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!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!yiri
From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: awesome logic... overwhelming
Message-ID: <1608@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 09:34:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1608
Posted: Tue Oct 23 09:34:44 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 03:31:47 EDT
Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL
Lines: 64

I certainly don't know how I overlooked all of these things Jeff
points out.

How could I assume that writings by N'tzarim authors to N'tzarim
Jews about N'tzarim Jewish matters were either N'tzarim or
Jewish... or should be understood in a Jewish perspective?
Why any fool can see that we should avoid such a silly notion
and assume instead that these were Christian writings of the
goyim - after all Jeff says so... and he sees it. As a Christian,
Jeff can beg the question and utilize such logical arguments as
circular reasoning and then challenge me to prove the opposite.
Gee Jeff, I think I'd better just watch you work. You're doing
a fine job of making the point and my input lacks evidence and
credibility.

It was REALLY silly of me to insist that Y'shua can only 
properly be viewed through a Jewish perspective too. Why, anybody
can see that viewing a Jew and Jewish matters is far more
accurately perceived and CORRECTLY understood only when looking
at them with gentile glasses like Jeff and other Christians
(at least unless some heretical moron PROVES to the contrary).
Now, at last,  I'm beginning to see why Jesus should PROPERLY be
perceived as a Christian. Say Jeff, would you consider working 
on the staff of one of the rabbinical assemblies and help us 
to understand ourselves today the way you understand us in the
1st century?

I must apologize for the lack of logical proposition like you
use Jeff, but when all I have is arguments out of emotional
and ethnic pride and insecurity like those above, they just
don't compete with your steeltrap logic. I certainly do not
belong in a scholarly debate with you.

Further, I'm grateful that Jeff enlightened me that it is the
sociologists who are concerned with treating historical infor-
mation within its historical perspective and context. Silly
me, I had thought that was historically important. Now I can
better see the folly of my thinking that the 'historical'
would be something which agrees with Judaism of the period
when I should have recognized right off how obvious it is
that the historical facts agree with the gentile Christian
perspective. How could I have been so silly? No wonder it
wasn't convincing.

It is apparent from what I can now see that Jeff should
use Christian documents to support his views. That is obvious
from the above. The Christian translations and interpretations
are vastly more accurate than Jewish ones would be because
they were interpreted, translated and changed where necessary
to correct them in areas where gentile Christians know more
about Judaism than those silly Jews did. The idea of filtering
these writings through 'Jewish glasses' is preposterous. No
wonder I kept getting a Jewish slant on things. It's a good
thing those early Christians straightened things out for us.
Ya'll keep your gentile Christian glasses on like Jeff.

I don't see any challenge in dealing with this kind of 
thinking. I think Jeff is right here too... I should move
to net.jokes... and pamper my emotions and insecurities
before I have no arguments left at all.

Moving UP to net.jokes. If anybody wants to talk with me seriously,
I'll be happy to correspond via mail.