yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (12/03/84)
From bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 02:23:29 EST In article <ucf-cs.1785> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: > The 'saints', Mary and angels are worshipped by Christians. It is not > possible to speak of Christianity which excepts the Roman Catholics - > as much as you would like and as much as you (I use 'you' collectively > a lot) vehemently insist that you can. The historical facts are that > all of Christianity sprang from the Roman Catholics... you can get that > information from almost any good encyclopedia and no reputable scholar > of note (Christian or otherwise) even attempts to refute this. > Protestantism, etc. are no more than adaptations/reforms of/on Roman > Catholicism. Yiri seems to have overstepped the bound of his knowledge on this one. Many Christian sects, most notably the Mormons, specifically claim a different lineage than that of the Roman Catholic church. The Christian sect I was raised in and the set of beliefs I claim today (reread my article in net.religion.christian) both claim an independent legitimacy from the Apostolic regime. Paul is correct. Most protestant sects do not worship the saints and it's largely irrelevant as to whether our forbears did. If it *isn't* irrelevant, as Yiri claims, than we must certainly all be accountable for the image of the Serpent, consort to the Goddess, that keeps otherwise unaccountably being mentioned in Genesis and Exodus. ************************* .^. * Yiri responds (12-03): * Perhaps I have... let's see. I am aware that Mormons and J------'s * Witnesses claim to be of separate origins. The 7th Day Adventists * also make some claim to that I think... but I'm not really sure so * that's speculative. Many Protestants do also as some who profess to * be Protestant have claimed in articles on this net. However, any good * encyclopedia will clear that up. But claims do not a case make. * If you regard yourself a subset of Protestantism, then you are stuck * with being an offspring of the Roman Catholics and they are your * parent. Perhaps you can clear this up for me; I thought Mormons * and J------'s Witnesses considered themselves outside of Protestantism * and perhaps even outside Christianity? At any rate, Protestants still * stand as a subset of their Roman Catholic parent. Whether or not you * are a Protestant is for you to decide. If you do not claim Christian * beginnings/source however, then it seems to me that you are not * truly a Christian. Nevertheless, I'll leave that for the * Roman Catholics and Protestants in general to decide. It is outside * the realm of my interest as well as my expertise. You'll have to * excuse me for not reading your article in net.christian, I scan it * for key words to check for antisemitism but I haven't the time nor * interest to read it. Your mention of Mormons prompts a remark. * My synagogue was visited by 2 Mormon missionaries. They stated * categorically that they were *NOT* Christian and that Christians * were on the wrong track, and that they (the Mormons) had found the * 'right track'. Now their missionaries asserted this to me personally * so if you wish to refute it you should support it with some * documentation more authoritative than their missionaries. By the way, * they also agreed with the assertions I've been making on the net about * Christians! Your analogy of the serpent, etc. seems a bit vague, * perhaps you could inject some some logic to show its validity? * Regarding the relevance of origins, olives are picked from an olive * tree. One claiming to be an American must be the offspring of an * American or have endorsement by America. If you claim to be a Boy * Scout you have to have some endorsement by the Boy Scouts. The * same is true for any institution. If you claim to be a Christian * it is not based merely on your whimsy or say so unless you are en- * dorsed by a Christian organization which is, in turn, endorsed by * a Christian organization, etc. back to the early counterfeit * Christians (since it stops there and does not link up to the * N'tzarim). Now Protestants claim to a legitimate offspring of the * Christian movement who simply 'straightened out' errors, etc.of * the Roman Catholic church and reformed it. Thus, they acknowledged * that their origins were indeed in the (counterfeit) Christians but claim * the Roman Catholics had strayed from those beginnings. They certainly * could not reasonably be construed to have been imitating N'tzarim * Jews. But they do have an unbroken (even if bent) line back to the * early (counterfeit) Christians. J------'s Witnesses would do better * to call themselves Aryans (NOT Hitler's, this is a different notion * and derives from a sect called the Aryans which were an early * apostasy from the N'tzarim which do, in fact, predate Roman * Catholic Christianity. If they claim to be BOTH Christian and Aryan * then they too are mistaken. If they limit themselves to Aryan then * their claim has validity as long as they imitate the Aryans. But to * claim one thing and imitate another is nothing more than deceptive * (as well as self-deceptive). If you claim to be following something * other than these early (counterfeit) Christians, then I see no * reason to recognize you as a Christian unless you can get some * recognized Christian instituton to endorse you as such. Otherwise, * I see no reason why I shouldn't