Steven Avery

Exactly. And then when I don't right an essay on Messianic expections and exegesis in 1st century Judaism, in response to your feigned interest, you make a big public display.

Some version I don't recognize, and quite different than the Word of God, the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Carr

The word is 'write' , not 'right'.

And 'disinterested' does not mean 'uninterested'. 'Disinterested' means having no vested interest.

You would think somebody from Queen's would have learned the Queen's English :-)

Steven Avery

Yeah, write it wasn't a fingerfehler type of faux pas (noticed right upon posting).

www.dictionary.com
disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean “uninterested� or “having lost interest,� as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork. Oddly enough, “not interested� is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

the_cave

BTW, I haven't really been keeping track of this conversation, but wanted to note that it's my understanding that the Targum Jonathan is held by some to be a pseudepigraphia--and that there was in fact a first-century (pre-destruction) Targum actually written by Jonathan that is now lost.

Mars Man

And, thank you !! I do know some, of course, but am still very much a student. I should be caught up on my reading fairly soon, and then may be able to join in. It is a good debate.

Vorkosigan

What is wrong with you, prax? No one has said these things.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

It seems obvious to me the quote-mining of the HB for construction of the mythical Jesus. It's a pretty sloppy job overall.

The "close enough for Jesus" refrain was trademarked by these dumpster-diving cut-and-paste hooligans.

What the author of Isaiah 53 was writing about was pretty much irrelevant to the weld-a-savior midrash cowboys.


I'm not sure how it matters the number of times Isaiah 53 is quoted in the FT (fake testament, erroneously referred to as the "new testament").

I do see Isaiah cobbled into the myth. But that doesn't make Isaiah 53 a prophesy about the mesaiah. It just makes the cobbler a garbage recycler.

Chris Weimer

TR manuscripts? The "TR manuscripts" were deliberate creations by Erasmus and then others. Perhaps you're referring to the Byzantine Majority, the dominant text type of the Byzantine region to emerge after the 400's (kind of odd, huh?) Then again, it's no surprise that you deny all of textual criticism given that you hold an a priori bias that you the scriptures have been divinely kept. All this debate is essentially worthless since you stated before hand that you have a belief thus making your entire arguments fit that belief regardless if they do or not from a neutral standpoint.

Steven Avery

Point taken, the manuscripts behind the TR.

If you define what is "textual criticism" as applied to the Bible, I could tell you if I find it reasonable. There is no doubt that Erasmus and the Reformers actually did a type of textual analysis with the TR, they simply worked with radically different underlying postulates of textual creation and transmission than became very popular around 1880, leading to the 'modern versions'. Oh, and God used their work mightily.

And you are wrong about the a priori btw. I came to the TR and KJB positions through the study of the textual questions, not visa versa. Rather fascinating how that occurred. And I was very reluctant to take any King James Bible position.

And even if I didn't, a position is not invalidated because it is synch with ones faith position. (Is there a latin name for that logical fallacy ?). One could say the reverse about many skeptic positions. They have an a priori conviction of unbelief, and then develop their arguments to fit their unbeliefs.

We see a perfect example of that here in the skeptics who vigorously attempt to defend the corrupt alexandrian text in one breath, while coming up with various fanciful conjectural fabrication theories in another.

And they like the alexandrian text because it fits their unbelief and they are comfortable arguing against an conceptually unsubstantive, changing, full-of-holes, errant-to-the-max group of versions that nobody defends as inerrant anyway. So they really defend the duckshoot text, even though it is easy to see that mostly it just boils down to a couple of corrupt manuscripts.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Orthodox_Freethinker

If and only if God has specifically given you the authority to do so. Jesus claimed His authority as the only begotten Son of God and gave the Apostles the right to forgive sins as His messengers on earth.