yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/30/84)
From friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Subject: Re: More Replies to Yiri >> Friesen writes: >> In particular I would like to know >> *exactly* what is meant by "antinomism" &c. in this discussion. >> Does it mean simply rejection of rigid adherance to the letter of >> Jewish Law, or is it supposed to incorporate aspects of the Christian >> doctrine of "justification by faith" - and if so what are the defining >> characteristics involved. >> > > **************************** > Yiri responds: > I hope you missed it, because I would really be disappointed in myself > if not. At any rate, antinomian is equivalent to anti-Torah. I much > prefer to use anti-Torah because it is unambiguous. However, the > literature is ambiguous (using antinomian) and I would be criticised by > many who do not understand if I had used anti-Torah when the literature > had used antinomian. > *************************** Thank-you for your response, I now understand your position better. I had been assuming a less specific definition of 'antinomian'. It is now possible for me to respond in a more appropriate manner. As I read the New Testament the teachings of Jesus(or Y'shua) are not antinomian, and I know of few Christians who fulfill your definition. The attitude of Christians towards the Torah is that of holy law. This is based in part on such passages as "I have not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it"(spoken by Jesus). Among protestants, at least, the Law(Torah) is viewed as binding on individuals as a moral code, what is rejected is the legalistic viewpoint of the Torah inherant in the Talmud. Thus Christians are no more antinomian than the Jewish groups that reject the authority of the Talmud, such as Reformed Jews. In fact from what I have seen Christians have a *higher* regard for the Talmud than the Reformed Jews who do not believe in special revelation. *** 11/30 Yiri responds ***** * Let's use anti-Torah since you are familiar with it and it is unam- * biguous. Christians are products of that early counterfeitting. You * cannot escape it by merely revising a little here or there. That is * like taking a counterfeit $20 and improving upon it. The only remedy * is to forsake the counterfeit and commit to the authentic. Among * protestants, Torah is NOT viewed as binding on individuals as a moral * code. They don't even know what Torah is... and I can see you also do * not. This is not intended as a slam, it is rather a disclosure of * fact. Keeping the Sabbath, eating kosher, observing the Jewish festi- * vals, wearing tzit-tzit, binding t'fillin, etc. are all expressly * commanded in Torah. Christians (which includes Protestants as a * subset) usually don't even know what these are or how to do them. * I appreciate your regard for Torah and it is a difficult thing to * try to show you where you are mistaken without coming off as hate- * ful. If I really hated, I would keep silent and not try to help * you see. It would certainly be easier for me in a number of ways. * Christians are also unaware of the express commandment to subordinate * yourself to the (Jewish) leaders of a given time and that their * case law decisions (mishpat: mem, shin, pey, teyt - for those who * might wish to investigate) are to be given the same authority as * written Torah. You might recall also that Y'shua commanded that * since the rabbis (Pharisees) were discharging the responsibilities of * rendering this case law interpretation of the Torah of Moshe, that * those who profess to follow him are to obey the rabbis - just don't * imitate hypocrisy (Mt. 23:1-3). Just as case law is a necessary * part of the legal system in the US and other jurisdictions, the * Torah is not meaningful until it is actually applied... and then * there is case law (mishpat) which has the same force because that * is what Torah means in actual application. Y'shua sometimes disagreed * with 'fences', but never with Torah nor mishpat. Christians are not * following Torah/mishpat in the manner of the N'tzarim or you would * be eating kosher, keeping Shabbat much as the orthodox, etc. * Regarding your comparison with the Reformed, it has merit, but then * again, I would never offer them as any example of a legitimate * expression of Judaism largely for that reason. *************************** >> Friesen writes >> But I have yet to see *any* detail analyses of the texts and how Christian >> translations have corrupted them, so I have no basis for re-evaluation. >> > ********************* > Yiri responds: > My position has been stated several times now. Parkes has established > that by the 4th century christianity bore little or no resemblance to > the original 1st century group (who were the historical Y'shua and the > N'tzarim). Bagatti has established that the christians killed N'tzarim > who would not abandon their observance of Torah (and that is antinomian). > The Interpreter's Dictionary establishes that christians > CHANGED the 'New Testament' manuscripts to conform to what they regarded > as 'true'. 4th century teachings of Christianity and the Christianized > counterfeit-image 'Jesus Christ' were diametrically opposite to the > original teachings of Y'shua and the N'tzarim with regard to Torah. > *********************** Ah, now we begin to get to the core of the matter. You place the origin of "christianity" at the nationalization of church by the Romans. Of *course* the nationalized church was vastly different than the older faith, but most current churches have rejected most of this tradition. I will admit that the Latin Vulgate NT and its contemporaries were not good texts, and it is even possible that the Romans introduced some of the changes deliberately, but no modern translator pays any attention to these texts anyway. The fact is that there are *standards* for reconstructing and translating ancient texts from fragmentary sources which are completely independent of Christian tradition and are used universally by scholars of antiquity. These are the methods used in producing all modern Bible translations. The methods in use by Bible scholars are no different than those used in recronstructing Shakespear's plays from contradictory sources. *** 11/30 Yiri responds *** * You need to go back and review some of my older articles. You've missed * it here. 