yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/26/84)
. Funny thing. I *have* read Parkes and Bagatti, and both seem to go against G Yirmiyahu's primary assertions. Both Parkes and Bagatti claim that Jesus I (neither writers use Yirmiyahu's preference - Y'shua) made authority claims L far beyond the limits acceptable to First Century Judaism. Both claim that L early followers of Jesus were *Christians* (not just another Jewish sect). E Both accept the *whole* of the Gospels, not just those passages that "fit" T Jewish culture. I documented these points with full quotations and T references several weeks ago. When will Yirmiyahu either prove (by similar E quotations and references) that I have misunderstood Parkes and Bagatti, . or quit misleading netters by claiming these fine scholars as authorities . for his own creative imagination. ************************** * Yiri responds: * Does the failure of the writer to use "Y'shua" mean that "Y'shua" * is wrong? Would you argue it is wrong? You think perhaps that Parkes, * Baggati and the Interpreter's Dictionary are the only sources? If so, * you are indeed fools. The 'authority claims' have nothing to do with * MY assertions... which are listed below! Neither explain how Christians * could be so vehemently anti-Torah and different from the 1st century * group that they killed the original group. They just ignore and gloss * over that problem. Neither in fact claims that they were NOT another * Jewish sect either! One of these groups was killing the other and * you claim they are all 'early Christians'. Baloney. The point is that * the ideas forwarded by Gillette do not treat the assertions I brought * up in the first place. There is no point on treating every peripheral * subject treated by every source... that would be a 'combinatorial * explosion' which would only result in a myriad of side issues and * misdirection away from the issues I raised... and issues I'm going * to keep in front of you as long as there is a sky. And when I no * longer can, the knowledge is out and someone else will see it and * they will do it in my stead. So you will never again ignore it. * The ones who are deceiving and misleading are Gillette, Bickford * company. You may as well get down to these issues because I will * not allow you to change of the subject and I will not permit you to * beg these questions in presenting your counterfeit doctrines. * It is you who are the deceivers doing the same work as your * counterparts in the Roman Empire. * Regarding my assertions, my primary assertions are: * 1. The 1st century Jewish N'tzarim, including Y'shua and his 12 * apprentices and subsequent N'tzarim, were observant of Torah * (written) to the point they were willing to die over it. * 2. Gentile Christianity was anti-Torah and antisemitic even back in * the times when the N'tzarim were still around. * 3. Gentile Christians killed Jewish N'tzarim who would not give up * their observance of Torah and Judaism and adopt Christianity instead. * 4. Christianity in the 4th century was dramatically different from * the 1st century teachings of the original Jewish group. * 5. That original Jewish group was the N'tzarim (corrupted to * 'Nazarene' and having no legitmate association with modern Nazarenes * any more than any other Christians. * 6. There is no legitimate link-up between the Gentile Christians * who were killing N'tzarim for being Torah-observant and those same * N'tzarim who were BEING killed BY them. Any alleged 'link-up is * therefore false, fradulent, a deception, a hoax and a counterfeit. * 7. Custody of the manuscripts of the document commonly called the * 'New Testament' was taken over by these Gentile Christian counterfeits * who then redacted it and reinterpreted it to suit their ideas of * Christianity rather than the Torah-observant teachings of the * Torah-observant N'tzarim. * 8. Based on #7, The 'New Testament' therefore also became * a counterfeit of the original N'tzarim writings. * 9. The Gentile Christians, who were diametrically opposite to the * original group (the N'tzarim) regarding Torah, and were in fact * killing them because of it, are no more than a counterfeit of the * N'tzarim; and Christianity is likewise a counterfeit of the * N'tzarim teachings. * * Now, #1,2,3,4,5, & 7 are acknowledged even by Christian authors, examples * which include the Interpreter's Dictionary (#7), Parkes (#2,4), Baggatti * (#1,2,3,5). Numbers 6,8 * 9 are rather simple conclusions. * * Anyone who disputes that these three sources do not support the assertions * enumerated here has not read them, is unbelievably stupid or is outright * lying. The conclusions (#6,8, & 9) stand on their own. *************************** > Wingate took the same tact on the Interpreter's Dictionary - that it > didn't prove everything I've been asserting...it DOES show that the 'New > Testament' was deliberately redacted and changed.... But Charley wrote: . I refuse to play these authority against authority games. I will point C out that MY Interpreter's Dictionary does NOT support Yirmiyahu's W interpretation... ************************** * Yiri responds: * I am now convinced that my adversaries are using outright deception * (and in other cases have deliberately twisted my words and alleged * to the readers who I "would" react, etc.) Such adversaries deserve * no respect and I find them to be completely unethical and anti- * scholarly. Earlier, there was no complaint about these sources. Now * that the points are beginning to stick in their throat, they resort * to changing their minds about the sources. It is painfully obvious * that their feeble attempts fail them. In point of fact, I was careful * to give my reference in the original article including the edition, * etc. knowing full well that this information would probably be * redacted from yet another Christian document. If anyone need a copy * they can send a self-addressed stamped envelope with a buck for * the trouble of copying and