yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/01/84)
The following mailing from Larry Bickford is more appropriate
to net.religion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: awesome logic... overwhelming
In-Reply-To: your article <1622@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Your continuing emphasis on the alleged original Hebrew of the New
Testament continues to amuse me in the light of the many times where it
is emphasized that Jesus, Peter, Paul, or even the Samaritan woman said
something in Hebrew.
Further, Luke was most definitely a *Gentile* physician of Troas. From
his recordings in Acts, one can learn of the Christians meeting "on the
first day of the week to break bread" and of the desire to lay no
further burden that the basic four.
Also, considering the many Hebrew Christians today, there is not a lack
of ability to see things from a Jewish perspective. That is why I pay
special attention when someone like Charles Feinberg, Marv Rosenthal, or
Moishe Rosen speaks.
Larry Bickford, {amd,sun,decwrl,idi,ittvax,cbosgd}!qubix!lab
_________________________________________________________________
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.
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?)
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.
'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 and leading those
who are even more blind. I believe your Bible notes the
consequence of the blind leading the blind? They certainly do
NOT have the necessary Jewish perspective to pass it on to
you... nor did they before their conversion.tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/03/84)
Incidentally, but pretty much on the topic, there are a large number of documented cases of "Jews for Jesus" using deliberate deception to get Jews to convert to Christianity. The favored tactic is playing on the ignorance of Judaism among many Jews, by setting up a "Jewish" talk/lecture group and introducing "sayings of the Prophet Yeheshua", who was "hung on a tree". These increase in frequency until finally, when the suckers are hooked, the leaders draw them into overt Christianity, although even then they don't call it that. Really vile tactics. On another subject, Yirmiyahu, I quite agree that the ostrich mentality is inappropriate when dealing with Christians, who have two thousand years of intolerance to answer for. My only difference with you is that it doesn't just apply to Jews, who are actuallu among the more favored of the minority religions in this country. I get exasperated when I see members of oppressed minority religions feeling obligated to say things like "Of course, Jesus was a great teacher, and all this stuff about Hell-fire is just something a few of the more intolerant Christians made up". Not so, not in the Synoptic Gospels, anyway! And how many Christians would say, "Of course, Buddha and Crowley were great teachers"? Why should we in minority religions always be the ones making the effort, when so very few Christians ever reciprocate? -- 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
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/04/84)
If I understand you correctly Tim, we don't differ on that point. I agree with what you have written if I understand you correctly.