Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / QGSI 2.0; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!qubix!lab
From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Bickford's History
Message-ID: <1534@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 13:58:53 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.1534
Posted: Mon Nov 12 13:58:53 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Nov-84 08:27:18 EST
References: <1696@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Quadratix ... Quartix
Lines: 103

.  Regarding Jewish men
Y publishing the N'tzarim Writings (NOT a New Testament), why should they?
I They are not interested in this subject... YOU are! Why don't you take a
R more scholarly and less tunnel-vision approach and publish it? As far as
I obscurity (and vagueness) goes, that seems to be in the mind of the
. beholder.

Counterfeits are known by the genuine. YOU have claimed that what I have
is a "COUNTERFEIT". Therefore YOU produce the "GENUINE" so that we may
all compare. It is useless, yes even hiding, to say "That is wrong"
without saying "This is right."

YBD 'Hebrew Christians' are a real deception. They are people who
YBD never had much of a grasp on Judaism and were not observant of
YBD Judaism. Rather, what you have is some who were apostates and
YBD turned from their already apostate condition to convert to
YBD Christianity without ever really being very knowledgeable in
YBD Judaism... They certainly do
YBD NOT have the necessary Jewish perspective to pass it on to
YBD you... nor did they before their conversion.

L More argument from obscurity. On what evidence do you make your sweeping
A judgment? Or are you smugly and arrogantly assuming that Christianity,
B and especially conversion from genuine Judaism to genuine Christianity,
. are impossible? BTW, all are *excellent* scholars.

Y By what criteria are the apostate semitic Christians "*excellent
I scholars*", yours? That does not carry much weight. Are they recognized
R by Oxford? By Harvard? By Yale? You should come to the awareness that
I not everyone with a doctorate is regarded as an excellent scholar (and I
. tend do doubt that they even have a doctorate from a school of such
Y stature). Especially in the field of religion, there have been
I doctorates awarded for $100. Biiiiiig deal! So show me. Your claim means
R nothing until it is substantiated. The truth is that they never had any
I real understanding of Judaism, and have only a very limited knowledge of
. Christianity.

What criteria would make it through your philosophical mind-block? I'm
tired of trying to hit your roaming target. (Or are you afraid that I
would hit it?)

> YBD All of modern Christianity sprang from the early Roman Catholic
> YBD church and the church fathers mentioned by such writers as Eusebius.

> L Wrong. There was a significant underground movement during the days of
> A the Holy Roman Empire. Many protested against the Roman Church's
> B teachings (led by Luther) and thus were known as Protestants. Some,
> . however, were never part of the Roman Church (e.g., the Waldensians).

> Y Martin Luther lived 1483-1546. That about sums up your credibility.
> B Prior to that, where did all of you sprout from... including the
> D Waldensians (1170-1184)...the Roman Catholic Church just like I said. 

L [The temptation to quote Groucho...] Those who came out of the Romans
A church were the Eastern Orthodox, Greek Catholic, and Protestants. The
B Waldensians had a distinctly different heritage, staying with the Greek
. New Testament (rather than the Vulgate of the Roman Church). All of
. Christianity did *not* go the way of Constantine; indeed, he and his
. successor persecuted those they considered "heretics."

Y This is the most foolish persistence I've seen. Start quoting some
I recognized references Larry. That will constrain your wild assertions in
R some measure. (Protestants coming out of the Roman Empire when Luther
I didn't even live and the Protestant Reformation take place until 
. medieval times. Sheeew! Further, Larry has now changed tunes and
. acknowledges at least that the Protestants DID indeed come out of the
. Roman Catholic church - which he earlier denied.)

I guess I went too far in assuming Yiri's intelligence. He completely
missed the original statement. The protest by Luther != underground
movement such as that of Peter Waldo => Protestants came of of Rome,
non-{Catholic,Protestant} did not. John Carroll's "Trail of Blood" gives
a history of the Christian underground (as well as the Roman rulers).
David Fuller's "Which Bible?" traces the usage of the Greek New
Testament (and thus some of those that used it), separate from Rome.

L Unger, Ryrie, et al., have done a more-than-adequate job of historical
A research. But Wilbur Smith's _Therefore Stand_ provides an application
R here: the space on Usenet (some of us *do* follow netiquette) won't
R begin to dent a mind-set like Yiri's. I notice he didn't answer any of
Y the latter points.

Y The arguments propounded by Larry don't seem to merit expending further
I effort. If BOTH there are other netters who feel that his arguments have
R validity AND he will specifiy the "latter points", I will be happy to
I respond to them. Otherwise, I regard them as resolved.

Noting that Yiri and JTNelson appeared on the net about at the same time
and are equally obtuse, I gotta believe cloning is a reality. Yiri has
chosen a couple of guys who probably know less about Christianity than I
know about Judaism, and trumpets them as authorities. Then he can't
understand the use of the word "however."  Now he doesn't even look at
statements that refute his claim on what he believes about Christianity.

No, Yiri, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU SAY, I am neither a "true" Jew, nor is my
church the "true" Israel.
CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU SAY, many Scripture references (e.g. John 14:6,
Acts 4:12) make it impossible to harmonize Christianity with other religions.
-- 
		The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
		{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab

You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.