I can supply a copy! *************************** With the subject of authority games, Yiri keeps trumpeting Parkes and Bagatti, who credentials I know nothing about. And if they are from such heretical places as Union Theological or University of Chicago, Yiri's case disappears completely. Further, from what I know of the Interpreter's Dictionary, it is hardly authoritative for an orthodox Christian. *************************** * Yiri responds: * Parkes has been a widely respected Oxford scholar and Bagatti was * written up in the Biblical Archaelogy Review. Why don't you get * off your duff and obtain a little learning before you run your * mouth as if you know something. *************************** Before we leave the subject, Yiri *finally* gave one concrete answer, that regarding someone who could understand both Judaism and Christianity, but he very carefully couched it: > Orthodox rabbis understand Judaism. Find one who will attest that even > one of these semitic christians understand Judaism. Note that he wants a *current* rabbi, not one who may have become a Christian already. Naturally, he wants to exclude such as Charles Feinberg, Professor Emeritus of Semitics at Talbot Theological Seminary, whose background includes fourteen years of study of Hebrew and related subjects in preparation for the orthodox rabbinate. Feinberg holds triple degrees in Theology from Dallas, plus a Masters in Archeology and Semitics from Johns Hopkins. He'd also like to avoid Marv Rosenthal, whose mini-autobiography "A Jew Twice Born" tells of his orthodox background, resentment of semitic Christians trying to "convert" him, the opposition of other Jews when he did become a Christian (i.e., "Meshumed" == traitors; more on this later), and finally, his growth to become a Trustee of the Philadelphia College of the Bible. ************************** * Yiri responds: * Just evaluating what you have written (even though I strongly suspect * that, like your other assertions, it is heavily 'colored'), there is * not even an assertion here that either Feinberg or Rosenthal were at * any time an orthodox rabbi. 14 years of study by an orthodox youth is * not by any means atypical of many Jewish youth. It is not even atypical * of non-religious, apostate nor even athiest adults who received such * training in their youth. This might well be typical of the usual claims * of such that, since their parents were orthodox, they are somehow also * orthodox. Or since they attended an orthodox synagogue when they were * a child (or even took years of Hebrew school/yeshiva during that time) * this somehow validates their claim that they are an orthodox Jew. Why * don't you take the word of an orthodox Jew? He is the one who should * know. Or perhaps if Christians are to define this too, then I, as a * Jew, should be defining Christianity? Well, I offer the same definition * which is forced by the historical information already given. So, you * have not yet offerred an observant orthodox Jew - much less a rabbi. ************************* [Followup on Meshumed: Yiri's nasty note to the Jew who was giving Christianity serious considerations is exactly why he did not want to supply his real name. Next thing you know, Yiri will be planning the guy's funeral, just as the first century Jews did for those who followed the Way.] ************************* * Yiri responds: * My nasty note was NOT to the poor confused soul... it was to those * who are deceiving him... and deservedly so. No, I will not be planning * his funeral.... his relatives will. But you are wrong about the * counterfeit being the same as the way (since this refers to the * N'tzarim). Again, you have to resort to begging the question. ************************* Yiri also underestimates the great lengths that Bible scholars go to in order to understand the Jewish context, including a very careful study of the Talmud and other writings, and *consulting with orthodox rabbis*. But Yiri's mind-block won't let him understand it. ************************ * Yiri responds: * 'Consulting with orthodox rabbis' does not make one authoritative * on Jewish matters, it CAN help. I know of no orthodox Jewish rabbis * who would acknowledge a Christian as authoritative. Do you? The * bottom line is that some have learned more (by this) than others * (who have not). But none are as knowledgeable as you would claim. * If you claim otherwise, have some recognized orthodox rabbi come * and support your claim. Otherwise you are babbling as usual. ************************ Yiri also finally gave authority to Codex Sinaiticus, with the couched remark "no translations are acceptable, you'll have to translate as you go ... otherwise you are merely relying on christians' interpretations. Sure, as though I was supposed to bring something other than a "christian's interpretation." The translators for the New American Standard Bible have no "axe to grind" (it's only in Yiri's mind), and the Nestle' 23rd Edition Greek New Testament that they worked from is basically Codex "Sinaiticus, with citations from the vaticanus and earlier papyrii when there is question and noting the Peshitta reading just for general reference." Why is Yiri afraid to match his skills against a collection of men whose knowledge of Greek would leave Yiri gasping? [Read on...] ************************** * Yiri responds: * You must offer more than your babbling to show that the NASB people * had no axe to grind. You must be incredibly ignorant to presume that * your assertion should be accepted as truth simply because you assert * it. Are you nuts? I'm really tired of dealing with such ignorant * ploys. It shows that you have not read much of the Nestle-Aland. * In fact, they prefer the Vaticanus over the Sinaiticus. They also * use traditional Christian interpretation in translating it... * which has also been discussed. Their Greek is, for the most part, * acceptable with only occasional problems. The interpretations of * it rendered into English are another matter and must be examined * individually just as I said. I'm not at all afraid to match my * skill in this area... as soon as we cover the problems enumerated * above about the counterfeit nature of Christianity, etc. since it * would indeed be assinine to argue counterfeit interpretations. *************************** One final note: as I continue to read through the Bible, one thing rings loud and clear. Despite Yiri's vaunted "scholars," to get the New Testament anywhere close to what Yiri claims it to be would require more than a mere "redaction" - it would entail a COMPLETE REWRITING. Not even a retranslation could give Yiri anything close to what he wants. ************************** * Yiri responds: * Provide some basis for your babblings other than the babblings * themselves. **************************
