Does the truth of Jesus depend on the truth of Judaism?

[NowHereThis]

If the stories of the Old Testament are not true, would that undermine the basic narrative framework that Jesus would have been working in?. The answer appears to be yes. Even granting that Jesus did everything the Bible says he did, including appear to his disciples after they discovered the empty tomb, it would all mean something else (if Judaism wasn’t true) because the meaning his followers gave to those events was born out of the Jewish culture they lived in.

That seems like its a problem, because there are a lot of apologetic efforts made to defend the existence of a creator, and also to defend the reasonable probability of the resurrection. I haven’t seen anyone try to establish the historicity of the covenant between Abraham and God, and there are some real problems with the historicity of the exodus, among them the lack of archaeological remains (in a desert that would likely preserve such remains) to indicate a large movement of people out of Egypt through the Sinai consistent with the exodus.

So does Judaism have to be defended before Christianity can be defended, and if so, do you know of anyone who has made such efforts?

 

[Frankenfurter]

No.

From a Catholic perspective, the Jews are the people from which Jesus came from. Jesus had to come from somewhere. He came from the Jews. They are his people.

Keep in mind that Jesus’ message was recorded as being radical and even offensive to the Jews.

The Old Testament is the record of the people for which Jesus came from. He told stories for them to understand that were put in terms of the old testament since that is what they understood. The Old Testament provided the key to understanding of what the New Testament meant, in the terms that they could understand.

It is helpful to understand the Old Testament so that when Jesus says something in reference to the old, you can understand his meaning. The old testament is the context of what Jesus is saying.

‘The Old testament contains the new, and the New fulfills the Old.’

You can’t interpret one without the other. That is the Catholic understanding.

 

[GEddie]

The lack of an archaeological record is not really an argument against the Exodus.

Places of archaeological record are found because the people of the time built structures, roads, tombs, etc, that lasted for millenniums.

The Hebrews built nothing during the Exodus and the route they took is uncertain. How would you expect to find the few non-perishable remnants of their passage between mainland Egypt and Israel?

ICXC NIKA

 

[cornbread_r2]

The lack of an archaeological record is not really an argument against the Exodus.

Places of archaeological record are found because the people of the time built structures, roads, tombs, etc, that lasted for millenniums.

The Hebrews built nothing during the Exodus and the route they took is uncertain. How would you expect to find the few non-perishable remnants of their passage between mainland Egypt and Israel?

ICXC NIKA

As I understand the story, there could have been as many as 2 million or more Israelites wandering in the Sinai for 40 years. How does that many people, over that long a period, not leave any trace? No graves, pottery or other artifacts. Bear in mind too that for 38 years of the 40 they were supposedly encamped in one place.

Equally problematic is the fact that there’s apparently no evidence in Canaanite lands for the sudden appearance of a very large number of culturally distinctive, non-Canaanite outsiders.

 

[Ion]

You have to dig it ALL, and only then you can ask why didn’t we find anything of that camp…Keep digging

 

[Petaro]

I have been accused quite correctly of not taking everything in the OT as literal, however we have to believe that God made a covenant or contract with Abraham and that the Jews are the people of God and He promised them a messiah. They did not recognise Him when He appeared in Jesus and He came to fulfill the contract, the OT and brought all peoples into His promises of salvation.

 

[pacomius]

they go together. we must accept the old testament in order to believe the new. also all scriptures are inspired and come from God, and so must be accepted as truely His Word.
the only problem is when we try to use the bible for scientific or historical theses. the bible is a book on the salvific mission of Christ shown in the fulfilment of the prophesies down through the ages.
we would be disappointed to expect pin-point scientific or historical accuracy.
but the bible must always be taken as a whole; not in parts.

