From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 12:49:43 EST
I am referring to the essence of Christianity, which is in the
Gospel, and not in the Old Testament. If the Gospels are all fiction,
then there is no sense in looking at the OT for any sort of
prophecies regarding Jesus. I like the verses regarding the healing
of the man born blind: "He then answered, "Whether He is a sinner, I
do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I
see." "John 9:25 . It is this sort of power in simplicity that one
gathers from the witnesses that knew Jesus and witnessed the
resurrection---plus other miracles. In fact, as Isaac Newton said of
the study of Revelations, we study them not in order to make
predictions but to realize their truth when they occur. In the case
of prophecies of the OT regarding Jesus, we ought to work backwards
and have the truth of Jesus shade light on OT prophecies. Obviously,
Norman Podhoretz does not acknowledge the witnesses of the NT;
therefore, his conclusions---that the prophecies in Isaiah do not!
refer to Jesus.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: RFaussette@aol.com [mailto:RFaussette@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 12:03 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: spong's bad assumptions and virgin births - for jim
In a message dated 1/6/03 8:51:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
alexanian@uncw.edu writes:
> Imagine you witness some events today, would you testify to what you
> witnessed with some particular philosophical worldview in mind or just
> state the facts as you experienced them? It seems to me that what is
> being really questioned is whether the Gospel represent historical facts or
> fiction. Moorad
>
>
I understand Norman Podhoretz in one of the neocon publications has just
written an article 'proving' that the prophecies in Isaiah do not refer to
Jesus Christ. I haven't read the article but I bring it up to respond to your
concern. Biblical authors always tried to fit current events as they happened
into their frame of reference. They always had their particular philosophical
worldview in mind when interpreting events and they always wanted to know if
a certain occurrence was 'prefigured.' What I get out of the OT should be
received by me in the way that the material was put in to the OT. If Biblical
authors chose allegory rather than straight facts that could be understood at
face value, then you MUST interpret the OT from their perspective, which is
not fiction as in 'made up words' but truth deliberately framed in allegory
for reasons that must be understood the way the framers of the allegories
understood them, not the way an individualist reading the OT in the 21st
century chooses to understand them. The greatest Jewish minds studying the
pentateuch (Maimonides, gershom scholem for example) say there is profound
allegorical meaning woven into the OT. Allegory can refer to historical
facts, but you've got to interpret them first.
The OT is not fiction. I never said that. I never will.
rich
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 23:07:24 EST