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (12/07/84)
[Due to a recent Qubix policy statement regarding non-technical newsgroups, this may be my last posting for a while. My failure to respond to anything later from Yiri or others is not to be seen as a concession of any point. I will still be available by e-mail.] In thinking over Yiri's points, I almost came to the conclusion that he was just trying straighten out Gentiles much as I would try to straighten out someone who was following Mormonism. It was just that his message was hidden by the tone of his articles. --- Then I re-read his articles. His position is not one of strength, but of inaccessibility. When someone would counter him in a particular area, he would close that off with "No,no, you gotta do it this way." Well, foo on that. He still hasn't made his case to me. His latest epithet said nothing that supported it. He continues to focus on the leaves of the tree of his argument rather than letting someone check the roots and branches. > Parkes has been a widely respected Oxford scholar... I mentioned something about being in a class with Union Theological or Chicago... > ...and Bagatti was written up in the Biblical Archaeological Review. Surely you can do better than that. Credentials, please. Further, I can only presume you mean Biblical Archaeology Review. > Why don't you get off your duff and obtain a little learning... Why don't you go to those who already have the learning? Oh, excuse me, "they have an axe to grind." Double foo. Why don't *you* get off *your* duff and find out a little more about Feinberg & Rosenthal? While you're at it, do some research on the Bar Cochba revolt of A.D.132 and Rabbi Akiba's declaration of Bar Cochba as Messiah - something the Hebrew Christians would not take. With all the time that Yiri devotes to this, he supposes that those of us working 60 hours a week and having another primary concentration off work should be able to give the same amount of time. Why doesn't Yiri take up his case directly with someone from, say, Dallas or Grace Theological Seminary? Perhaps he should try to contact Charles Feinberg directly at Biola University, La Mirada, CA. That should also take care of Yiri's flippant dismissal of Feinberg's credentials as an orthodox rabbi and one who understands Judaism (I note that Yiri dropped similar comments about Feinberg's understanding of Christianity. BTW, don't forget Feinberg is also an archeologist). Rosenthal can be reached at Friends of Israel, Box 123, West Collingswood, NJ 08107. Sar Shalom Publications (Box 1331, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632) is another resource. > Just evaluating what you have written (even though I strongly suspect > that, like your other assertions, it is heavily 'colored'),... And Yiri was complaining and accusing others of judging *his* heart? You accuse yourself, O hypocrite! > You must offer more than your babbling to show that the NASB people > had no axe to grind. You must offer more than your babbling to show that they *do*. Your case thus far is totally inadequate. Besides, someone else having an *alleged* axe 2000 years ago is no indication of an axe now. > > ...to get the New Testament anywhere close to what Yiri claims it to > > be would require more than a mere "redaction" - it would entail a > > COMPLETE REWRITING. > Provide some basis for your babblings other than the babblings > themselves. Maybe if you'd stop with the insults, you might find better results. Anyway, start with Acts 7 Stephen vs. the *Jewish* Council 8 the Jews wouldn't normally deal with Samaritans 9 the change in Saul and his preaching to the Jews 10-11 Peter went to the *uncircumcised*, and defended it before those who chastised him 12 killing James and imprisoning Peter would be nothing to the Gentiles 13-14 opposition springing from the Jews, not the Gentiles 15 the entire question of keeping the Law 16 the jailer was told nothing about keeping the Law 17 the Bereans *searched the scriptures*, plus more Jewish opposition, plus Paul's specific address to the Athenians 18 more Jewish opposition, plus still more preaching by Jews about Messiah 19 Paul vs. the synagogue, and withdrawing therefrom 20 Paul's message not one of obeying the Law 21 Paul seized by the *Jews* for allegedly bringing a Gentile beyond the Court of the Gentiles 22 defense before the Jews, who then rioted 23 defense before the *Jewish* Council 28 more preaching to the Jews, again nothing about keeping the Law then you can chuck all of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, plus all of John's writings. Oh yes, and Philippians 3:2-11, particularly 7 "But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ" (NASB) What things? His Hebrew credentials that he lists in the preceding verses! Yiri fudges on direct questions as to whether or not he keeps Torah, yet he insists that Christians should bear such a yoke, one which neither he nor his fathers was able to bear (cf. Acts 15:10 - go ahead, Yiri, tell us how it *should* be translated :-). In Galatians, Paul blasts such people (6:12-16 for example). -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.