[net.religion] Bickford's History

yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/08/84)

From lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) Sun Feb  6 01:28:16 206
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christians still rewriting history to conform to their whims

***********************
Yiri responds:
My responses to this article will be titled and enclosed in asterisks
for clarity - Yiri
***********************

> The following mailing from Larry Bickford is more appropriate 
> to net.religion
John Nelson's ethics are bad enough - I didn't know he was cloned.

> Rather than be amused, it would be advisable that you take a more
> scholarly and less superficial and sophomoric approach. For example,
> the many times that these personages were emphasized to have spoken
> something in Hebrew is to distinguish it from their usual speech 
> which was in Aramaic. 

This is BS and you know it.

**************************
Yiri responds:
Good comeback Larry. Great logic.
**************************

> Luke was definitely not a gentile, he was a Hellenist Jew of the
> Diaspora. Your personal word doesn't change that. Try submitting
> some more credible basis. (Since you seem to think that your word
> is sufficient proof he was gentile, why shouldn't my word be
> sufficient contradiction of it?)

Your arrogance is what is sophomoric. Luke's style of writing, his very
name, and the distinct lack of mention of a synagogue in Troas (where he
joined Paul) indicates a distinctly Greek background, not Jewish.

***************************
Yiri responds:
You provide no logical basis for your supposition regarding the style of
writing, therefore it must, for the present, be dismissed. (There are
arguments here but they have not yet been presented. There are also fine
rebuttals when that time comes.) The use of Hellenist names by Jews was
quite common at that time among Hellenist Jews. This argument has no
basis whatsoever. The "distinct lack of a mention of a synagogue in 
Troas" is about as compelling as the distinct lack of a mention of a
church in Larry's article being indisputable evidence that he is a
Buddhist.
***************************

> There were no Christians in the 1st century, they were N'tzarim.
> They met on EVERY day of the week to break bread if you will 
> read more carefully. As to their desire to lay no further burden
> than the basic 4, you must not have read the previous articles.
> If so, they passed over your head. Certainly, you have not
> answered them.

Read Acts yourself, especiall 20:7. Luke make a special point of "when
we were gathered to break bread." The letter to the Galatians was more
evidence of not laying the Jewish burden on the Gentiles. BTW, if there
were so many redactions, why don't your holy men publish the "N'tzarim
New Testament" for all of us to see and study. Your arguments hide in
obscurity.

**************************
Yiri responds:
The first two points were covered in previous articles and there is
nothing here that is either new or compelling. Regarding Jewish men
publishing the N'tzarim Writings (NOT a New Testament), why should they?
They are not interested in this subject... YOU are! Why don't you take a
more scholarly and less tunnel-vision approach and publish it? As far as
obscurity (and vagueness) goes, that seems to be in the mind of the
beholder.
**************************

> 'Hebrew Christians' are a real deception. They are people who
> never had much of a grasp on Judaism and were not observant of
> Judaism. Rather, what you have is some who were apostates and
> turned from their already apostate condition to convert to
> Christianity without ever really being very knowledgeable in
> Judaism. Christian theologians might even agree that they 
> have not obtained any scholarly and in-depth grasp of their
> new-found Christianity either (by scholarly I mean a Charles-
> worth, or recognized scholar status). So what you have are
> people who are relatively blind in both Judaism AND Christianity
> pretending to be expert in (at least) Judaism when, in fact,
> nothing could be further from the truth ... They certainly do
> NOT have the necessary Jewish perspective to pass it on to
> you... nor did they before their conversion.

More argument from obscurity. On what evidence do you make your sweeping
judgment? Or are you smugly and arrogantly assuming that Christianity,
and especially conversion from genuine Judaism to genuine Christianity,
are impossible? BTW, all are *excellent* scholars.

************************
Yiri responds:
By what criteria are the apostate semitic Christians "*excellent
scholars*", yours? That does not carry much weight. Are they recognized
by Oxford? By Harvard? By Yale? You should come to the awareness that
not everyone with a doctorate is regarded as an excellent scholar (and I
tend do doubt that they even have a doctorate from a school of such
stature). Especially in the field of religion, there have been
doctorates awarded for $100. Biiiiiig deal! So show me. Your claim means
nothing until it is substantiated. The truth is that they never had any
real understanding of Judaism, and have only a very limited knowledge of
Christianity.
************************

YBD All of modern Christianity sprang from the early Roman Catholic
YBD church and the church fathers mentioned by such writers as Eusebius.

L Wrong. There was a significant underground movement during the days of
A the Holy Roman Empire. Many protested against the Roman Church's
B teachings (led by Luther) and thus were known as Protestants. Some,
. however, were never part of the Roman Church (e.g., the Waldensians).

