rosends
Well-Known Member
I’m sure this has been said before but I, out of the blue, came up with this idea also, so I wanted to put it down in words to clear my brain cache.
People ask why I don’t accept the truth of particular other religions. They try to show me how their figurehead is in the texts that I do accept. How is it, they ask, that I cannot see that their divine character is clearly in the texts?
I have tried to answer from my position as a religious person who understand the texts differently. I have argued on linguistic/semantic grounds, on historical grounds and on theological grounds. But what dawned on me is that all of my arguments are self serving – yes, I know this, but that they are going against a series of separately self-serving arguments. We find what we seek, right? And sure, I’m a heckuva guy in that I can admit that my arguments are circularly self-justifying, but that doesn’t confer any additional persuasive gravitas on them.
But then I realized that the best answer might be one that transcends these religious contexts.
Let’s say I picked up a Jewish bible, and read it cover to cover. But only it. Would I have any idea that its contents are referring to a character who was not alive when it was composed? Take a random atheist who is not worried about “history” per se, but who is looking to be convinced by the text; would he, after reading the text, say “hey, this all seems to be about someone who is neither named nor explicitly identified in the words of the text”?
There are two categories of textual citations as it refers to the finding of Jesus in the Jewish biblical texts: references/descriptions and prophecies. In the former, the text describes a character (“he is tall”) and in the second, the text explains a future set of historical events (“he will drive a Maserati.”)
If one wants to find meaning in the text by then “explaining” it via a different text, then that already presents (IMHO) a failed position. Take Isaiah 53. Christians, for centuries have insisted that the text speaks of Jesus even though Jesus is not mentioned in the text. Forget who else anyone might say the text is talking about, just look at the words. There is simply no Jesus there. If the expectation on an atheist is that he or she should accept that the text is about Jesus because a person of faith cites a separate text whose authority demands that a person, a priori, has faith, then I can’t see how any atheist would be swayed.
So the Christian says to the atheist “see that verse? It is about Jesus.” The atheist says “I see no Jesus there – can you show me?” The Christian responds “this phrase is reminiscent of that one, and this statement can easily be applied to Jesus as depicted in the gospels.” The atheist then asks “so without the gospels, you wouldn’t see Jesus in here?” The Christian might say “It is prefiguring Jesus, so even without mentioning him, it has a meaning that is applied to him.” The atheist (I believe) would be in the clear saying “but it isn’t in the text – just in the interpretation.”
Look, I know that a Christian won’t be convinced if I show him a verse In the book which says “A=B” when “B” is not Jesus. I’m fine with that. But he won’t convince anyone when he says “A=C” and tries to explain it as “C is in a completely different book. He isn’t at all in A’s book unless you read the other book and accept it as authoritative and already accept that C true and real.”
The same holds true for any of the supposed messianic prophecies. The Christian says “this points to Jesus as described in the gospels.” The atheist simply has to say “but believing the gospels is required to accept that the text is validated through the gospels!” Someone outside of that belief system would not see Jesus in the prophecy until that person stepped IN to the belief system. Until then, someone outside of the belief system would have a strong reason to say “I don’t see Jesus in that reference.” The atheist could just as easily say “I don’t see anyone in that reference (or, I could see anyone in that prophecy…lots of people drive Maseratis) and the text isn’t clear about who it means – if the text can’t spell it out, it isn’t much of a prophecy.” This creates a double reason not to accept: there is a flaw in the nature of the prophecy and there is a required belief in order to accept that the text that tells of the prophecy’s fulfillment according to one set of beliefs is accurate. How can anyone expect a non-believer to dismiss those challenges?
It seems to me that the acid test for conclusively making a case is the impact the text would have on the reader without any intermediary. Would an atheist, picking up the Jewish bible, leave with any inkling that the text, at any point, is about Jesus? Not, would the atheist think it is about anyone else, but would that atheist know Jesus, be able to predict Jesus or anything else related to Jesus through just that text?
My beliefs require belief. And that’s convenient because I believe. My beliefs are steeped in the wording/language of a text given to a group that shares my beliefs in a language shared with those who share my belief. But I know that someone who doesn’t share my belief can easily dismiss my texts, my proofs and my beliefs. I’m OK with that. It just seems like an even more ridiculous ask to expect that someone reads the same texts and, especially in the context of “no beliefs” see the text as pointing to a character who simply is not in the text.
