Sunday, April 16, 2023

Brian Holdsworth Gives a Good Explanation But Bungles Half of the Points

Old Testament vs. New Testament God
Brian Holdsworth, 15 April 2023

1:36 I can say for me, that the channels on youtube or quora users I interact with have ceased confronting me with the problem - probably because at 4 million views just on my present blogger account, not counting the views on MSN Groups Antimodernism before MSN Groups closed down, or disconnected blogger accounts, or the disconnected or presently still connected wordpress account, as well as former and two present quora accounts, as well as those who follow me on youtube - my position is more or less known, it is predictable I will defend the OT God and this in ways that will seem insensitive to a lot of those who have this problem.

B U T when I started out on MSN Group Antimodernism, I tended to answer this a lot, as I recall.

When they closed down, one group member had been asked by me to:
  • save messages or threads from the group on webcitation, which was still working at the time
  • send me the webcites, so I could put them on the blogger account when I had time
  • since back then, as not just homeless, but vagabond in an area with little internet connexion, outside Aix, which was made physically unpleasant, I did not have the internet time to do this myself.

What happened is, once I had more time, and could ask him to send me webcites, he told me, "oh, I couldn't do that" - and via FB I found out he was a FreeMason - guys who obviously do not like integrist defenses of the OT God. I unfriended him, but it was too late. Parts of the site had already been lost.

2:34 First issue.

Adultery merits in and of itself death penalty, and NT political powers like Rome from Constantine to Justinian actually enforced this. That adultery is not punished in the kingdoms of the New Law by death penalty is due to a specific clemency of the New Testament, and this is like God telling the Jews He's not annihilating them just because by rejecting Christ they are in fact adulterers. And Justinian saw where Christ was heading, and he respected the example given by King Arthur who simply didn't execute Guinevere. Arthur and Guinevere being alive in the precise period between Constantine and Justinian, an era also in which lots of NT copies circulated without the passage.

Fornication does not in and of itself merit death penalty, and that it was punished by death in the OT is not just a rigour of the OT, though that too, but also because God wanted to keep the lineage leading up to Jesus clean. An Israelite virgin losing her virginity before Christ would have been guilty not just of fornication, but also of sacrilege against the then as yet only upcoming Messiah.

The passage in John 8 reflects two things apart from this:
  • Jews had lost their right to execute criminals according to their own law before Christ arrived at adulthood, but after He was persecuted in childhood, fulfilling the prophecy (by Jacob on his deathbed) that Judah would not lose sovereignty up to when the hero came (Daniel 13 shows that Jews had the right to condemn to death under Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus;
  • the stoning was not actually legal, since the two witnesses were the husband and adulterer, and since the adulterer couldn't be a witness in a process where under the law, he would have been on trial as well - unlike Roman law, the Jewish law would have required the death, not just of Guinevere, but of Lancelot as well.

It can be added, marriage is also different. A NT husband is obliged to lifelong fidelity. Putting his wife away by stoning for adultery or putting her away by bill of repudiation for not serving a correct tea are both things he should abhor much more, than the OT husband had to.

And this is relevant, because God divorced Israel, and married the Catholic Church, whom He will never divorce.

Deuteronomy 28 shows a conditional covenant, and the correct (on this point) LXX text of Jeremias prophecied it would be annulled. Matthew 28 shows this as replaced by an eternal covenant.

King Arthur was acting the role of Hosea or of a NT husband, should his wife be unfaithful.

3:53 When it comes to discrepancies or rather apparent such between NT and OT law, that analogy won't work.

Prison inmates haven't made a deal with the guards.

Your analogy shows "covenant vs no covenant" and not how two covenants are different.

But perhaps you are coming to that?

The prison inmates are a parallel to implacable enemies of the people of God - whether a pharao's army, or the one that will group at Armageddon.

God's attitude to such death threats to His people is the same, Thorah or Apocalypse.

5:23 Some were as bad.

In pre-Flood Spain, or remains of it, you will find Neanderthals in El Sidrón who were vegetarian, while Neanderthals in Belgium ate both woolly mammoth and man. Meanwhile you will also find Denisovans (or genetically close) in Atapuerca, who were butchered in ways clearly suggesting cannibalism.

If we had writings from Henoch in the land of Nod (city named for Cain's son, not the other Henoch who pleased God) we would arguably find glib discussions of cannibalism, vampyrism, gay marriage and forced gay marriage.

In Germany, Spain and France, three places in clear post-Flood, indeed post-Babel times show a relapse into cannibalism (but this time it's only Homo Sapiens race, the subrace of mankind surviving the Flood), and the last of them, in France, closed down in carbon dated 4000 BC, meaning real year 2007 or 2008 BC, when Abraham was seven or eight years old and learning to pray.

Later still, you find Egyptians and Sumerians doing human sacrifice to dead kings (I think both of these were after Abraham died, the Sumerian example is from Israel's stay in Egypt, the Egyptian one is earlier). And you find Canaaneans, both in Holy Land and in Carthage doing a vile parady of Abraham's sacrifice. No God who ordered it, no angel came to stay those knives.

When Spaniards arrived in the Americas, Azteks were still doing that vile ritual, but on a larger scale. And Incas had taken up the sacrifice at the change of ruler, burial of old or installation of new one.

6:16 You don't have to take a historic view that says humanity was once as bad as the Orcs?

Come on, my references were not to legends, but to archaeology!

Here is the one ending on 2007 BC:

The Cannibal Cults of Neolithic Europe
Dan Davis History, 14 Sept. 2021

5:51 I am sorry, but your parallel to the Iliad* won't work.

Because, there is no proof that the legends of the Iliad are fictional. Walter Leaf suspected the person of Hector was a fictional insert, put there to give Homer a male character who wasn't an absolute jerk. And that Achilles' story is accordingly changed to give room for this touch of humanity.

So, the parts of Iliad, or Odyssey references to the sack of Troy, that most parallel horrors in Joshua are also the ones least likely to be legendary.

The "orthodox theologians" you refer to simply aren't orthodox.

That people like Pius XII didn't punish their writings is because he was a lazy watchdog.

6:03 "the gods"

There is no event in the Iliad, and few if any in the Odyssey, which actually require such gods to be real for the events as such to be real, if misinterpreted theologically.

Some of the gods are human qualities, some are angels, I suspect Athena in the Odyssey is more than once Ulysses' or Telemachus' guardian angels, some are demons (that is more apparent in the tragedy) and some are Homer's way of referring to God's providence, making it "the gods' providence" instead, like the conference on Olympus in the beginning of the Iliad.

Very little of that would require any real supernatural events, apart from purely spiritual ones, and none of those that require them are totally inexplicable in Christian terms.

7:57 The driving lessons analogy is much better.

And the point is correct, taking on OT law is like asking your old driving teacher to be a backseat driver, even after you learned. Back seat drivers tend to make driving less safe.

This also applies to the kind of people who are back seat drivers for my apologetics, and who prefer some of your erroneous points. They have made my moral conduct, if not reprehensible (to human observers who don't see my heart), at least far less safe than it used to be.


Please note, few if any Jews would disagree with you. Or me, where I agree with you, as on driving lessons.

The difference would be, we believe God personally came down and walked with us in the Flesh, as Jesus of Nazareth - paradise, where Adam and Eve walked and talked with God is restored.

They believe diverse Sanhedrins and rabbis have (after AD 70) taken over responsibility for how God's laws is to be applied.

We believe the purest lesson still contains an actual ritual sacrifice. The Mass.

They pretend, the purest lesson is pure ethics, rituals being a kind of "beginners' support" for pure ethic rationality - often conceived after Kant.

They will pretend that our Sacrifice is abhorrent because it mimes the idea of cannibalism. I will answer, their pure ethics, their Kantianism, has brought cannibalism, vampyrism, gay marriage and forced gay marriage back to the stage they were in in civilised parts of Nod.

* See this series: On Homer's Trojan War · Homer's Heritage · Homer's "Illiad" as it was misspelled - a Quoran asked on accuracy · Homer's Hittite Background

No comments: