friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/28/84)
>> 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. >> 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. >> 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.