People ask why I don’t accept the truth of particular other religions. They try to show me how their figurehead is in the texts that I do accept. How is it, they ask, that I cannot see that their divine character is clearly in the texts?
I have tried to answer from my position as a religious person who understand the texts differently. I have argued on linguistic/semantic grounds, on historical grounds and on theological grounds. But what dawned on me is that all of my arguments are self serving – yes, I know this, but that they are going against a series of separately self-serving arguments. We find what we seek, right? And sure, I’m a heckuva guy in that I can admit that my arguments are circularly self-justifying, but that doesn’t confer any additional persuasive gravitas on them.
But then I realized that the best answer might be one that transcends these religious contexts.
Let’s say I picked up a Jewish bible, and read it cover to cover. But only it. Would I have any idea that its contents are referring to a character who was not alive when it was composed? Take a random atheist who is not worried about “history” per se, but who is looking to be convinced by the text; would he, after reading the text, say “hey, this all seems to be about someone who is neither named nor explicitly identified in the words of the text”?
There are two categories of textual citations as it refers to the finding of Jesus in the Jewish biblical texts: references/descriptions and prophecies. In the former, the text describes a character (“he is tall”) and in the second, the text explains a future set of historical events (“he will drive a Maserati.”)
If one wants to find meaning in the text by then “explaining” it via a different text, then that already presents (IMHO) a failed position. Take Isaiah 53. Christians, for centuries have insisted that the text speaks of Jesus even though Jesus is not mentioned in the text. Forget who else anyone might say the text is talking about, just look at the words. There is simply no Jesus there. If the expectation on an atheist is that he or she should accept that the text is about Jesus because a person of faith cites a separate text whose authority demands that a person, a priori, has faith, then I can’t see how any atheist would be swayed.
So the Christian says to the atheist “see that verse? It is about Jesus.” The atheist says “I see no Jesus there – can you show me?” The Christian responds “this phrase is reminiscent of that one, and this statement can easily be applied to Jesus as depicted in the gospels.” The atheist then asks “so without the gospels, you wouldn’t see Jesus in here?” The Christian might say “It is prefiguring Jesus, so even without mentioning him, it has a meaning that is applied to him.” The atheist (I believe) would be in the clear saying “but it isn’t in the text – just in the interpretation.”
Look, I know that a Christian won’t be convinced if I show him a verse In the book which says “A=B” when “B” is not Jesus. I’m fine with that. But he won’t convince anyone when he says “A=C” and tries to explain it as “C is in a completely different book. He isn’t at all in A’s book unless you read the other book and accept it as authoritative and already accept that C true and real.”
The same holds true for any of the supposed messianic prophecies. The Christian says “this points to Jesus as described in the gospels.” The atheist simply has to say “but believing the gospels is required to accept that the text is validated through the gospels!” Someone outside of that belief system would not see Jesus in the prophecy until that person stepped IN to the belief system. Until then, someone outside of the belief system would have a strong reason to say “I don’t see Jesus in that reference.” The atheist could just as easily say “I don’t see anyone in that reference (or, I could see anyone in that prophecy…lots of people drive Maseratis) and the text isn’t clear about who it means – if the text can’t spell it out, it isn’t much of a prophecy.” This creates a double reason not to accept: there is a flaw in the nature of the prophecy and there is a required belief in order to accept that the text that tells of the prophecy’s fulfillment according to one set of beliefs is accurate. How can anyone expect a non-believer to dismiss those challenges?
It seems to me that the acid test for conclusively making a case is the impact the text would have on the reader without any intermediary. Would an atheist, picking up the Jewish bible, leave with any inkling that the text, at any point, is about Jesus? Not, would the atheist think it is about anyone else, but would that atheist know Jesus, be able to predict Jesus or anything else related to Jesus through just that text?
My beliefs require belief. And that’s convenient because I believe. My beliefs are steeped in the wording/language of a text given to a group that shares my beliefs in a language shared with those who share my belief. But I know that someone who doesn’t share my belief can easily dismiss my texts, my proofs and my beliefs. I’m OK with that. It just seems like an even more ridiculous ask to expect that someone reads the same texts and, especially in the context of “no beliefs” see the text as pointing to a character who simply is not in the text.
,,,,, (smile).
