yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/12/84)
From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206
Yirmiyahu, if you are going to make statements like "If you understood the
full meaning of the term as it was intended by the Jewish authors you would
have a different outlook" [referring to "repentance"], expect us to demand
to know what YOU think this "intended meaning" is. How are we supposed to
understand your argument when you won't even tell us what your position
means? Without an explanation of what you think they meant by repentance,
you are just engaging in name-calling.
Try us. We too are thinking human beings.
****************************
Yiri responds:
1) I've already told you how you can come to understand
2) I don't recognize your right to demand anything
3) Human beings yes. But thinking? This net has has read more like a bad
script from "As the Stomach Turns" to me. I'll be persuaded when I see it
demonstrated.
4) When you have read both Parkes and Bagatti contact be by mail and
we'll take another look.
****************************
From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206
[St. George, protect me]
I can't restrain myself. In case people haven't noticed, I am increasingly
despairing of finding any reasoning in Yirmiyahu's articles. Lately all
he has said is that we are unqualified to argue with him. Well, I have
two comments:
(1) If we aren't worth arguing with, why does he bother?
(2) Where does he get the right to assume that we know nothing about
Judaism?
************************
Yiri responds:
1) Because I care
2) From your writing
************************
We've learned to listen to what those 1900 years of christians
have had to say on the subject before we make our own decisions. Now we
have Yirmiyahu coming out of the blue with his "antiredaction" theory,
refusing to even reply to the church fathers. And the funny thing is that
no amount of redaction on his part is going to remove the central
embarassment: the resurrection. Edit out the ressurection, and you have
no text at all; leave it in, and no amount of redaction elsewhere will
help.
************************
Yiri responds:
That's just your problem. You listen for 1900 years only to christians...
and not just any christians, but christians who agree with you in the
areas under discussion. Parkes and Bagatti were/are christians and you
won't even learn from them. How could anyone be even mildly surprised
that christian doctrine is reinforced by listening to christians.
Classic circular reasoning. You despair of finding any reasoning in my
articles. Why am I not surprised? The real source of your despair is
that there is no way to provide answers for the flaws I've pointed out
in christianity. I'm not surprised you are frustrated either.
Among others, you have a great confusion between
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. Your 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.
*************************
From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206
In article <1654@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes:
>
> Since my information regarding Christianity
> 1) comes from a formerly observant, religious and knowledgeable
> Christian who has converted to Judaism, his comments certainly are
> qualified
> 2) has defied any logical disputation, there seems to be no apparent
> basis for disregarding it simply because you can't find any other
> answer.
Tell us more about this source of yours, Yirmiyahu. Was he Catholic,
Baptist, Episcopalian, Coptic? And I'm not sure I would consider an
apostate as a reliable source. Christianity is at least as diverse as
Judaism, from my admittedly limited experience.
**************************
Yiri responds:
He was a Baptist and an ordained minister. After learning what his peers
knew, he kept on learning. Eventually, he discovered christianity was
lacking - principally in the areas I've been discussing (though not
solely by any means). He did not backslide out of christianity. He
studied his way up to a point that there were questions for which the
answers were obviously flawed - even according to christian authors.
That is why it hasn't even been necessary for me to recommend authors
outside of christianity.
I notice that you have already judged him apostate knowing nothing about
him... judging his heart. At least I know a little about the semitic
christians who were apostate before becoming christians. You can check
their backgrounds for yourself. And you accuse me of name-calling.
That your notion of reasoning too?
**************************
Perhaps you should read some of the great modern theologians. How about
Reinhold Neibuhr, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who died in a Nazi prizon for
your race, incidentally), or, if you refuse to listen to Christians,
Martin Heidegger [sp?], or if that is too difficult, _The Road Less
Travelled_ by M. Scott Peck. My point is that if you want to take
potshots at the theology of Christianity, you should get better information.
**************************
Yiri responds:
Apparently no one has ever informed you that we are not a race. That, in
itself is antisemitic. As far as my knowledge of christianity, it
certainly seems to be more than adequate thank you. And I can't imagine
why I would want to learn more about something which I know became
perverted over a millenia before those authors got out of their diapers.
*************************
While I'm at it, I would like to point out that I do not attack Judaism in
the same way that Yirmiyahu attacks christianity. I do not claim to be a
great expert on Judaism; in any case, I am not going to engage in wanton
attacks against it. I find it amusing, and a little disturbing, that
Yirmiyahu is engaging in exactly the sort of intolerant abusive attacks that
he accuses all christians of.
