yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (12/16/84)
From karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Anyway, it is agreed that sticking to the more scholarly aspects is important. I must disagree, obviously, with your claim that Christianity is a counterfeit. You attempted a couple of times in the recent past to use some of the New Testament (as we call it) to maintain your position. I feel, however, that you did so incorrectly. As an example, you recently cited Jesus' claim that he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it [Matt 5:17]. You said that this proved that the keeping of Torah by men is still important, even in Jesus' opinion which you generally dislike anyway. However, the verse actually reads, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill" [NASB, if you care]. After verifying things with a friend who reads Greek (I don't), I note the importance of the fact that Jesus said, "*I* come to fulfill," that is, that he himself was fulfilling the Law. Thus, that verse cannot be construed to mean that Christ was saying that Law is required. (You are free to point out other verses where you think such a claim is made, of course.) *************************** Yiri responds: Your argument fails on a number of points. First, the logic of ignoring that he did not come to abolish the Torah according to this passage is glaring. Second, interpreting the word 'fullfil' (actually 'fill') in that symbolic way rather than the simple and direct (and correct) inter- pretation that he simply kept Torah, is what one would expect from a Christian frame of reference... however that is not the frame of reference of the 1st century N'tzarim. They had a Jewish frame of reference which would have been in the same vein as I just gave. This is reinforced by documented history that this group was willing to die rather than forsake the keeping of Torah even some 2 centuries later. Thirdly, the term is more correctly 'crash down' rather than 'abandon'. Thus, the passage should more accurately read "Do not believe that I came to crah down the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to drash down, but rather to fill." You and other Christians have simply applied interpretations to 'fill' (or 'fullfil') which were alien to the Jews who spoke/wrote the words. In point of fact, the verse cannot be construed as you would have it without injecting the antinomian counterfeit frame of reference of the Roman pagans into what was, in the time of the historical Y'shua, a Jewish idea. **************************** Also, someone else pointed out the existence of a huge number of New Testament manuscripts, some dating from before 150AD, to which you responded by saying that any scholar who knows his way in out of the rain knows that no manuscripts in existence are that old. I emphatically disagree here. From McDowell's *Evidence That Demands A Verdict* (my copy is old enough that it's before there was vol 1 and vol 2), I note the citation that a manuscript known as Bodmer Papyrus II, archaeologically dated around 150-200AD, is in the Bodmer Library of World Literature, and contains most of John. McDowell in turn cites Bruce Metzger in *The Text of the New Testament* in support of this. Further, there is the Chester Beatty Papyri, dated approx 200AD. Numerous other manuscripts are described in this book. *********************** Yiri responds: And I reiterate... any scholar who knows his way out of the rains knows the difference between a manuscript of the 'New Testament' and a papyrus fragment of a few verses... Furthermore, it is despicable to be so deceptive as to try to give the impression that the 'New Testament' is supported from 150 CE when, in fact, there are only a few fragments of a few verses here and there. The earliest mss. is the codex Sinaiticus (some argue the vaticanus from roughly the same period.. but the Sinaiticus in my view is more closely linked to Palestine origins while the vaticanus is more closely linked to Egyptian origins) dating from circa 450 CE. The papyrus to which you refer is P66 and dates from circa 200 CE, not 150. What it actually covers is John 1:1 - 6:1; 6:35 - 14:26,29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4,6-7,10-20,22-23; 20:25 - 21:9. This is hardly the 'New Testament'!!! Get your facts straight and quit being deceptive and misrepresenting things. *********************** I trust you now see my position. You have raised some interesting points, and I fully expect to see more coming from you, but I think you were far, far off the mark on these items. I have other examples where I feel you made mistakes, but I'm not doing this to try to beat you into the ground; I'm just explaining how I feel about the idea that "Christianity is a counterfeit." *********************** Yiri responds: It is obvious who is off the mark. *********************** [Side, somewhat editorial comment: The use of !s in articles in this newsgroup has risen rather dramatically of late. I submit that use of them, particularly in long strings of 4 or 5, do little more than give the impression that the writer is yelling at all his readers. Such usage is bound to cause people to stop reading these writers' articles, or at least to discount their appropriateness/veracity/factual content. I strongly suggest that we all try to stop the habit.] *********************** Yiri responds: Regardless of how you interpret exclamation points, they are used to attempt to draw the attention of the reader to something which NEEDS to be grasped. It is my hope that you do so. **********************
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/19/84)
