring world peace by ending wars and arms manufacturing (Isaiah 2:4). Yet, Christian nations are very war-like, and wars continue to be fought to this day.
Mark 13:30 and Matthew 4 states that the prophecies about the Messiah would take place during Jesus' generation, but nothing was accomplished after 2,000 years.
Nohwere does the Bible say that the Messiah would come once, die, and return in a "second coming". Such a concept was a Christian concept meant to rationalize Jesus' failure to function in any way as the Messiah or fulfill the Hebrew Bible's prophecies.
The Bible says that the Messiah would be descened from King David. If Jesus is the "Son of God", how could he be descened from King David from his father's side?
Missionaries constantly and deliberatly distort the meaning of the prophets' words in order to substantiate their claims; for example, the Hebrew term in Isaiah , "almah" means "young woman", not "virgin". Honest Christian scholars now admit this is a "pious fraud", and they translate the word correctly in the "Reverse Standard Version" of the Bible.
If Jesus' raising from the dead was so important to demonstrate who he was, why did it take place in secret instead of in the presence of his "thousands' of followers?
Jesus claimed that he didn't intend to change the laws of Moses (Matthew 5), but he later abrogated some of the laws, and his followers later abolished or changed nearly all of them; for example, Christians still eat pork and fail to celebrate Yom Kippur or Rosh Hashanna despite what the Torah says. The Torah constantly says that its laws are eternal, and they can't be abolished or changed.
Judaism believes that God is eternal, above, and beyond time. He can't be born, die, suffer, "become flesh", or be divivded into sections ("Father, Son, and Holy Ghost").
If Jesus was the Messiah, why does the New Testiment admit that not one of the rabbis of the time accept his claim? Why did all the educated men and prominent men reject him?
If Jesus was the Messiah, why did most of his own people, the Jews of that time, reject him, including his own family? Why did his followers consist almost completely of a handful of poorly educated people?
Jesus ordered his followers to preach to the Jews only, not the Gentiles (Matthew 10), but his followers did the exact opposite. He clearly considered himself th Messiah of the Jews only, but he is accepted by foreign nations, and not the Jews.
The purpose of the Messiah is to bring us to the day when all the Jews will observe the Torah and to teach it to all humankind who will accept its truths. Nowhere in the Torah does it state that the Messiah will abolish it. The Torah is eternal.
Nowhere in the Torah does it state that forgivness of a person's sins can be brought about by someone else's death. Each man isaccountable for his own sins, and each man must repent of his own sins by changing his ways and seeking God's forgiveness.
Matthew 1 and Luke 3 both give different accounts of Jesus being descended from King David through his father Joseph.
If Jesus was the "Son of God", why did he say on the cross, "My God, my God, why did thou foresake me?" instead of "My Father"?
Related link: http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/gideonbernstein/
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page