consider followers of xxxxx to be * xxxxxians, period. If a major Catholic or Protestant denomination * or convention recognizes you then I certainly will... and then we'll * talk about the validity of your claims of origin. Even that would * not change the assertion that the offspring of Christianity bear * the marks and identifying characteristics of early (counterfeit) * Christians... else you are something else than Christian. Your book * states that one neither picks olives from a briar bush nor briars * from an olive tree (paraphrased). You cannot make an olive tree * from a briar bush... and that's that. Trying to 'remake' Christianity * into YOUR idea of what it SHOULD be is neither new nor possible. The * Romans did it first and thereby perpetrated the greatest hoax upon * mankind in all of history. It is not possible because there are * millions of Christians, most of whom have DIFFERENT ideas of what * Christianity SHOULD be in one respect or another. There is only a * listable few points agreed on by all. ***************************** ### If we accept Yiri's historical point (which I am inclined to do) I still don't know that it has any theological significance. The reworking of history, historical figures and Deities to suit one's own purposes is in the grand tradition of religious revolution. So is killing off the adherents to the religion you are endeavoring to supplant. ************************ * Yiri responds: * Contrary to what some contributors would have you believe, I am not * trying to paint the Christians as any more bloodthirsty than anyone * else. But Christians have a mind-set that THEY have NEVER done * such a thing and that ANYONE who would allege such a thing is * HATEFUL, SPITEFUL, EVIL, etc. The point I've kept hammering (and will * until it is generally acknowledged - you acknowledge it but there are * many who continue to defy the integrity of historical scholars, etc.) * is that the 'killing off of the adherents to' N'tzarim Judaism is * evidence that there was indeed no 'link-up' of the two as Christianity * claims; that the N'tzarim and Y'shua were diametrically different from * Jesus (the Roman counterfeit image) and Christianity. Most would agree * that this has theological significance however. ************************* Judaism is, in some sense, guilty of precisely the same actions toward the Serpent, a venerable Deity and the symbol of wisdom in cultures which predate Judaism. (Ever notice how legends of snakes in trees are a common thread in religious thought? It gives one pause, but I digress...) The Serpent got a bad rap in Genesis for doing his wisdom number on Adam and Eve, later his adherents got axed by the Jews, no doubt for observing their faith. I'm not trying to make a religious point here, merely an historical one. Historically at some point the counterfit ceases to become that and becomes a reality of its own. Christianity remains a viable system of thought, whether or not Jesus was an historical figure. Judaism remains a viable system of thought, whether or not Abraham and Moses were historical figures. Islam remains a viable system of though, whether or not Mohommed was as portrayed. Buddism, Shinto, Taoism, Hindu, are all very real and formidable irrespective of the veracity of their origins. ************************* * Yiri responds: * You'll probably find this quite a surprise, but I won't be arguing * the viability of Christianity once it acknowledges the truth of * its origins properly. I won't be arguing against Christians who want * to be Christians... as long as they at least are informed about it * and are not simply deceiving themselves. This, in my mind, creates * a truthful and honest base upon which meaningful forums between * Judaism and Christianty might one day make real progress. However, * there is no logic in your assertion that a counterfeit becomes * genuine with age! I assert that no matter how long a counterfeit * stays around, it remains counterfeit. The only way to remedy that * is to abandon the counterfeit and go get the genuine. Some Christians * however have acknowledged all of this and opted to remain Christians * anyway due to tradition, social reasons, and many other diverse * reasons. I have not quarrel with that... at least they are trying to * be honest and truthful with themselves (and hopefully others too about * it). ************************* So, I'll go along with Yiri's premise. Jesus was a Roman counterfit and the Christian Roman's killed of the Torah-observant N'tsarim. What next? It doesn't change what I believe, for that exists irrespective of history. I feel no strong compulsion to become a Torah-observant Jew (though I hold great respect for such) because it is not my cultural heritage. What do you do after you've done banging your head against a wall that will not, can not, give way? -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch ************************** * Yiri responds: * I have no quarrel with your position here. It seems to me that we may * have reached a point where we can * 1) agree on historical documentation and acceptance of factual truthes, * 2) you and I (certainly it is true for me) could co-exist peaceably * without resorting to violence, and without need to convert one * another, * 3) we can be tolerant and disagree amiably on religious matters. * Perhaps others will also be able to place documented history above * blind zeal too? **************************