 

[tonyrey]

If the stories of the Old Testament are not true, would that undermine the basic narrative framework that Jesus would have been working in?. The answer appears to be yes. Even granting that Jesus did everything the Bible says he did, including appear to his disciples after they discovered the empty tomb, it would all mean something else (if Judaism wasn’t true) because the meaning his followers gave to those events was born out of the Jewish culture they lived in.
That seems like its a problem, because there are a lot of apologetic efforts made to defend the existence of a creator, and also to defend the reasonable probability of the resurrection. I haven’t seen anyone try to establish the historicity of the covenant between Abraham and God, and there are some real problems with the historicity of the exodus, among them the lack of archaeological remains (in a desert that would likely preserve such remains) to indicate a large movement of people out of Egypt through the Sinai consistent with the exodus.

So does Judaism have to be defended before Christianity can be defended, and if so, do you know of anyone who has made such efforts?

It is a false dilemma because the Old Testament is a collection of writings with different functions, not all of which have historical credibility. Judaism does not have to be defended because it was the prelude to the coming of Christ. It is remarkable that a primitive tribe had such unique spiritual insight in a world dominated by superstition and abhorrent customs like human sacrifice. Even the abominable Jewish practice of animal sacrifice was motivated by a sense of culpability and contrition for sin. The Ten Commandments are still applicable in the modern world regardless of cultural, scientific and technological progress.

 

[GEddie]

There may have been a smaller exodus, the events throughout the OT way well have been less amazing that we think; but that covenant had to be there, given how fiercely it has been defended ever since! IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Starrsmother]

No.

From a Catholic perspective, the Jews are the people from which Jesus came from. Jesus had to come from somewhere. He came from the Jews. They are his people.

Keep in mind that Jesus’ message was recorded as being radical and even offensive to the Jews.

The Old Testament is the record of the people for which Jesus came from. He told stories for them to understand that were put in terms of the old testament since that is what they understood. The Old Testament provided the key to understanding of what the New Testament meant, in the terms that they could understand.

It is helpful to understand the Old Testament so that when Jesus says something in reference to the old, you can understand his meaning. The old testament is the context of what Jesus is saying.

‘The Old testament contains the new, and the New fulfills the Old.’

You can’t interpret one without the other. That is the Catholic understanding.

I’m not a Catholic theologian, but to my mind, the OT has to have happened–though perhaps not exactly as it states in the OT or there’s no basis for Jesus and the NT. If you think about it, the whole point of Jesus being born, suffering and dying and then being raised again on the 3rd day was God fulfilling His promise in the OT to send Israel (His chosen people) a Messiah. Granted, Jesus didn’t turn out to be quite the Messiah that the average Jew of that day was expecting, but I believe that one must believe that God has been reaching out to mankind since Adam and Eve, trying to make a covenant with us that we could and would keep. Conversely, whether the fall of Adam and Eve was literally due to her eating an apple or simply disobedience and whether Jonah got eaten by a whale and spit up 3 days later–much less whether the entire universe was created in 6 actual 24 hour days—well that I’d give a maybe to!

 

[ManyFaces]

As I understand the story, there could have been as many as 2 million or more Israelites wandering in the Sinai for 40 years. How does that many people, over that long a period, not leave any trace? No graves, pottery or other artifacts. Bear in mind too that for 38 years of the 40 they were supposedly encamped in one place.

Equally problematic is the fact that there’s apparently no evidence in Canaanite lands for the sudden appearance of a very large number of culturally distinctive, non-Canaanite outsiders.

Two million people?

 

[Ion]

Two million people?

More like 60,000 ?

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Jesus is the Truth. Because His presence is clear in the existence of goodness, love, sin, pain, joy, beauty, truth, life, death, the human soul, etc., the New Testament must be true. Since it is true, the Old Testament, which provides the context of His coming, describing the nature of God and man, and our relationship from the beginning, must be true. It is a matter of understanding scripture. This is facilitated by His Church, of which these sacred books form an invaluable part of its teachings. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit and participation in the mass, the sacraments, through good works, prayer and contemplation, we grow ever closer to the living truth, the Way, who is Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[StevenFrancis]

If the stories of the Old Testament are not true, would that undermine the basic narrative framework that Jesus would have been working in?. The answer appears to be yes. Even granting that Jesus did everything the Bible says he did, including appear to his disciples after they discovered the empty tomb, it would all mean something else (if Judaism wasn’t true) because the meaning his followers gave to those events was born out of the Jewish culture they lived in.

