Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!yiri
From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Deception by misrepresenting fragments of NT as manuscripts
Message-ID: <1835@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Dec-84 08:36:28 EST
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1835
Posted: Sun Dec 16 08:36:28 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Dec-84 03:32:51 EST
Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL
Lines: 98

From karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) Sun Feb  6 01:28:16 206
Anyway, it  is  agreed  that  sticking  to the  more  scholarly  aspects  is
important. I must disagree, obviously, with your claim that Christianity  is
a counterfeit. You attempted  a  couple of  times  in the recent past to use
some of the New Testament (as we call it) to maintain your position. I feel,
however, that you  did  so  incorrectly. As  an  example, you recently cited
Jesus' claim that he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it [Matt 5:17].
You said that  this  proved  that  the  keeping  of  Torah  by  men is still
important,  even  in  Jesus' opinion which  you  generally  dislike  anyway.
However, the verse actually reads,  "Do not think that I came to abolish the
Law  or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill"  [NASB,  if
you care]. After verifying things with a friend who reads Greek (I don't), I
note the importance of the fact that Jesus said, "*I* come to fulfill," that
is, that he himself  was  fulfilling  the  Law.  Thus,  that verse cannot be
construed to mean that Christ was saying that Law is required. (You are free
to point out other verses where you think such a claim is made, of course.)

***************************
Yiri responds:
Your argument fails on a number of points. First, the logic of ignoring
that he did not come to abolish the Torah according to this passage is
glaring. Second, interpreting the word 'fullfil' (actually 'fill') in
that symbolic way rather than the simple and direct (and correct) inter-
pretation that he simply kept Torah, is what one would expect from a
Christian frame of reference... however that is not the frame of
reference of the 1st century N'tzarim. They had a Jewish frame of
reference which would have been in the same vein as I just gave. This is
reinforced by documented history that this group was willing to die
rather than forsake the keeping of Torah even some 2 centuries later.
Thirdly, the term is more correctly 'crash down' rather than 'abandon'.
Thus, the passage should more accurately read "Do not believe that I
came to crah down the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to drash
down, but rather to fill."  You and other Christians have simply applied
interpretations to 'fill' (or 'fullfil') which were alien to the Jews
who spoke/wrote the words. In point of fact, the verse cannot be
construed as you would have it without injecting the antinomian
counterfeit frame of reference of the Roman pagans into what was, in the
time of the historical Y'shua, a Jewish idea. 
****************************

Also, someone else  pointed  out  the  existence  of  a  huge  number of New
Testament manuscripts, some dating from before 150AD, to which you responded
by saying that any scholar who  knows his  way in out of the rain knows that
no manuscripts in existence are that old. I emphatically disagree here. From
McDowell's *Evidence That Demands  A  Verdict*  (my  copy is old enough that
it's  before  there  was  vol  1 and vol 2), I  note  the  citation  that  a
manuscript  known  as  Bodmer  Papyrus  II,  archaeologically  dated  around
150-200AD,  is in the Bodmer Library of World Literature, and contains  most
of John. McDowell  in  turn  cites  Bruce Metzger  in  *The  Text of the New
Testament* in support of this. Further, there is the Chester Beatty  Papyri,
dated approx  200AD.  Numerous  other  manuscripts  are  described  in  this
book.

***********************
Yiri responds:
And I reiterate... any scholar who knows his way out of the rains knows
the difference between a manuscript of the 'New Testament' and a papyrus
fragment of a few verses... Furthermore, it is despicable to be so
deceptive as to try to give the impression that the 'New Testament' is
supported from 150 CE when, in fact, there are only a few fragments of a
few verses here and there. The earliest mss. is the codex Sinaiticus
(some argue the vaticanus from roughly the same period.. but the
Sinaiticus in my view is more closely linked to Palestine origins while
the vaticanus is more closely linked to Egyptian origins) dating from
circa 450 CE.  The papyrus to which you refer is P66 and dates from
circa 200 CE, not 150. What it actually covers is John 1:1 - 6:1; 6:35 -
14:26,29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4,6-7,10-20,22-23; 20:25 - 21:9. This is
hardly the 'New Testament'!!! Get your facts straight and quit being
deceptive and misrepresenting things.
***********************

I trust you now see my  position.  You have  raised some interesting points,
and  I fully expect to see more coming from you, but I think you  were  far,
far off the mark on these items. I have other examples where I feel you made
mistakes,  but  I'm not doing this to try to beat you into the  ground;  I'm
just  explaining  how  I  feel   about  the idea  that  "Christianity  is  a
counterfeit."

***********************
Yiri responds:
It is obvious who is off the mark.
***********************

[Side,  somewhat  editorial  comment:  The  use  of  !s  in articles in this
newsgroup has risen rather dramatically of late. I submit that use of  them,
particularly in long  strings  of  4  or 5,  do  little  more  than give the
impression  that  the writer is yelling at all his readers.  Such  usage  is
bound to cause people to stop  reading these  writers' articles, or at least
to  discount  their  appropriateness/veracity/factual  content.  I  strongly
suggest that we all try to stop the habit.]

***********************
Yiri responds:
Regardless of how you interpret exclamation points, they are used to
attempt to draw the attention of the reader to something which NEEDS to
be grasped. It is my hope that you do so.
**********************