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: smug sophomorics
Message-ID: <1641@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 10:48:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1641
Posted: Thu Nov  1 10:48:05 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 07:34:49 EST
Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL
Lines: 60

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.