That seems like its a problem, because there are a lot of apologetic efforts made to defend the existence of a creator, and also to defend the reasonable probability of the resurrection. I haven’t seen anyone try to establish the historicity of the covenant between Abraham and God, and there are some real problems with the historicity of the exodus, among them the lack of archaeological remains (in a desert that would likely preserve such remains) to indicate a large movement of people out of Egypt through the Sinai consistent with the exodus.

So does Judaism have to be defended before Christianity can be defended, and if so, do you know of anyone who has made such efforts?

To some extent, well, yes. Of course. Jesus was a Jew. One would at least need to believe and trust the prophesies, and this would mean believing and trusting the prophets, and those to whom God sent them to testify. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘must be defended’. It is all there. Faith is a grace of God. Scriptures are supportive material for the faith prayed for and received from the Father, through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t find a problem with any of it, frankly. If you’re having difficulty with Jewish scripture and prophecy, prayer should yield up the grace of faith. God bless you in your search.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Two million people?

More like 60,000 ?

Exodus 12:37-38

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

37 And the children of Israel set forward from Ramesse to Socoth, being about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside children.

38 And a mixed multitude without number went up also with them, sheep and herds and beasts of divers kinds, exceeding many.

If children and women are included, it seems that 2 million is on the conservative side.

 

[Estevao]

No. God incarnate told us the truth.

If the stories of the Old Testament are not true, would that undermine the basic narrative framework that Jesus would have been working in?. The answer appears to be yes. Even granting that Jesus did everything the Bible says he did, including appear to his disciples after they discovered the empty tomb, it would all mean something else (if Judaism wasn’t true) because the meaning his followers gave to those events was born out of the Jewish culture they lived in.

That seems like its a problem, because there are a lot of apologetic efforts made to defend the existence of a creator, and also to defend the reasonable probability of the resurrection. I haven’t seen anyone try to establish the historicity of the covenant between Abraham and God, and there are some real problems with the historicity of the exodus, among them the lack of archaeological remains (in a desert that would likely preserve such remains) to indicate a large movement of people out of Egypt through the Sinai consistent with the exodus.

So does Judaism have to be defended before Christianity can be defended, and if so, do you know of anyone who has made such efforts?

This Q&A from reasonable faith might answer your point here, but I’m going to quote what it quotes from a book that refutes your assertion about the problems with the historicity of the exodus:

As for the Exodus, I want to commend to you a book that I have here on my desk by the famed Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen entitled On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2003). Kitchen’s lengthy chapter 6 is devoted to a discussion of the Exodus and the Sinai wanderings of Israel in light of archaeology. You’re quite right to say that archaeology does not afford a proof of the Exodus. But Kitchen explains in some detail why no such proof should be expected. For example, he points out,

The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. . . . The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. . . . And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naïve attitudes and cease demanding ‘evidence’ that cannot exist (p. 246).

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/problems-with-the-old-testament#ixzz34G64lAyv

 

[Aloysium]

Whatever happened back in history happened then.
Personally, I was born a slave to sin.
I would have worked for a brutal master my entire life to serve his interests, not mine.
The Lord has freed me, leading me across the “Red Sea”,
drowning my tormentors, washing away my sin in baptism,
to the promised land - His Holy Church.
I keep falling, lost for what seems forever in spiritual deserts,
He sends me His commandments to guide me back.
By the grace of the Holy Spirit,
and through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross,
I live in hope of living eternally in His presence.

This is just a bit of it.
The OT makes perfect sense.