[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew

George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Wed Jun 9 01:24:36 EDT 2004

As I said before, you have virtually no knowledge of Christianity. 
Without any basis whatsoever you declare Paul to have been "a proselyte
at the max, and started Christianity by involving gentiles."  This
despite the record of the NT that he had been a pupil of Gamaliel and
despite his own statement that " If any other man thinks he has reason
for confidence in the flesh, I have more: ?? circumcised on the eighth
day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of
Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church,
as to righteousness under the law blameless."   (Philippians 3.4b-6)  You
may add to that the statements of the Apostolic Fathers regarding Paul. 
But, of course, you think you know better upon the basis of nothing
whatsoever but your idle speculation.  As to Jesus' existence, I think
that is beyond question.  Nor is it simply Paul who started Christianity.
 I do not state that Jesus himself founded "a sect" as you choose to call
it, but the church was already founded when Paul had his change of heart
regarding Jesus.  Yes, Jesus was a good little Jewish boy and taught
within the Torah -- mostly.  He was, however, also critical of the
situation as he found it and paid the price for that criticism.  The
apostles and the followers which gathered around them then founded the
church based on their teaching of the risen Lord.  It has been quipped
that in the theology of Rudolph Bultmann Christ rose in the KERYGMA, and
perhaps that is true.  This is the mythology of the church.  It is this
mythology which is ever true in contrast to an historical event which was
true once.  Unless you learn more about Christianity and its history, I
suggest that you refrain from making pronouncements which have no basis
in any fact.


On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:13:03 +0300 "VC" <vadim_lv at center-tv.net> writes:
> This was discussed millions of times. Even if any Jesus existed, he 
> did not
> start a sect. His teaching in the gospels is fully within the Torah. 
> Paul
> was a proselyte at the max, and started Christianity by involving 
> gentiles.
> By the same token, you cannot call, say, pupils of Gamliel I members 
> of
> Gamliel' sect.
> >quoted from the version of the Scriptures their audience was used 
> to<
> Sure not. They twisted to suit their needs
> >there is evidence that Hebrew manuscripts were not as uniform as 
> they are
> today.<
> Yeah? And what is it? Deviations of the Qumran scrolls, which belong 
> to the
> fringe sectarians, are minuscule.
> Vadim Cherny
> >Let me see if I understand your position.  A Jewish boy from 
> Nazareth
> started a sect in the national boundaries  of the Jewish people but 
> His
> disciples were not Jews?? These same disciples in manufacturing 
> their
> history included a scandal concerning one of the leaders of that 
> sect
> because he brought Gentiles into the sect without first converting 
> them to
> Judaism.  Further, these disciples continued to debate the 
> importance of the
> Torah to the Gentiles for several decades.  I will not speak for the 
> other
> members of this list but I find this scenario laughable.
> Now, concerning your comment that they garbled quotations I think 
> several
> things must be considered.  First, it appears from early 
> translations of the
> New Testament into Greek and  Aramaic that the  translators commonly 
> quoted
> from the version of the Scriptures their audience was used to.  
> Second,
> there is evidence that Hebrew manuscripts were not as uniform as 
> they are
> today. Which means that we cannot always tell whether a quotation 
> was from a
> divergent form of the text or if it came from the LXX.  Third, there 
> is a
> debate among scholars as to which language the people of Israel 
> spoke.  Most
> have argued that they spoke Aramaic.  Others argue that they spoke 
> Hebrew.
> We do know that copies of the Scripture have been found in Aramaic.  
> We also
> know that there was a section of Jerusalem where the Jews were well
> acquainted with Greek.  When two or more translations of Scripture 
> are held
> to be authoritative, it would be quite natural for the believers to
> paraphrase
> Sincerely,
> Michael Abernathy
> >>I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted 
> with
> the
> >>Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why 
> this
> title
> >>is of importance to you.
> >You seem to have a misunderstanding about who the earliest 
> Christians were.
> The earliest Christians were Jews.  Gentiles were not initially 
> included in
> the membership of the church. While it is true that some of them may 
> not
> have been well versed in the scripture, some of them were very well
> educated.<
> >>Surely, very odd Jews those have been. They did not know Tanakh, 
> cited
> garbled quotations of the verses the should have studied in 
> childhood (if
> you know about bar Sheta reforms) and were unobservant. Wishful 
> thinking
> Sincerely,
> Vadim Cherny
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list