1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Response to “Answering Judaism” – Acts 21 – Part  2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKpuQaZJQ4

In response to my presentation in which I had presented  evidence that Paul taught a doctrine that was unknown to the original disciples  of Jesus AJ quotes Galatians 1:11 through 1:18. AJ then comments with the  following words:

“He had to check with the apostles, in this case James  and Peter, to confirm what he had received from the  Lord.”

I encourage the readers to read the verses that AJ  quotes and see if you could find anything about Paul seeing the need for  “confirmation” of his mission. The only verse which can perhaps be understood as  if Paul was seeking confirmation is Galatians 2:2 where Paul speaks of laying  out the gospel before those of repute lest he “run in vain.” This comment could  be understood to mean that Paul was checking the doctrines that he had been  teaching against those of Jesus’ disciples just in case he was making a  mistake.

But this interpretation would have Paul saying the very  opposite of the heart and soul of his message in these two chapters in  Galatians. In the first two chapters of Galatians Paul attempts to establish the  superior authority of his teaching. He emphasizes that those of repute imparted  nothing to him (Galatians 2:6). It is for this reason that the Christian  commentators explain that Paul’s words in Galatians 2:2 do not describe a quest  for confirmation but rather an assurance that the Jerusalem Church will not  oppose his efforts (Matthew Henry, Jameison Fausset Brown, Wesley, John Gill,  James Coffman).

AJ goes on to quote John 14:26 where Jesus assures his  disciples that the Holy Spirit will remind them of his teachings. AJ jumps to  the conclusion that this means that the Holy Spirit taught Jesus’ immediate  disciples the same things that Paul claimed to have received.

The reasoning here is completely circular. AJ assumes  that Paul’s teachings are an authentic representation of Jesus’ teachings so he  therefore concludes that John’s Jesus is assuring his disciples that he will  remind them of Paul’s doctrines. But if Paul’s doctrines are not authentic then  Jesus never heard of them, and it would make no sense to assume that he spoke of  what he didn’t know.

AJ raises several passages from the Christian Scriptures  which would seem to indicate that Jesus himself taught about his sacrificial  death. AJ piously informs his readership that my arguments are “repudiated by  the New Testament itself.”

AJ seems to be unaware that I never proposed that the  editors of the Christian Scriptures explicitly taught that Paul was the inventor  of Christianity. My argument is that the editors of the Christian Scriptures  exerted themselves to smooth over the differences between Paul and the Jerusalem  Church. But that with all of their efforts, the deep conflict between Paul and  Jesus’ immediate disciples is still evident.

At some point in his rebuttal, AJ addresses the primary  points that I raised in my presentation. AJ asks how it is that I know that the  members of the Jerusalem Church did not believe that Jesus’ death was the  sacrifice to end all sacrifices. AJ chides me with the words “absence of  evidence is not evidence of absence.” As if I based my argument on absence of  evidence.

The evidence that I presented to establish the argument  that the Jerusalem Church did not view Jesus’ death as the ultimate  sacrifice was the fact that they still brought animal sacrifices in the Temple  after the death of Jesus. Why would they do this if Jesus already atoned for  their sins? Why would they deem this ritual representative of their loyalty to  the Law of Moses?

Some Christians have proposed that perhaps the Jerusalem  Church participated in the temple ritual as a remembrance to Jesus’ sacrifice  and not as a means of atonement in and of itself.

I respond to this bizarre theory with two separate  arguments. One point I raised is the simple fact that the sacrifices were  processed by the non-Christian Temple establishment. The men actually sprinkling  the blood of the offering would certainly not be doing it in remembrance to  Jesus. They would process the offerings with the understanding that these  offerings atoned for sin without the services of Jesus. If the disciples were  looking to make a remembrance to Jesus this would be the wrong way to do  it.

The second argument I raised to refute the “remembrance  theory” is the fact that Paul’s participation in the Temple rite was meant to be  a public demonstration for the Jerusalem crowds. The general populace in  Jerusalem certainly believed that the Temple sacrifices atoned and they did not  view these offerings as a remembrance to Jesus. If someone makes a public  demonstration we can assume that this fellow calculated the crowd’s particular  understanding of his demonstration and that it was that understanding that he  was trying to reinforce by going through with the demonstration. It makes no  sense to say that James made this demonstration with one intention although he  was fully aware that the crowd will read his activity in a way that repudiated  everything he stood for.

AJ does not respond to the second of these two  arguments. He responds to the first argument by suggesting that the Temple  establishment may have been aware of the apostles teaching on the subject of  atonement and still processed their sacrifices anyway. In other words AJ is  suggesting that when the disciples came to the Temple with their offerings the  Temple establishment clearly knew that these sacrifices were being brought in  remembrance to Jesus and they processed them anyway “to do their  duty.”

I find this assertion ridiculous. In order to assume  that the Temple establishment knew of this theory (that the sacrifices were a  remembrance to Jesus) we need to assume that they were deeply knowledgeable  about the modern Jewish-Christian polemic. Until the argument is raised from  this episode in Acts 21 most deeply committed Christians haven’t thought about  animal sacrifices being brought as a remembrance to Jesus.

Harry Ironside, a respected Christian commentator,  declares that had Paul actually gone through with this demonstration, it would  have repudiated all of his teachings. It seems that Ironside, a Christian  thinker, never heard of the idea of the Temple offerings being brought in  remembrance for Jesus. Yet AJ would have us believe that the Temple  establishment knew all about it.

AJ concludes his rebuttal with a response to my  question: why was this particular ritual (the nazirite offering) chosen by James  to represent loyalty to the Law.

AJ responds by explaining that acceptance of a nazirite  vow was a very serious obligation and perhaps the serious nature of the nazirite  vow would be the ultimate demonstration of loyalty to the Law.

It seems that AJ did not read the passage in Acts 21. It  is clear that Paul was not enjoined to accept upon himself a nazirite vow. He  was told by James to participate in the offerings of people who had already  accepted this vow upon themselves.

In conclusion I would suggest that AJ’s attempt to  refute my arguments only serve to strengthen them. Why indeed did the members of  the Jerusalem Church still engage in bringing animal offerings for the expiation  of sin after the death of Jesus? Why did they view this particular activity as a  symbol of their loyalty to the Law of Moses?

AJ has not answered these questions.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Response to “Answering Judaism” – Acts 21 – Part 1

Some time ago I gave a brief presentation on the topic of Acts 21. That passage describes how the members of the Jerusalem Church warned Paul that the rumor has it that he is teaching Jews to abandon the Law of Moses. In order to put this rumor to rest the leaders of the Jerusalem Church suggest that Paul participate in the bringing of some nazirite offerings in the Temple.

This episode makes it clear that the Jewish following of Jesus were still bringing sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple, for the specific purpose of expiating sin (see Numbers 6:14), long after Jesus was dead. Not only were they bringing these offerings but they saw in these offerings the symbol and the representation of their loyalty to the Law of Moses. The fact that they chose this particular act (bringing offerings for the expiation of sin) as the one that would publicize Paul’s loyalty to the Law tells us that this act was somehow central to the difference between their teaching and that of Paul (or at least the teaching that was Paul was accused of propagating).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKpuQaZJQ4

The anonymous author of the blog “Answering Judaism” (henceforth: AJ) attempts to respond to my presentation with this article:

http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html

The opening argument in AJ’s rebuttal is: “To claim that the New Testament writers wrote contradictory messages shows that the person is unwilling to take the time to reconcile the contradictions.” AJ goes on to compare the Christian Scriptures with the Jewish Bible and with the Talmud.

I have already addressed this matter in my “Supplement to Contra Brown.” Here is the relevant quote:

IV. 6. Objections 5:16 and 5:17

Here Brown focuses on some of the misquotations and contradictions that are to be found in the Christian Scriptures. Brown’s responds by demonstrating that the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Rabbinic writings also contain discrepancies and seeming contradictions. Brown argues that whatever methods that the adherents of Judaism utilize to resolve the contradictions found in their sacred texts should be allowed for the resolution of the discrepancies found in the Christian texts.

Brown has failed to grasp the vast difference between the respective faith structures of Judaism and Christianity.

Judaism affirms that God established the basic foundations of Judaism in the hearts of the Jewish people. The Exodus and the Sinai revelation which were experienced by the nation as a collective unit, served to establish the basic truths of Judaism in the hearts and minds of the nation. The sacred books were presented to the nation in order that their message be assimilated by the people who will read these books in light of the foundational experiences.

As it is with any written work, and especially one as lengthy as the Jewish Scriptures, there will be questions and confusion. Judaism maintains that the Divine intent was that the judges of the Jewish people arbitrate in all situations where the Scriptural guidance is not clear. The foundational concepts of Judaism will never be affected by the intricacies of the text because they are not dependant on the text. They were established in the hearts of the people independent of any text.

Protestant Christianity, on the other hand prides itself that it does not rely upon humans for the foundation or for the transmission of their belief system. Protestants point to the texts of Scripture and declares that they only rely upon the word of God.

Without getting into the question as to who decided that these texts are indeed the word of God and upon what authority is this decision based, there are serious problems with the Protestant position. If indeed these texts are to serve as the foundation of the religion, and these texts are not meant for any specific audience (as opposed to the texts of Judaism which are meant for a specific target audience) – then who is to arbitrate when confusion arises? These confusions are not limited to peripheral issues in the Christian faith. The texts are unclear about some of the most essential issues of Christianity. This problem is severe enough when we limit our focus to the Christian Scriptures alone. But the confusions are multiplied exponentially when we throw the Jewish Scriptures into the mix.

The sacred texts of Christianity do not give clear direction on issues such as the alleged divinity of Jesus, on the position of the Law of Moses after the advent of Jesus, on the role of the Jewish people in the Messianic age and on many such issues that have divided the ProtestantChurch since its inception.

Since Protestant Christianity does not attribute any authority to a body of human judges, there is no way that these conflicts can be effectively resolved except on a person by person basis. Each reader could resolve the confusions as he or she sees fit. This leaves Christianity with the unhappy proposition of having as many Christianity’s as there are adherents.

This is only where Christianity’s problems begin. When we consider the question of the trustworthiness or lack thereof of the sacred texts of Christianity the Protestant Christian can only point to the texts themselves. As opposed to Judaism where the testimony of the living nation augments the testimony of the texts and the testimony of the texts augments the testimony of the living people – Protestant Christianity only has a set of books upon which they could place their trust. How can we know if these texts were written by honest people? On what basis can we accept that the books of the Christian Scripture were authored by people who lived up to a high ethical and moral standard? Why should we judge the authors of the gospels in a favorable light if there is no outside evidence to support the thesis that these were honest and ethical people?

In the case of Judaism, we have the testimony of the nation concerning the moral and spiritual character of the Biblical authors. These men and women established their credentials in the hearts, minds, and memories of a nation appointed by God as His witnesses. If we find confusion in their writings, we have the testimony of the nation amongst whom these writers lived to reassure us that these authors were holy and trustworthy. The confirmation of a nation serves to counteract any questions that would arise from the body of the texts.

In the case of Christianity, on the other hand, the exact opposite is true. The Jewish people amongst whom these authors lived remember them in a negative light. Why should we trust these people? What is the justification to exert ourselves to straighten out the confusion that abounds in their writings? Where is the witness that will stand to counterbalance the contradictions found in the gospels?

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal