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. **********************