*************************
Yiri responds:
In an earlier article, you asked where I get the right to assume that
you know nothing about Judaism. Now, you volunteer it. Your
inconsistency is showing again. First, I didn't say 'nothing'. Because
you can spell Judaism and know a few facts about it doesn't make you
knowledgeable enough to have the insights to interpret the meanings of
Jewish writings. On the other hand, claiming the competence to properly
interpret Jewish writings presupposes such expertise - which you and
other christians do not have. It is good that you admit that you lack
such expertise. It is a first step... perhaps. I am pleased that you
were disturbed by the look in the mirror at what christians have been
trying to put on us for 2 millenia. I am truly sorry you find it
amusing. It is not. Again, why am I not surprised?
*************************
From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206
Those who have read any of the Divine Comedy are familiar with Dante's
notion that those who are in Hell have in fact chosen to be there. (I
freely admit, by the way, that I may have my source wrong; it's been MANY
years since I read Dante.) At any rate, Yirmiyahu seems to be going out
of his way to provide the net with a second illustration of this principle,
Tim Maroney being the first.
*************************
Yiri responds:
Perhaps you would have the courage to say what you mean without beating
around the bush?
*************************
I don't hate Yiri, although I am often exasperated with his style of
argument. I do fail to understand why he has to attack everyone who
disagrees with him with such rage and (dare I say) even hatred. I do
feel no qualms about telling someone that I think they are wrong; why
Yiri should think that this is necessarily hatred is beyond me. I admit
to being intemperate on recent occasions; frustration has a way of removing
one's better sense. I am getting extremely tired of Yiri's constant
allegations that a) we have never read anything, and that b) anyone who
dares to disagree with him is anti-semetic. Let me tell you something;
went I went to High School, and took sacred studies, we didn't study pious
little tracts on St. Teresa; we read critiques of christian ethics, and
Camus and Sartre, and in college, Neitzche and Heidegger. As for the
insinuation that I am anti-semetic, I have many jewish friends, reform,
conservative, and orthodox; we sometimes have spirited discussions of
religion. I don't consider them anti-christian, and I see no signs that
the think of me as anti-semetic. Seems like it is just you, Yiri. Perhaps
the fault lies within yourself.
*************************
Yiri responds:
You accuse me of hating... you are judging my heart again. What do your
writings tell you about that? Another fine example of reasoning vs
perverting someone else's words and intentions. If you can't find any
logic to use then I suppose that is your only recourse.
As far as 'seeing signs', why am I not surprised you don't see signs of
this either? If you would read Parkes... and Bagatti... you might at
least have a shot at getting a glimmer (if you could open up your mind).
Ah, but not you. You couldn't be missing such things. Not you.
That's unthinkable.
************************bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/12/84)
C'mon guys, back off it! You are both reasonable people and can surely
find a common ground. From what I have inferred from both positions, I'm
not entirely sure you'd disagree if you'd get around the flaming and name
calling.
Yiri says that modern Christianity is descended from the Apostolic (later
Roman) perversion of the teachings of a Jewish Sect. This isn't exactly
a new thesis. It is doctrine in the LDS Church and was doctrine in the
christian sect I was raised in. There is fairly sound evidence that the
Apostolic Bishops turned the early writings to their own ends, to insure
succession and centralization in a badly fragmented social movement. I
doubt that this was a deliberate effort to mislead, but more an effort to
consolidate a power base. Antinomian and antisemitic? I'm not qualified
to judge, but I think it hardly matters today.
The road from Apostolic Christianity to the collection of independent sects
we call Christians today has more than a few twists, turns and downright
reversals. There have been a couple of major "purifications of the faith,"
more than a few reinterpretations of early dogma, and a full-scale revolu-
tion known as the Protestant Reformation. The intellectual seeds of
Christianity are now well scattered and any philosophical resemblance between
modern Christians and their progenitors is probably coincidental.
Charley has allowed as much in his article "What Episcopalians Believe."
The validity of his faith (and that of most other Christians) is only
dimly contingent on the validity of the early Christian Church. Any
attack on the validity of the modern Christianity grounded on questioning
the validity of the Apostolic Church misses the mark as surely as an
attack on the validity of Judaism as a perversion of the more ancient
Sumerian cult of the Goddess. The origins of religions seem invariably
embroiled in controversy and a certain rewriting of history. It is the
religion as it evolves, however, that has to be dealt with.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchlisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (11/13/84)
<> <Charlie Wingate and Yirmiyahu BenDavid> > How are we supposed to understand your argument when you won't even > tell us what your position means? > > **************************** > Yiri responds > When you have read both Parkes and Bagatti contact be by mail and > we'll take another look. > ... ... ... ... ... ... > Parkes and Bagatti were/are christians and you won't even learn from > them. > ... ... ... ... ... ... > If you would read Parkes... and Bagatti... you might at least have a > shot at getting a glimmer (if you could open up your mind). Ah, but > not you. You couldn't be missing such things. Not you. That's unthinkable. Funny thing. I *have* read Parkes and Bagatti, and both seem to go against Yirmiyahu's primary assertions. Both Parkes and Bagatti claim that Jesus (neither writers use Yirmiyahu's preference - Y'shua) made authority claims far beyond the limits acceptable to First Century Judaism. Both claim that early followers of Jesus were *Christians* (not just another Jewish sect). Both accept the *whole* of the Gospels, not just those passages that "fit" Jewish culture. I documented these points with full quotations and references several weeks ago. When will Yirmiyahu either prove (by similar 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. > Among others, you have a great confusion between > 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. Your defiantly committed to 3 and asking me to > leave the scholarly aspect of it and get involved in #2. Are we near a resolution on one major point? Yirmiyahu claims that his interest is in the historical documents of early Christians (whom he calls N'tzarim). From earlier submissions, Yiri has identified these writings as the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament available to us. Agreed. Let me suggest, then, that, since these early manuscripts record the beliefs of the gospel and epistle writers, and their interest in the implications of the life and death of Jesus (Yeshua), it is a worthy task for us to explore the beliefs and implications of these writings. Let me also suggest that by accepting the earliest manuscripts as authentic, as seen in the Nestle and United Bible Societies texts (as Yirmiyahu affirms), we can eliminate any "intractable insistence upon ... a perverted version." Again, Charlie challenges Yiri to read Christian theologians who represent broad aspects of Christian thought (rather than his single source - a former Baptist who found Judaism more to his liking). > Yiri responds: > I can't imagine why I would want to learn more about something which I > know became perverted over a millenia before those authors got out of > their diapers. No insult to Baptists intended, but there was no Baptist denomination a millennium (note the spelling and the singular form Yiri :-) ago. I will allow Baptist netters to speak for themselves; Yiri has not read the books that have influenced my [Presbyterian] theology, and I find his picture of "Christianity" bears absolutely no relationship to the Christian faith believed and practiced in my denomination. Thus, I assume that Yiri's attacks on "antinomian" and "antisemitic" "Christianity" must be directed toward some other sect or schism! Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/13/84)
Thanks for the voice of reason, Byron. Things are definitely getting overheated on both sides. One point on which I completely support Yiri, though, is this crap about "You Jews are being so paranoid about Christian anti-semitism." That's like telling a black he's paranoid for disliking the Confederate flag. Jews have every reason to be paranoid about Christian anti-semitism; there is a long history of Catholic and Protestant (and minor Christian sect such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) persecution of Jews. Nor is it long stale history -- it has been a strong force for repression in this century. -- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/16/84)
In article <cmu-cs-k.44> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >One point on which I completely support Yiri, though, is this crap about >"You Jews are being so paranoid about Christian anti-semitism." That's like >telling a black he's paranoid for disliking the Confederate flag. Jews have >every reason to be paranoid about Christian anti-semitism; there is a long >history of Catholic and Protestant (and minor Christian sect such as the >Jehovah's Witnesses) persecution of Jews. Nor is it long stale history -- >it has been a strong force for repression in this century. I don't disagree with Yiri at all on this point. I witness Brunson's patronizing attitude and the Rev. Rob's attempts at prostylization in net.religion.jewish and am somewhat appalled. There have been some rather veiled references to "christ-killers" in this newsgroup that are TOTALLY UNCIVILIZED by some of our Capital C Christian friends. We've both heard the reverend Jimmy Swaggart deliver unto us his opinion of Jews. I also agree with Yiri that some of us small c christians need to speak up against anti-semitism whether overt or veiled. What I do disagree with is that christianity is, by definition, antisemitic. While there exist christian sects with antisemitism as dogma, most of the historical persecution of the Jews has come from the secular mileu which surrounds christianity. This may be a fine point, certainly moot in the face of the real effects of persecution, but it is an important point when discussing the direction the main body of christian thought has taken in evolving from its roots. (Christianity? Evolve? Oh, I'm gonna hear from Bickford on that one...) -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch