"Messiah is a matter of belief"

1/23/04 | Rabbi Marc Gellman, Monsignor Tom Hartman

[Catholicguy]

Question; "I am Jewish but have received very little Jewish education. Basically, I know that Jesus was a Jew, as were his early followers. Why did this small group of Jews believe Jesus was the Messiah, while the great majority of Jews denied his Messianic claim? And what are we supposed to be looking for in the Messiah, anyway?

Answer "...The evidence indicating that Jesus' resurrection was a fact, Christians affirm, are the many eyewitnesses described in the Gospels, including the apostles and others who saw the empty tomb and whose testimony was recorded in what became the New Testament. On the other side are those who say that since the evidence of Jesus' resurrection all comes from his followers and from accounts recorded in the New Testament, Jesus resurection cannot be trusted to be an objective historical account...."

<>End of this partial quote from "The God Squad" column published today in the Palm Beach Post.<>

I sent this letter to the Palm Beach Post this morning and I know they won't post it. (They refuse to post nearly all of my letters. Too Christian I suspect).I post it here because I think the historical references are useful as apologetic tools

"The God Squad" cites those opposed to the Messiah as claiming "...Jesus' resurrection cannot be trusted to be an objective historical account...."

Really?

Why do we suppose the Creed references the historical fact Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate? "For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried."

As the Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, was required to keep Tiberius fully informed as to any important events occuring in his district. He did so. He drafted an account of all the important events that had taken place in reference to Jesus and these acts of Pontius Pilate were received and kept in the archives of the Roman Senate.

Tacitus, rehearsing the history of the burning of Rome attributes it to the Christians, "so called from Christ, who had been put to death during the reign of Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate was governing Judea."

It is interesting to note not a single early enemy of Christianity called this historical account into question when it could have been so easily contradicted had these events not occured. Where is the evidence any pagan opposed the early Christian apologists by contravening this history?

The early Christian apologists cited the acts of Pontius Pilate. St. Justin Martyr quoted the words from the acts of Pontius Pilate, "Jesus was fastened to the cross with nails through his hands and feet, and those who had crucified him afterwards cast lots for his garments, which they divided amongst them."

St. Justin adds, "This is what you can easily know by reference to the acts written under Pontius Pilate."

Tertullian writes, "Pilate, somewhat a Christian in his conscience, wrote an account of all these things regarding Christ to Tiberius, then Emperor. Henceforth, the Emperors would have believed in Jesus Christ if the Caesars had not been the slaves of the world or if Christians could have been Caesars. Be that as it may, when Tiberius, under whose reign the Christain name was spread throughout the world, had learned from Palestine all the facts that proved the divinity of Christ, he urged the Senate to place him in the rank of the gods and gave his own vote for this purpose. The Senate, not admiring the proposal rejected it. The Emperor persisted in his views, and threatened with his anger any one who should accuse the Christians." Then, speaking of the miracles that occured at the death of our Lord, he says; "You have the account thereof in your archives."

Eusebius of Caesarea (Church Historian), "The miraculous resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ having become famous and it being an ancient custom that the governors of provinces should send to the Emperor an account of anything new that turned up in their administration, so that he might be fully informed of everything that came to pass, Pontius Pilate acquainted Tiberius with the resurrection of the Saviour, which was known to everyone in Palestine. He (Pilate) also remarked that he had learned that Jesus had performed many miracles , and had, since His resurrection, been recognised by many persons as a God. Tiberius, having heard these things, mentioined them to the Senate, and proposed that Jesus Christ should be placed in the rank of the gods. The Senate opposed the project under the pretext that there was an ancient law which forbade any person to be admitted into the rank of the gods except by a decree of the Senate; but the real reason of the refusal was that the Christian Religion, being divine, should not be established by the authority of men. The Senate having therefore rejected the proposal, the Emperor did not cease to maintain his opinion and attempted nothing against the doctrine of Jesus Christ."

Is it too much to ask of "The God Squad" that they read some history before they undertake the task of telling others about the Messiah

<> end of letter<>

I didn't cite Josephus, Tranquillas, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, ect because I wanted to keep the letter to a publishable length.

[malakhi]

Do you think the Old Testament is provable?

Aside from some specific archaeological corroboration, no.

