Does the book of Isaiah say anything about Jesus of Nazareth?

[SarahM32]

62. Okay, for the last time ...

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Intaglio wrote:

"An Apologist is one who issues an apologia, this is called apologetics. An apologia is a defense of something or someone. Apologetics has come to be commonly associated with defense of religious beliefs but literary apologia also exist. Jefferson was issuing and apologia, a defense, of his view of Jesus. Thus he was an apologist. The reality of his Deist faith is irrelevant to that fact. Claiming that Jefferson's faith denied him the ability to issue an apologia is a falsehood.

There you go, I have said clearly that Jefferson was both a deist and an apologist. You will deny my statement because you are deliberately using an inadequate and falsely limited description of apologetics. You're wrong, hard luck."

Intaglio,

My debate with you is not over the definition of apologia or apologetics. As I’ve said numerous times, I am quite aware what they are.

My debate with you is over whether or not Jefferson was “issuing an apologia and defense of his views of Jesus,” as you now claim (regarding what Jefferson said about Jesus and editing the New Testament to remove its supernatural “corruptions,” as he called them).

I can’t help but notice that you’ve changed your tune again in saying “defense of his views of Jesus,” because in Reply #35 you claimed that Jefferson “was a Deist issuing an apologia in respect of the Bible.” That makes it very obvious that whenever I point out the real truth, you tend to be in denial and merely change your claim using avoidance tactics.

Again you repeat your claim that “Jefferson was an Apologist,” and you add that: “The reality of his Deist faith is irrelevant to that fact.” Then you go so far off base to even say that: “Claiming that Jefferson's faith denied him the ability to issue an apologia is a falsehood.”

Your statements are not true — especially since I have never said “Jefferson's faith denied him the ability to issue an apologia,” as you apparently are claiming now.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that Jefferson was not an Apologist, and that he did not issue an apologia. And I have explained very clearly why.

The writings of Jefferson make it quite clear what he thought of the core, universal teachings of Jesus, as opposed to the "corruptions" in the official church canon established by followers.

For example, Jefferson wrote: "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Jesus by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." – Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson thought that the New Testament contains “corruptions” because of the supernatural claims and exaggerations, untruths and contradictions. And Jefferson said that Paul was the “first corrupter” of the message of Jesus. (And by the way, that is remarkable because modern scholarship such as that of Marcus Borg and other members of the Jesus Seminar has concluded that Paul was indeed the first to produce and have his written works distributed).

The point is clearly that in saying and writing what he did, Jefferson was not “defending Jesus” or even “defending the views of Jesus,” as you claim. Furthermore, Jefferson was certainly not defending Christianity or the Bible, and he as not “issuing an apologia of the Bible" or "of the views of Jesus," as you have claimed. He was saying that Paul and the apostles got it wrong, even though Jesus himself apparently said a lot of great and true things.

Perhaps it would make it even more clear to point out the context and say that Jefferson’s critique of Christian doctrines and dogma was written to directly address the right-wing theocratic Christian clergy who were in fact Apologists for the New Testament Bible and Paul’s theology of Apologetics. And Jefferson was very much against their theocratic political grandstanding from behind their pulpits.

Anyone who understands Jefferson from having read his words can see that your argument is misleading and specious. And I will say no more about it to you.

As for your other “Elements” about Notovitch and the story of The Life of Issa, I will submit this last response and say no more to you about it to you, because this is a fringe issue and relatively unimportant compared to the overall message I promote.

The name "Issa" resembles the Sanskrit "Isa," meaning the Lord, and the Arabic name Isa, which used in the Quran to refer to Jesus in reverent ways. The reference and inference is clear, even though you refuse to see it.

Another absurdity is your claim that "the name Issa does not exist," because you ignore the rather obvious fact that it does exist. It’s online and in many books. And it was even seen in the ancient document on the life of Issa, not only by people I’ve already mentioned, but apparently also by others I have not previously mentioned who either saw it or were made aware of it.

For example, it was seen by Henrietta Merrick in 1921 (who later wrote in her book, In the World's Attic, "In the monestery in Himis in Leh is the legend of Jesus who is called Issa”).

It was seen by Swami Trigunatitananda in 1895 when he visited the monastery and then confirmed Notovitch had spent time there, which is cited in 'Swami Trigunatita: His Life and Works" by Marie L Burke.

It was seen by Elizabeth Caspari, who in 1939 along with a Mrs. Clarence Gasque visited the monastery and were told by a monk in charge of the Himis library, Lama Nawong Zangpo, that "These books say your Jesus was here!" (And Ms. Caspari later became noted for having established the first Montessori school in the U.S.)

In the 1970s a monk at the monastery told the late Edward Noack and his wife that: "There are manuscripts in our library that describe the journey of Jesus to the East."

Another who learned of its existence was Robert Ravicz, once professor of anthropology at California State University at Northridge, who reported that while at Himis in 1975 he learned of the "lost years" Jesus-in-India tradition from an eminent Ladakhi physician.

Of course, you can call all these people liars if you wish. You have the right to your opinion, and you have the right to use your “logic” to try to connect Theosophy with the story and paint a scenario that agrees with Archibald Douglas and Max Muller, who are perhaps the most cited skeptics and critics of Notovitch and the story of the life of Jesus as Issa.

Nevertheless, throughout the twentieth century, many individuals have responded positively to the work of Notovitch, including Nicholas Roerich, Levi Dowling, Janet and Richard Bock (makers of the film, "The Lost Years of Jesus&quot , Swami Abhedananda, and Paramahansa Yogananda (who founded the Self-Realization Fellowship in America in 1925). They all provide evidence or support showing that the story of Issa is alive and well today.

Granted, Max Muller, Archibald Douglas, and Edgar J. Goodspeed have presented refutations of the story of Issa, and their refutations should challenge believers to become as informed as possible. (In that respect, I am grateful to you, Intaglio, for challenging me, because I am now more confident in my beliefs than I was before.)

As for the reluctance or refusal of monastery officials to admit the existence of the Issa documents, in addition to what Professor Deardorff has said (which I have already posted), V. R. Gandhi has explained that the causes of this suspicious attitude on the part of custodians of the sacred literature of the East trace back several centuries to the Muslim invaders of India once having destroyed thousands of the Indians' sacred documents, and to early Christian missionaries having acquired and belittled some of their documents. This distrustful attitude persists today, and certainly at the Himis monastery, according to Tibetologists David L. Snellgrove and Tadeusz Skorupski.

In conclusion, I say I agree to disagree with you. And I hope you will too (though it is very apparent that you will not).
.