'Nationalization' doesn't begin to cover the problem. Go back * to 110 CE when the N'tzarim Jewish leadership was forcibly evicted from * Jerusalem by the Romans along with the other Jews when the Romans built * the pagan temple on the site of where the Temple had been. These Romans * established the first gentile 'bishop' the next morning. It was these * Roman Christians who began killing N'tzarim who would not abandon their * observance of Torah. Go back and read the articles please. * Current churches have NOT rejected 'most' of this tradition, not even * any significant amount of that tradition. Read Parkes and you might * begin to grasp how antinomianism is inherent in the religion and why * it continues to recur periodically. You are completely mislead and/or * mistaken in your assertion that the methods used by Bible scholars are * no different than those used in reconstructing other sources. The * perceptions, contexts, frames of reference, insights, etc. of those * who are trying to understand the text and translate it are of paramount * importance. They will translate it as they understand it - and they do * NOT understand it in the same way as the Jews who wrote it. Thus, we * should not be surprised that version after version comes out much the * same. It might also be surprising for you to learn that some versions * do NOT come from ancient mss. at all. Some come from the Textus Recep- * tus. Many rely heavily upon ideaology established in the KJV. Read a * couple of entries on 'Bible' in a standard secular encyclopedia. ************************* >> Friesen writes : >> To take an example >> mentioned previously - the meaning of the word "repent". Which Yiri >> claims is misused by Christians. I felt this to be untrue, at least >> with regard to those Christians I respect the most. So I looked it >> up in "The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible", and found the definition >> there corresponded to the one I have been using for years. Namely: >> (Paraphrased somewhat) >> repentance: renouncing sin/evil and turning back to a God >> and righteous/obedient living. >> Applied both at the individual and national level. >> It implies a renewal of life and spirit. >> > ********************** > Yiri responds: > The notion of using circular reasoning, using Christian interpretation > to justifiy Christian interpretation has been debunked already. > ********************** See below, this is why I didn't stop there. >> >> Of course this does *not* prove that this is the original intent of the >> Jewish authors, so to confirm the matter I looked in the "New Standard >> Jewish Encyclopedia", written by and for Jews). >> Not only did it agree with the Interpreter's Dictionary in essence, >> it used *very* similar wording. I feel this is strong evidence that >> intelligent Christians do pay attention to author's intent in interpreting >> the scriptures. >> > ************************ > Yiri responds: > The description to which you refer presumes the reader understands that > genuine remorse is related to a Jew's failure to keep some part of > Torah and that returning to God means returning to the keeping of Torah. > Without Torah, repentance has no meaning. This is a good example of how > a person can read something Jewish, apply a non-Jewish interpretation > and arrive at a completely erroneous conclusion. You do it reading > something written in modern times. How much moreso with a docoument 2 > millenia old. I tell you again... go to an orthodox rabbi and begin > getting an education if you truly desire to understand Jewish writings. > ************************* As I mentioned above, Christians place a high importance on the Torah in defining sin(disobedience to God). Thus we *are* talking about the same thing. I certainly agree that withou Law there is no substance to repentance, after all without Law there is no standard to measure disobedience by! The principle difference is in our view of the *nature* this Law. Orthodox Jews place high importance on a strict legalistic observance of the *letter* of the Law, Christians, and some Jewish groups, emphasize keeping the *spirit* of the Law instead. *** 11/30 Yiri responds *** * As I have shown, this is simply a mistaken notion. We are NOT talking * about the same thing or you would be eating kosher, keeping the Sabbath, * etc. Now if you don't want to do that, that is your personal choice. But * you aught not deceive yourself about it. That simply leads to confusion * and more deception, misunderstanding, etc. The conclusion here then * would be that there has been no real repentance - which is exactly my * position; and that Christians are in deliberate transgression of Torah * (sin). To intimate that Y'shua came to 'save' those who deliberately * transgress Torah make him a 'servant of sin' (Gal. 2:17), i.e. a servant * to ones who continue to deliberately sin rather than to those who repent * and stop their transgression of Torah. * Let's apply this same reasoning of spirit of the law vs letter of the * law to practical example. You are arguing that you do not need to keep * the law in the literal sense, only in a symbolic sense. This is like * saying that you do not need to pay your taxes, you only need to agree * that taxes are a good thing and you have kept the 'spirit' of the law * symbolically, therefore you do not need to literally pay your taxes. * You confuse 'symbolic' with 'spirit' of the law. The spirit of the law * is for each citizen to pay his fair share of taxes (at least supposedly). * Since the legislators cannot forsee every eventuality, some find * technicalities through which they can avoid their fair share. They have * kept the 'letter of the law'. To keep the spirit of the law, they would * pay it anyway. There is a great difference here between * 1. letter of the law, * 2. spirit of the law, and * 3. symbolicizing the law and negating it * You aren't BEGINNING to keep the spirit of the law if you aren't even * keeping the letter of the law! Rather, you are naively rejecting the * validity of Torah and following the counterfeit anti-Torah teachings * of the Roman contra-messiah (antichrist) image: Jesus. In fact, you * won't even begin to grasp the meaning of 'spirit of Torah' until you * are learned enough to first keep the 'letter of Torah'. The same type * of problem, incidentally, is true of the 'Spirit of holiness'... if * you are not keeping at least the 'letter of Torah' - which DEFINES * holiness, then you are certainly not keeping the spirit of Torah and * cannot possibly have ANY 'Spirit of holiness'. Whatever the spirit is, * it is not holiness because holiness encompasses keeping Torah. ***********************