yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/25/84)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 52 Regarding Yiri's comments: > 1) understanding the N'tzarim writings as a historical document, what > it most likely read, and what was meant by the Jews who wrote it > and the Jews to whom it was written > 2) asserting one's beliefs about the implications of the writings, and > 3) intractable insistence upon absolute faith in a perverted version > of #1 > My interest is in #1. You're defiantly committed to 3 and asking me to > leave the scholarly aspect of it and get involved in #2. No. > Since my interest is in #1, what it says or does not say is not an > embarrassment to me in any way. You are under some kind of delusion in > that regard. I search for the truth and have no reason to fear it. I also recognise the importance of #1 above. And in that light I would *very* much like to see more supporting details about your position. I am perfectly capable of handling #2 for myself - given sufficient data. 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. As such, Christianity and 'Jesus Christ' are merely counterfeits of Y'shua and the N'tzarim. Until that is understood there is no point in trying to build upon something counterfeit. The main points here are supported even by Christian scholars. When you begin reading extra-Christian scholars you begin to learn much more. *********************** In fact, my experience is that the best Christian Bible scholars and commentators *do* attempt to retrieve the meaning intended by the original authors. And as far as I can tell they have succeeded, because it thier interpretations have allowed me to have intelligent conversations with my Jewish friends and colleagues. *********************** Yiri responds: The problem is how far you can tell. It is rather like one blind person trying to describe a flower to another blind person. As far as they can tell ... *********************** 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. ********************** 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(originally published in Israel). 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. ************************* Another thing I would find helpful is if Yiri would define some of his terms more precisely. This would help bring about understanding, since if we mean different things by the same word we will be arguing at cross-purposes. (If this has already been done I missed it since I am relatively new to the net) 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. The various Christian denominations differ quite a bit in this area of theology, so an argument besed on only one variant MAY not be applicable to others. **************************** 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. ***************************