yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/04/84)
The following is more appropriate to the net than to private mail and I am accordingly posting it to allow the net to see some of the examples of things they might otherwise not see. The following is from Larry Bickford. (My 2 comments enclosed in asterisks. The lines preceded by chevrons are Larry's quotes of one of my previous articles.) Those who want to be smug, arrogant, etc. in mail to me can expect to see their mail on the net. If you can defend it fine, we'll all learn. If not, keep it (or be inquiring rather than pre- suming to tell me. I'm happy to respond to sincere inquiries in the same vein they are sent.) From decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab Sat Nov 3 00:59:21 1984 Subject: Re: Christianity and its Relationship to... specifically Judaism > All of modern Christianity sprang from the early Roman Catholic > church and the church fathers mentioned by such writers as Eusebius. Wrong. There was a significant underground movement during the days of the Holy Roman Empire. Many protested against the Roman Church's teachings (led by Luther) and thus were known as Protestants. Some, however, were never part of the Roman Church (e.g., the Waldensians). The Baptists, among others, find their heritage there. ************************************************* Martin Luther lived 1483-1546. That about sums up your credibility. Prior to that, where did all of you sprout from... including the Waldensians (1170-1184)...the Roman Catholic Church just like I said. The Christian perceptions of history never cease to astound me. The comments go downhill from there. ************************************************* > 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. :-) Larry Bickford, {amd,sun,decwrl,idi,ittvax,cbosgd}!qubix!lab ********************************************* It certainly seems that I know more about Christianity than some of you??? And I believe in Judaism for good reason. It becomes clear that many Christians believe in Christianity because they don't know the facts of history, and even the origins and facts of their own religion. Certainly I don't find Christians qualified to ex- plain such faulty drivel to me. *********************************************
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/07/84)
> 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. > 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. > 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. > '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. 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." > > 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. -- 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.