[sitetest]

Dear thinktwice,

Your error is that you've conflated created reality with reality.

The transcendent God is certainly part of reality, but not created reality. God is the uncreated reality.

There is no logical reason requiring your confusing of the two.


sitetest

[malakhi]

The FACT that inquests (AN inquisition) took place, or that they were formed by local and some times papal command, is not indispute. The concept of the Medieval Inquisition as a large all pervasive organization is however a myth.

You are missing my point. Although the Inquisition may have started more informally and/or locally, at some point it did become institutionalized as an official congregation within the Vatican curia.

[sitetest]

Dear malakhi,

Part of the problem, I think, is your use of the word "institutionalize". Certainly, the Inquisition became "institutionalized" as a congregation within the Curia.

The problem is that the word "institutionalize" has denotative and connotative meanings. In the denotative meaning, you're right. But some of the connotative meaning transmitted by the word suggests large, vast bureaucracy, with plenty of resources to accomplish its will, oversee its charges, continue its empire.

When I was little, we belonged to a parish in Hyattsville, Md, St. Jerome's Catholic Church. Our pastor, for a while, was Msgr. Gillen. He was a good pastor, usually gentle and charming, but able to rule with an iron hand when necessary. He was good friends with William Cardinal Baum. Cardinal Baum was eventually called to Rome, and eventually became the Apostolic Penitentiary (my understanding - a rather important office). When he went to Rome, he took Msgr. Gillen with him as his personal secretary and all-around assistant.

My parents went to Rome from time to time, and when there, would stop in to visit with the exalted, esteemed Apostolic Penitentiary and his highly-respected assistant. They were quite shocked to find that the entire official establishment of the Apostolic Pentitentiary mostly comprised Cardinal Baum, Msgr. Gillen, a few hundred square feet of office space, a couple of desks, a few chairs, a typewriter, and some stationery.

This is a curial tribunal, part of the institutionalized Church. It was also not atypical of how the Catholic Church actually operates, especially in Rome. An institution with over a billion members, there are scarcely a couple of thousand folks in the Vatican. Though much of the Church's work is "institutionalized", the human and material resources commanded by these "institutions" are often meager.


sitetest

[malakhi]

Certainly, the Inquisition became "institutionalized" as a congregation within the Curia.

Yes, this is precisely my point, contra Pelayo's #40 in which he asserted "the Inquisition as an institution never actually existed".

[sitetest]

Dear malakhi,

Yes, but you miss my point, which is that in a sense, you and Pelayo aren't necessarily in contradiction. In the sense that there was a curial office for the Inquisition, you're right. In the sense that this office may not have been a particularly well-resourced, centralized bureaucracy, able to impose its will throughout Christendom, Pelayo is more correct.

That was the point of my post.


sitetest

[Catholicguy]

you are conflating infallibliy and impeccability

[Catholicguy]

Sorry. Nope. The SSPX is a schismatic, not a Catholic Church and Manuals are never the source of Teaching.

[Pelayo]

Yes, this is precisely my point, contra Pelayo's #40 in which he asserted "the Inquisition as an institution never actually existed".

I then elaborated on my point in post #126 when you challenged me. As a student of medieval law and history I get fed up with people referring to medieval inquisitions as "THE Inquisition." There was no "THE Inquisition." The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, started out as the local Romana Inquisitio in the 12c. Like all inquisitorial tribunals its function was to remove heretics in the Church, i.e. specifically heretics in the hierarchy of the Church. Most inquisitions were formed to root out heretical bishops and such not to terrorize the general populous, though obviously the tribunals were ripe for abuse along those lines.

In the 16c Pope Paul III, transformed the Roman Inquisition into the official tribunal of the entire Church. But this didn't increase it's size or anything. It was reorganized and tasked with identifying and punishing heretics (which usually just amounted to baning certain works by said heretic) and identifying heretical beliefs.

The idea that this organization was a great big "Institution" that controlled the people of Europe is laughable.

[thinktwice]

Your error is that you've conflated created reality with reality.

Each and every living object is continutally creating something new in reality, most noticably at the human level in created works of art and literature, less noticably in human and animal level created works of industry or agriculture, and far less noticably at human, animal, and lesser living levels in things like living chemical processes.

The obvious fact is that all living matter is essentially "God-like" in the creation department.

Making something out of nothing, however, is impossible in that reality within which created reality continues to be created -- by you, me and that living tree.

In short, your "created reality" argument has no connection to transcendental ... whatevers ... that don't exist.

[sitetest]

Dear thinktwice,

You need to actually address what I said. If you do, get back to me.

Thanks,


sitetest

[thinktwice]

Your error is that you've conflated created reality with reality.
The transcendent God is certainly part of reality, but not created reality. God is the uncreated reality.

You have subdivided reality into three subsets -- reality, created reality, and uncreated reality.

I'll concede that ...

a. Reality is that which exists.
b. Created reality is that which exists after being created by man, lesser animals, or lesser living organisms.
c. Uncreated reality is that which might someday exist.

But ... I will not concede that thinking that something exists means that the "something" exists. Thoughts do exist, and we know that thoughts can include imaginary beings that are non-existent; Santa Claus for instance.

And so, the simplistic question remains ...

Did God create God?

[sitetest]

Dear thinktwice,

Actually, I didn't divide reality into three different subsets. Reality, itself, is the total set. Uncreated reality and created reality are the two subsets.

Is the universe, as a whole, created, or uncreated?

If it is uncreated, then there is an example of uncreated reality.

If it is created, then who created it? If no one created it, then it is uncreated.

"But ... I will not concede that thinking that something exists means that the 'something' exists."

I'm not asking you to concede anything. You don't have to believe in God. You don't have to believe in an uncreated reality (though you leave yourself an unrsolvable conundrum in that then you are implying that a created thing exists - the universe as a whole, without anything having created it).

You must only concede that the concept of an uncreated reality is possible, and that we would assign God to that sort of reality. It just isn't necessary to posit that there can only be a created reality.

Your error is in thinking that that which is not proven (God, uncreated reality), cannot be.

Thus the question, "Did God create God?" is unnecessary.

You may wish to read a good book of basic philosophy.


sitetest

[thinktwice]

Dear sitetest;

There is ample evidence proving that the universe exists, but no-one knows how it started.

You think the universe was created, but your evidence comes from ancient tales. You don't know.

Where I focus on reality being that which exists, you focus on reality as being "created" or "uncreated" because you think a "creation" happened. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't, but you'll have to face the fact that yours is a religious philosophy based in ancient tales, mystical beliefs, dogma, etc.; and that, to me, is sad.

We exist in a real world; and I see as evil those philosophies having problems with reality.

[sitetest]

Dear thinktwice,

"There is ample evidence proving that the universe exists, but no-one knows how it started."

Very good. You got one right. ;-)

If it was not created by someone/something, then it is uncreated. And an uncreated reality exists.

If it was created, then something created it, and that thing or person or whatever may itself be uncreated. Or not.

Although, unless one is willing to posit an infinite regress of created entities, one would generally concede that ultimately one will stumble across something that is uncreated.

Nonetheless, if you wish to accept the illogical idea of an infinite regress of created entities, all that does is fail to prove that there is an uncreated reality.

It does not prove there is not one.

"Where I focus on reality being that which exists, you focus on reality as being 'created' or 'uncreated' because you think a 'creation' happened."

Actually, for the sake of the argument, I'm happy to concede there was no general "creation" of the universe, as it establishes, then, that the universe, taken as a whole, is uncreated. That the stuff which already existed (from all time or eternity?) which we take and mold into this and that, that the stuff of the universe is eternal, and is thus, uncreated.

I can work with that.

Because, that then establishes that there is an uncreated reality.

"Maybe it did and maybe it didn't, but you'll have to face the fact that yours is a religious philosophy based in ancient tales,..."

Actually, I haven't proposed any sort of philosophy at all. I've merely pointed out the logical flaw in your trying to assign all of reality NECESSARILY to a created reality.

Though it is logically inconceivable that there is only a created reality, I'm happy to accept the possibility. But you have merely asserted this is so. That it is possible that this is the case doesn't make it the case. Wishing doesn't make it so.

It is possible (even logically persuasive - ask anyone here on this forum what they think) that there is such a thing as an uncreated reality. Not proven. Merely possible.

Thus, if God exists - and I haven't posited that He does - He does not, of necessity (and illogically), need to be a created entity. The possiblity of uncreated things exists, and thus God, should He be, could be such a thing.

Your error lies in thinking that because a thing is not proven, it isn't possible.

"We exist in a real world; and I see as evil those philosophies having problems with reality."

What you take as evil is merely that over which you have no control, is merely that of which you have no comprehension. You don't understand it, you can't master it, so you fear it. You fear it, so you think it's evil.

A common human problem. You're not alone.


sitetest

[thinktwice]

the logical flaw in your trying to assign all of reality NECESSARILY to a created reality.

How can I commit logical error in something I didn't write or say? The term "created reality' is yours, and it was my observation that living things are capable of creating things such as human art, bird nests, and organic life-related chemical substances.

the universe is eternal, and is thus, uncreated.

You have no evidence as to the universe being eternal, created, or uncreated; so an effort to logically relate "eternal" to either "created" or "uncreated" is baloney.

The possiblity of uncreated things exists,

Humans, et al, have the potential to create as yet uncreated things; but; creation by a non-existent, transcendental whatever is fairy-tale stuff. In reality, the existence -- now -- of as-yet uncreated things is totally impossible.

... that over which you have no control ... is merely that of which you have no comprehension ... You don't understand it, you can't master it,

You've presented a reason to toss out all religious philosophy. Following reality; I understand and have control over religious dogma -- I use reality to reveal it for what it is -- a mystical sham. Reality will always provide that necessary to master mysticism.

[sitetest]

Dear thinktwice,

"The term 'created reality' is yours,..."

Actually, it is you who first posited falsely that if one posits a God, one must posit that He created all of reality, thus putting all reality into the subset of "created reality"

Here is your post:


To: antiRepublicrat
trying to prove that God doesn't exist
Here's one for contemplation ...

If God created all that exists in reality, how is it that people can think that God exists in reality?

Did God create God?


53 posted on 01/23/2004 11:14:43 AM EST by thinktwice (The human mind is blessed with reason, and to waste that blessed mind is treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

* * *

Thus, the issue of "created reality" is one which you raised, and wrongly conflated with all of reality.

"'the universe is eternal, and is thus, uncreated.'

"You have no evidence as to the universe being eternal, created, or uncreated; so an effort to logically relate 'eternal' to either 'created' or 'uncreated' is baloney."

By quoting me out of context you did an admirable job of representing me as having said the thing opposite to what I actually said. LOL.

Here is the full quote in context:

"Actually, for the sake of the argument, I'm happy to concede there was no general 'creation' of the universe, as it establishes, then, that the universe, taken as a whole, is uncreated. That the stuff which already existed (from all time or eternity?) which we take and mold into this and that, that the stuff of the universe is eternal, and is thus, uncreated."

I need no evidence, because I wasn't asserting it as true, only as what is possible.

"Humans, et al, have the potential to create as yet uncreated things; but; creation by a non-existent, transcendental whatever is fairy-tale stuff."

So says you. You assert that a "transcendental whatever" is non-existent, and is fairy-tale stuff, but an assertion is hardly an argument. I'm sure you can do better than that.

"In reality, the existence -- now -- of as-yet uncreated things is totally impossible."

Ah, now you're getting confused with your terms. It is possible that a thing can be, can exist, but not to have been created by anyone or anything. Perhaps the universe as a whole is such a thing. That refers to the fact that no one or nothing created it, not that it is as of yet non-existent. Here, you're using the word "uncreated" as a synonym for "not-yet existent".

Another error, but I think just a confusion of language.

"Following reality; I understand and have control over religious dogma -- I use reality to reveal it for what it is -- a mystical sham. Reality will always provide that necessary to master mysticism."

LOL.

Your unadorned assertions don't even cover the lack of coherence in your own statements, no less give you control over anything whatsoever.

* chuckle *

I will let those who have been unfortunate to have followed our exchange judge for themselves.

I have a plane to catch.


sitetest

[Bohemund]

Sadly, "The Archko Volume" appears to be a hoax:

http://www.answers.org/Bible/archko.html

[thinktwice]

You assert that a "transcendental whatever" is non-existent, and is fairy-tale stuff, but an assertion is hardly an argument. I'm sure you can do better than that.

Nothing beats truth that is based in reality.

Have a nice trip.