karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/12/84)
---------- >>>>[someone objects to Yiri, asking him whether or not he practices animal >>>>sacrifice as specified in Torah.] >>>[Yiri responds <rather vociferously> that he has been arguing his points >>>from the standpoint of what one *should* do as opposed to any specifics >>>about what he personally does.] >>[I respond by pointing out that Christians are often on the defensive for >>just these reasons, that they don't practice what they preach, noting that >>there exists historical precedent <for non-Christians with respect to >>Christians> to tell someone to get lost; hence, included a rephrasing of >>the question originally put to Yiri.] >* Yiri responds 12-05: >* I don't find it significant what Christians do, therefore the 'hence' does >* not follow. I think the answer to your question is in my earlier article >* which you were commenting on if you will reread it carefully. I will say >* that it is my opinion that one should give their best continuing effort >* to keep all of Torah which is possible. Before one can do that, s/he has >* to understand what that means. There are presently some pretty silly >* discussions on this net about observing various parts of Torah. They >* are silly because the contributors lack the necessary understanding of >* Torah to know how they are to be applied, by whom, and in what circum- >* stances. If they really wanted answers, they would be going to an >* orthodox rabbi (to learn in humility rather than to preach and witness >* as is all too often the pretense for visiting with a rabbi, etc.) >* This is the suggestion for anyone who really wants to know. As for my >* personal beliefs, practices, etc. they have no bearing on the veracity >* of the information I've presented and no affect on the resolution of >* those issues nor on the scholarly aspects of them. If your interest is >* indeed scholarly as you claim rather than predaceous then you will >* agree that it is best for all to stick to the scholarly aspects >* with exceptions only for self-defense. I have at least stated that >* I advocate the keeping of all of Torah and that Christianity is >* a counterfeit. Where do you stand regarding these two issues? ---------- Actually, I'd say you're quite concerned with what Christians do, or you'd not be posting to the net so much on the subject of Christianity and your opinion of it as a counterfeit. But the use of "hence" was merely to point out that a similar attitude (by Christians with respect to yourself) could be taken, possibly reasonably. This is all mostly irrelevant, however, since I am not doing so. I have in fact talked with several orthodox Jews a reasonable amount, including one with whom I used to work a great deal. (Not lately, though, regrettably; it was always most interesting and enlightening.) I did not preach or witness at them; I was usually looking for historical references, which they (usually) managed to provide for me very well. I must say that orthodox Jews tend to be a very well-educated lot with respect to their beliefs. 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.) 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. 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." [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.] -- From the badly beaten keyboards of him who speaks best address---+ in textured Technicolor *TyPe* f-O-n-T-s... | V Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 cbosgd!osu-eddie!karl