Y Martin Luther lived 1483-1546. That about sums up your credibility.
I Prior to that, where did all of you sprout from... including the
R Waldensians (1170-1184)...the Roman Catholic Church just like I said. 
I The Christian perceptions of history never cease to astound me. The
. comments go downhill from there.

[The temptation to quote Groucho...] Those who came out of the Romans
church were the Eastern Orthodox, Greek Catholic, and Protestants. The
Waldensians had a distinctly different heritage, staying with the Greek
New Testament (rather than the Vulgate of the Roman Church). All of
Christianity did *not* go the way of Constantine; indeed, he and his
successor persecuted those they considered "heretics."

**************************
Yiri responds:
This is the most foolish persistence I've seen. Start quoting some
recognized references Larry. That will constrain your wild assertions in
some measure. (Protestants coming out of the Roman Empire when Luther
didn't even live and the Protestant Reformation take place until 
medieval times. Sheeew! Further, Larry has now changed tunes and
acknowledges at least that the Protestants DID indeed come out of the
Roman Catholic church - which he earlier denied.)
**************************

> > And the basis of this Christianity is documented as
> > being based upon the premises that the CHURCH is the TRUE
> > ISRAEL and CHRISTIANS are the TRUE JEWS.

> I haven't noticed this in Roman teachings, but more in that part of the
> Reformed movement called "Covenant Theology." The Presbyterians usually
> fall into this group.

> > 2) 'One question we must ask, therefore, is whether or not
> > other religions can be harmonized with Christianity.'

> > Ask not whether other religions can be harmonized with
> > Christianity, ask rather whether Christianity can be
> > harmonized with other religions.

> Inasmuch as Jesus said "I am *the* way, *the* truth, and *the* life; no
> man comes to the Father *but by me*," I would find it difficult to
> harmonize Christianity with other religions.

> Perhaps you need a Christian to explain Christianity to you. :-)

. It certainly seems that I know more about Christianity than some of
Y you???  And I believe in Judaism for good reason. It becomes clear
I that many Christians believe in Christianity because they don't
R know the facts of history, and even the origins and facts of their
I own religion. Certainly I don't find Christians qualified to ex-
. plain such faulty drivel to me.

Unger, Ryrie, et al., have done a more-than-adequate job of historical
research. But Wilbur Smith's _Therefore Stand_ provides an application
here: the space on Usenet (some of us *do* follow netiquette) won't
begin to dent a mind-set like Yiri's. I notice he didn't answer any of
the latter points.

****************************
Yiri responds:
The arguments propounded by Larry don't seem to merit expending further
effort. If BOTH there are other netters who feel that his arguments have
validity AND he will specifiy the "latter points", I will be happy to
respond to them. Otherwise, I regard them as resolved.
****************************
		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.

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/12/84)

.  Regarding Jewish men
Y publishing the N'tzarim Writings (NOT a New Testament), why should they?
I They are not interested in this subject... YOU are! Why don't you take a
R more scholarly and less tunnel-vision approach and publish it? As far as
I obscurity (and vagueness) goes, that seems to be in the mind of the
. beholder.

Counterfeits are known by the genuine. YOU have claimed that what I have
is a "COUNTERFEIT". Therefore YOU produce the "GENUINE" so that we may
all compare. It is useless, yes even hiding, to say "That is wrong"
without saying "This is right."

YBD 'Hebrew Christians' are a real deception. They are people who
YBD never had much of a grasp on Judaism and were not observant of
YBD Judaism. Rather, what you have is some who were apostates and
YBD turned from their already apostate condition to convert to
YBD Christianity without ever really being very knowledgeable in
YBD Judaism... They certainly do
YBD NOT have the necessary Jewish perspective to pass it on to
YBD you... nor did they before their conversion.

L More argument from obscurity. On what evidence do you make your sweeping
A judgment? Or are you smugly and arrogantly assuming that Christianity,
B and especially conversion from genuine Judaism to genuine Christianity,
. are impossible? BTW, all are *excellent* scholars.

Y By what criteria are the apostate semitic Christians "*excellent
I scholars*", yours? That does not carry much weight. Are they recognized
R by Oxford? By Harvard? By Yale? You should come to the awareness that
I not everyone with a doctorate is regarded as an excellent scholar (and I
. tend do doubt that they even have a doctorate from a school of such
Y stature). Especially in the field of religion, there have been
I doctorates awarded for $100. Biiiiiig deal! So show me. Your claim means
R nothing until it is substantiated. The truth is that they never had any
I real understanding of Judaism, and have only a very limited knowledge of
. Christianity.

What criteria would make it through your philosophical mind-block? I'm
tired of trying to hit your roaming target. (Or are you afraid that I
would hit it?)

> YBD All of modern Christianity sprang from the early Roman Catholic
> YBD church and the church fathers mentioned by such writers as Eusebius.

> L Wrong. There was a significant underground movement during the days of
> A the Holy Roman Empire. Many protested against the Roman Church's
> B teachings (led by Luther) and thus were known as Protestants. Some,
> . however, were never part of the Roman Church (e.g., the Waldensians).

> Y Martin Luther lived 1483-1546. That about sums up your credibility.
> B Prior to that, where did all of you sprout from... including the
> D Waldensians (1170-1184)...the Roman Catholic Church just like I said. 

L [The temptation to quote Groucho...] Those who came out of the Romans
A church were the Eastern Orthodox, Greek Catholic, and Protestants. The
B Waldensians had a distinctly different heritage, staying with the Greek
. New Testament (rather than the Vulgate of the Roman Church). All of
. Christianity did *not* go the way of Constantine; indeed, he and his
. successor persecuted those they considered "heretics."

Y This is the most foolish persistence I've seen. Start quoting some
I recognized references Larry. That will constrain your wild assertions in
R some measure. (Protestants coming out of the Roman Empire when Luther
I didn't even live and the Protestant Reformation take place until 
. medieval times. Sheeew! Further, Larry has now changed tunes and
. acknowledges at least that the Protestants DID indeed come out of the
. Roman Catholic church - which he earlier denied.)

I guess I went too far in assuming Yiri's intelligence. He completely
missed the original statement. The protest by Luther != underground
movement such as that of Peter Waldo => Protestants came of of Rome,
non-{Catholic,Protestant} did not. John Carroll's "Trail of Blood" gives
a history of the Christian underground (as well as the Roman rulers).
David Fuller's "Which Bible?" traces the usage of the Greek New
Testament (and thus some of those that used it), separate from Rome.

L Unger, Ryrie, et al., have done a more-than-adequate job of historical
A research. But Wilbur Smith's _Therefore Stand_ provides an application
R here: the space on Usenet (some of us *do* follow netiquette) won't
R begin to dent a mind-set like Yiri's. I notice he didn't answer any of
Y the latter points.

Y The arguments propounded by Larry don't seem to merit expending further
I effort. If BOTH there are other netters who feel that his arguments have
R validity AND he will specifiy the "latter points", I will be happy to
I respond to them. Otherwise, I regard them as resolved.

Noting that Yiri and JTNelson appeared on the net about at the same time
and are equally obtuse, I gotta believe cloning is a reality. Yiri has
chosen a couple of guys who probably know less about Christianity than I
know about Judaism, and trumpets them as authorities. Then he can't
understand the use of the word "however."  Now he doesn't even look at
statements that refute his claim on what he believes about Christianity.

No, Yiri, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU SAY, I am neither a "true" Jew, nor is my
church the "true" Israel.
CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU SAY, many Scripture references (e.g. John 14:6,
Acts 4:12) make it impossible to harmonize Christianity with other religions.
-- 
		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.

arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (11/13/84)

In article <1534@qubix.UUCP> lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) writes:
>.  Regarding Jewish men
>Y publishing the N'tzarim Writings (NOT a New Testament), why should they?
>I They are not interested in this subject... YOU are! Why don't you take a
>R more scholarly and less tunnel-vision approach and publish it? As far as
>I obscurity (and vagueness) goes, that seems to be in the mind of the
>. beholder.
>
>Counterfeits are known by the genuine. YOU have claimed that what I have
>is a "COUNTERFEIT". Therefore YOU produce the "GENUINE" so that we may
>all compare. It is useless, yes even hiding, to say "That is wrong"
>without saying "This is right."
>-- 
>		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.

Um, not really.  For example, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
is a counterfeit, not because there is a REAL one but because they
were written by the Czar's secret police as a justification for
anti-semetic actions.  It is counterfeit because it is not real
(or more precisely it pretends to be something which it is not), not
because it is an imitation of an actual real thing.

THIS is one issue which we can settle how to settle.  Try a dictionary.
You will find that countefeit can mean (and here I quote from Webster's
New Collegiate, 1977) "[2] counterfeit, adj: 1: ... b: marked by false
pretense : SHAM, PRETENDED".

		Ken Arnold

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/14/84)

[Ken Arnold]
>Um, not really.  For example, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
>is a counterfeit, not because there is a REAL one but because they
>were written by the Czar's secret police as a justification for
>anti-semetic actions.  It is counterfeit because it is not real
>(or more precisely it pretends to be something which it is not), not
>because it is an imitation of an actual real thing.

Point of information--  Protocols was long ago discovered to be a plagiarism of
a much older conspiracy fantasy that was not written about jews.  (Source: a
newspaper summary of notorious writing hoaxes after the recent Hitler diary
fabrication.)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/15/84)

It's a good argument, Ken, but Yiri claims that the existing versions
ARE derived improperly from "N'tzarim" originals.  To definitively
establish this improper relationship, there must either be trustworthy
testamony to this as fact, or the original documents must be produced.
The former does not exist; the latter have not been produced.

Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe