lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/22/84)
[Mainly responses to Yiri] > When was Bickford appointed king umpire? No need to be appointed. The evidence is out for all to see - your arguments ran out of steam when faced with pressure. > As far as cross-examination, what gives you the arrogant audacity to > think you have any right to cross examine me? You have not. You propounded the points - you defend them. See later for a particular reason I asked one of the questions. > > Gillette has presented evidence that Parkes, et al. do not support Yiri's > > claims. Wingate has challenged Yiri directly on the Interpreter's > > Dictionary. > Gillette has not in any way presented any such evidence. What Gillette > stated is that he read Parkes and it didn't prove everything I have been > saying... but I told him that before he read it. I thought Yiri could read English. Let the reader see: . 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. > 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... 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. 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. [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 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 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...] The reason this is not a peripheral issue was brought out in an exchange between Jeff and Yiri: J Matthew writes his gospel setting forth the teaching of Jesus as the E new law ... for Christians.... In fact, the Matthean "Sermon on the F Mount" early becomes the basic starting point for Christian ethics. Y You are back to relying upon christian redacted documents to support I christian assertions which is circular reasoning. Without a firm basis to work on, Yiri simply says "that's a Christian redaction" without providing what the text *really* says. Yiri claims there's another meaning, but he consistently fails to provide it. 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. -- 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.