From Yiri BenDavid in response to Karl Kleinpaste: >From Karl: >Also, someone else pointed out the existence of a huge number of New >Testament manuscripts, some dating from before 150AD, to which you responded >by saying that any scholar who knows his way in out of the rain knows that >no manuscripts in existence are that old. I emphatically disagree here. From >McDowell's *Evidence That Demands A Verdict* (my copy is old enough that >it's before there was vol 1 and vol 2), I note the citation that a >manuscript known as Bodmer Papyrus II, archaeologically dated around >150-200AD, is in the Bodmer Library of World Literature, and contains most >of John. McDowell in turn cites Bruce Metzger in *The Text of the New >Testament* in support of this. Further, there is the Chester Beatty Papyri, >dated approx 200AD. Numerous other manuscripts are described in this >book. >*********************** >Yiri responds: >And I reiterate... any scholar who knows his way out of the rains knows >the difference between a manuscript of the 'New Testament' and a papyrus >fragment of a few verses... Furthermore, it is despicable to be so >deceptive as to try to give the impression that the 'New Testament' is >supported from 150 CE when, in fact, there are only a few fragments of a >few verses here and there. The earliest mss. is the codex Sinaiticus >(some argue the vaticanus from roughly the same period.. but the >Sinaiticus in my view is more closely linked to Palestine origins while >the vaticanus is more closely linked to Egyptian origins) dating from >circa 450 CE. The papyrus to which you refer is P66 and dates from >circa 200 CE, not 150. What it actually covers is John 1:1 - 6:1; 6:35 - >14:26,29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4,6-7,10-20,22-23; 20:25 - 21:9. This is >hardly the 'New Testament'!!! Get your facts straight and quit being >deceptive and misrepresenting things. >*********************** The Bodmer Papyri (P66,P72,P75) contain most of the Gospels of John and Luke along with the books of Jude, I Peter, and II Peter. Dated A.D. 200, they contain the earliest complete copies of N.T. books. Codex Vaticanus (B) is a vellum mss. containing the whole N.T. as well as the LXX O.T. It is dated A.D. 325-350. Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), also vellum contains the whole N.T. and half the O.T. Dated A.D. 340. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) A.D. 350, contains most of the N.T., only part of the O.T. This mss. was written over but retrieved by chemical activation. The Codex Alexandrinus (A) dates from A.D. 450. It is a complete vellum mss. of the Bible with only minor mutilations. My source notes that though the above vellum mss. date from the 4th and 5th centuries, they represent in whole or in part an "Alexandrian" (mode Alexandria, Egypt) type text that dates from A.D. 100-150. This source is "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Geisler and Nix. I'm sure it will be repudiated by Yiri who seems to think he knows better than Christian scholars who disagree with his views, by I find less reason than Yiri to believe they are wrong and Yiri is right. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/28/84)
---------- > From yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) >>Anyway, it is agreed that sticking to the more scholarly aspects is >>important. I must disagree, obviously, with your claim that Christianity is >>a counterfeit. You attempted a couple of times in the recent past to use >>some of the New Testament (as we call it) to maintain your position. I feel, >>however, that you did so incorrectly. As an example, you recently cited >>Jesus' claim that he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it [Matt 5:17]. >>You said that this proved that the keeping of Torah by men is still >>important, even in Jesus' opinion which you generally dislike anyway. >>However, the verse actually reads, "Do not think that I came to abolish the >>Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill" [NASB, if >>you care]. After verifying things with a friend who reads Greek (I don't), I >>note the importance of the fact that Jesus said, "*I* come to fulfill," that >>is, that he himself was fulfilling the Law. Thus, that verse cannot be >>construed to mean that Christ was saying that Law is required. (You are free >>to point out other verses where you think such a claim is made, of course.) > > *************************** > Yiri responds: > Your argument fails on a number of points. First, the logic of ignoring > that he did not come to abolish the Torah according to this passage is > glaring. ---------- You are misreading my statement. I did not ignore it. The law exists. It will continue to exist for quite some time yet, I suspect; Matt 5:18 deals with that quite well. The point is that, since Christ came and fulfilled the law, there is no further need for us to adhere to it. See next paragraph. ---------- > Second, interpreting the word 'fullfil' (actually 'fill') in > that symbolic way rather than the simple and direct (and correct) inter- > pretation that he simply kept Torah, is what one would expect from a > Christian frame of reference... however that is not the frame of > reference of the 1st century N'tzarim... > Thirdly, the term is more correctly 'crash down' rather than 'abandon'. > Thus, the passage should more accurately read "Do not believe that I > came to crah down the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to crash > down, but rather to fill." You and other Christians have simply applied > interpretations to 'fill' (or 'fullfil') which were alien to the Jews > who spoke/wrote the words. In point of fact, the verse cannot be > construed as you would have it without injecting the antinomian > counterfeit frame of reference of the Roman pagans into what was, in the > time of the historical Y'shua, a Jewish idea. > **************************** ---------- It appears to me that you wish to split hairs. Fine; what constitutes "filling the law"? Particularly as distinct from "fulfilling"? I do not see any way you can get the simpler, "I keep Torah" out of "I did not come to crash down, but rather to fill." If the law is filled, then it is done with, since "filling" in any way I understand it implies an act of completion. (When I fill a cup, I can't put any more coffe in it. When I've had my fill of a discussion, I stop reading articles on that discussion.) Further, I didn't imply any sort of "abandonment"; when I'm done with something, I put it down and leave it. Those concepts are hardly the same. (If I have business out-of-town, I am not abandoning my family, though I see to it that my responsibilities toward them are filled or fulfilled so far as I am capable to do so. I leave them, I do not abandon them.) ---------- >>Also, someone else pointed out the existence of a huge number of New >>Testament manuscripts, some dating from before 150AD, to which you responded >>by saying that any scholar who knows his way in out of the rain knows that >>no manuscripts in existence are that old. I emphatically disagree here. From >>McDowell's *Evidence That Demands A Verdict* (my copy is old enough that >>it's before there was vol 1 and vol 2), I note the citation that a >>manuscript known as Bodmer Papyrus II, archaeologically dated around >>150-200AD, is in the Bodmer Library of World Literature, and contains most >>of John. McDowell in turn cites Bruce Metzger in *The Text of the New >>Testament* in support of this. Further, there is the Chester Beatty Papyri, >>dated approx 200AD. Numerous other manuscripts are described in this >>book. > > *********************** > Yiri responds: > And I reiterate... any scholar who knows his way out of the rains knows > the difference between a manuscript of the 'New Testament' and a papyrus > fragment of a few verses... Furthermore, it is despicable to be so > deceptive as to try to give the impression that the 'New Testament' is > supported from 150 CE when, in fact, there are only a few fragments of a > few verses here and there. The earliest mss. is the codex Sinaiticus > (some argue the vaticanus from roughly the same period.. but the > Sinaiticus in my view is more closely linked to Palestine origins while > the vaticanus is more closely linked to Egyptian origins) dating from > circa 450 CE. The papyrus to which you refer is P66 and dates from > circa 200 CE, not 150. What it actually covers is John 1:1 - 6:1; 6:35 - > 14:26,29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4,6-7,10-20,22-23; 20:25 - 21:9. This is > hardly the 'New Testament'!!! Get your facts straight and quit being > deceptive and misrepresenting things. > *********************** ---------- (a) I challenge your source. To begin with, the Bodmer Papyri constitute more than one mss, specifically P66, P72, and P75, whereas you attempted to reduce it to only P66. Incorrect. Further, as Paul Dubuc noted in his posting on this subject, they contain (collectively) most of John and Luke, as well as Jude and 1st and 2nd Peter. This is indeed a good-sized fraction of the NT to be in one place. My sources are McDowell's *Evidence That Demands a Verdict* and Geisler and Nix' *A General Introduction to the Bible*. (b) Since you feel a need to start name-calling, I deduce that you have decided that it is time to leave the scholarly aspects of this discussion behind. Fine, you do that; I however reserve the right to ignore anything further you have to say on this subject. If you cannot be civil but merely wish to to reduce the discussion to "you're despicable" and "you're deceiving everybody," effectively calling me a liar, then I don't feel any compunction at all about blowing you off. I will not participate further once this article is complete. ---------- >>I trust you now see my position. You have raised some interesting points, >>and I fully expect to see more coming from you, but I think you were far, >>far off the mark on these items. I have other examples where I feel you made >>mistakes, but I'm not doing this to try to beat you into the ground; I'm >>just explaining how I feel about the idea that "Christianity is a >>counterfeit." > > *********************** > Yiri responds: > It is obvious who is off the mark. > *********************** ---------- Further support for the idea that Yiri is no longer interested in discussing the subject, but rather that he is interested in deriding anyone who disagrees with him. It is rude, insulting, and totally unnecessary. I will not lower myself to that level in this newsgroup; it is too important to me. ---------- >>[Side, somewhat editorial comment: The use of !s in articles in this >>newsgroup has risen rather dramatically of late. I submit that use of them, >>particularly in long strings of 4 or 5, do little more than give the >>impression that the writer is yelling at all his readers. Such usage is >>bound to cause people to stop reading these writers' articles, or at least >>to discount their appropriateness/veracity/factual content. I strongly >>suggest that we all try to stop the habit.] > > *********************** > Yiri responds: > Regardless of how you interpret exclamation points, they are used to > attempt to draw the attention of the reader to something which NEEDS to > be grasped. It is my hope that you do so. > ********************** ---------- I doubt it. From your attitude in preceding paragraphs, I conclude that you do not in fact hope any such thing. There is more than one way to draw a reader's attention when writing. If your only mechanism is to yell, then I neither want nor need to listen to you. Write anything further on this subject you wish; I won't be reading any of it. -- From the badly beaten keyboards of him who speaks +---best address in textured Technicolor *TyPe* f-O-n-T-s... | | Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +-----> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl