Diogenes the Cynic

So you play on their ignorance, huh? Both the redacted ending of Mark and the Johannine comma are perfect examples of "adding to scripture" (a proscription that was only intended to apply to the book of Revelation, by the way. "This book" meant "This particular apocalypse," not "the bible," and especially not the NT which didn't even exist yet). If some Christians don't know those things are interpolated then you have a duty as a believing Christian to correct them and to direct them to a more accurate translation.
All Bible versions have been tampered with. The KJV has been more tampered with than some others.

Steven Avery

You really do not understand ? I am asking them, as above, whether their view of the Bible version in their hand is consistent with their understanding of what is scripture. The more informed they are, the easier it will be for them to answer the question.

And on the rest of your post, I always find it especially humorous when a skeptic who denies all the basic NT authorship and canon and textual transmission understandings of those who accept the NT (as far as they are concerned it was simply a Greek play, a writer's cabal, that orchestrated an emergent cult) , all of a sudden gets a textual manuscript religion, knows the true Bible, and is so sure about what is the true and pure 'original autograph'
... and ironically, it is the error-laden alexandrian text that is easy for them to duckshoot.
Surprise. :funny:

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

Diogenes the Cynic

An irrelevant question. The consistency of their preferred Bible versions with their personal definition of "scriptures" has nothing to do with whether their Bible versions are accurate.
Actually, it's a completely subjective question which requires no information at all. It's just an opinion. If someone thinks that the Good News Bible is consistent with his definition of scripture, that doesn't mean the GNB is not complete crap.
Straw man. Mainstream Biblical scholarship proposes no such thing. Just because someone recognizes 2nd century authorship traditions as spurious does not mean they automatically believe in fringe theories by non-scholars. I haven't claimed to know anything about the autographs, nor have I claimed that the Alexandrian texts are "pure." The autographs are probably not recoverable. There is no such thing as a "perfect" or authoritative text. All we can do is go with the earliest, least screwed with manuscripts. No one says the Alexandrian manuscripts are perfect reproductions of the autographs (there's no such thing), only that they have not been buggered with as badly as the TR.

RUmike

I don't believe that any passages of the Bible are "scripture", because that would be a confession of faith that said passages are authoritative by God, and I do not believe such a thing. (I am not Christian)

But what I am arguing is that the autographs, in all probability, did not include the woman in adultery or the last 12 verses in Mark. Modern scholarship is in near-universal agreement with me. Your belief that they were present in the gospels' original forms is just as radical as the idea of a mythical Jesus. You are on the fringe; at least admit it, please.

"My" bible (the New Oxford Annotated, NRSV) includes these passages but includes annotations that the earliest and most reliable witnesses do not include them. They are mostly included in the bible out of tradition.

No, but if you post links to the threads themselves I will gladly read them.

The number of manuscripts supporting a verse does not mean much, especially if they are late and riddled with errors.

Steven Carr

No, I didn't think Avery would be able to give one piece of evidence that Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy.

His argument seems to be
1) Some Jews thought it was a Messianic prophecy
2) They had no idea what a Messiah was really like
3) Therefore, the existence of these mistaken interpretations proves that Christians are right to take it as Messianic.

As for his repeated claims that the very disciples of Jesus themselves had no idea what Jesus meant by such plain words about the Messiah as 'he must be killed', well, you can see why he prefers not to dwell on details.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

As often we are simply having different conversations, most of which will obviously go nowhere.

However, one point stands out.

Yet you saw the "fool and knave" picture. And you should know the Sinaiticus manuscript is one of the most tamperered manuscripts, with over 10 hands correcting each others errors. And these two match virtually no other manuscripts, and have very large differences with each other. (3000 significant differences in the Gospels per Hoskier). And they are rife with obvious blunders, misspellings, dropped lines, etc., as pointed out by Dean John Burgon.

So on what authority do you declare that these are the
"least screwed..buggered" manuscripts.

Any simple look-see shows exactly the opposite.

And when you claim the TR manuscripts are tampered, do you mean
"compared to Aleph and B" ?

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

Steven Avery

None of this makes sense. The whole issue of the interpretation of Moshiach Ben David and Moshiach Ben Yosef in Tanach exegesis is a beautiful and large study, with the question of how two linked ideas developed. It involves a large number of verses and a study of the history of the redemption plan of Israel. However it is not one that I am going to write an essay about at this time, so you are welcome to post as many straw-man syllogisms as you like, and I will

Again, you place words in my mouth.

So, what verse in particular are you saying should be exegeted? Apparently you are concerned that the disciples did not look so comfortably upon the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus despite being forewarned. That should not be real surprising.

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

Steven Carr

My 'straw-man' syllogism seems very apt to me.

Avery is arguing that Isaiah 53 is a Messianic text, and supplies as evidence works which he claims interpret the text wrongly. This is really the most awful quote-mining on his part, digging out the word 'Messiah' from texts which he otherwise rejects.

Avery still cannot produce one shred of evidence that Isaiah 53 really is a Messianic prophecy. He would only beg the question if he attempted to do so.....

I doubt if he could even tell us what a Messiah is, without assuming what he is trying to conclude, that Isaiah 53 is a propehcy of what will happen to the Messiah.

It would be perhaps easiest if he finds all references to 'Messiah' in the Old Testament and shows that the Jewish interpretation of a 'glorious' (his word) Messiah is wrong.

Avery should explain how Jesus could allow people he had trusted with God's message of salvation to be so ignorant of what a Messiah was like.

In Matthew 16, Jesus explains what happens to a true Messiah ' From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.'

Here is what Avery said about the disciples 'The disciples looked for the glorious aspects of Messiah, and were reluctant to accept the understanding of His atoning sacrifice.'

Why were people devoted to Jesus unable to understand a simple phrase like 'he must be killed', and why would they look for the glorious aspects of Messiah, after Jesus corrected them on their mistaken interpretation of Isaiah 53?

Remember that in Mark 4, these disciples had been given the secret of the Kingdom of God, and had spent years listening to Jesus teach.

Steven Avery

And if the Tanach truth of Messiah is what culminates in the life of Jesus and the NT scriptures, the skeptic will simply claim that it is a reverse understanding.

And that is in fact why the skeptics attack so strongly the simple truth that Isaiah 53 is the classic and beautiful description of Messiah. A "Christian invention" they claim. Then when it is shown that Hebraic exegesis (Targum, Talmud, Midrash) viewed Isaiah 53 as Messiah (despite Carr's concern that the word 'messiah' is not in the Tanach text), they switch gears "prove to me everything the Tanach teaches about messiah", and "well it is not exactly this and that".

However they want it proven to unbelieving eyes. They don't accept a single word of Tanach as true, and they want "proof", to their satisfaction and antipathy to Tanach and the NT, what Tanach teaches about Messiah. Of course this makes no sense, but it is their modus operandi. "I don't believe anything, not even A, but prove to me B and C". One who rejects Moses, will never believe the one who came after.

And back to the exegesis request, if their blinders are so tight that they won't even accept the most obvious whole chapter and 3 verses, Isaiah 53, a description of His life and atoning sacrifice, what signficance will a wider study be ? Even to someone who believes Moses, it is a doubtful endeavor.

Steven, I asked you for a specific verse that you wanted to discuss in this context. I myself am quite interested in the question of how much the disciples at first knew and understood. Their request about restoring the kingdom to Israel came after the resurrection, in Acts 1, and I may have been hasty in implying that they excitedly looked only for Moshiach ben David, ala the Targum (although the Targum itself has some nuance). It would be a fascinating study, which is one of the reasons I like real scriptural-based questions.

Ergo, if you have a particular verse where you feel the disciples should have known something better, especially related to the nature of Messiah or recognizing Him, as I said, please share away.

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

Steven Carr

I think this is an admission by Praxeus that the whole thing is circular.

Jesus is the Messiah becaue he fulfilled Messianic prophecies such as Isaiah 53, and Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy because it is about Jesus. who was the Messiah.

That is the best we are going to get from him.

As a sceptic, I am quite disinterested in whether or not Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy. If it is, then OK. If it is not, then also OK.

I just want to see some evidence one way or the other.

Of course, I did give a particular verse, which is why you have ducked the bullet.

As a sceptic, I am interested in why you think the disciples looked only to the 'glorious' aspects of the Messiah.

Daniel 9:6 really is a Messianic prophecy.

'After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.'

A clear reference to the lack of glory of the Messiah, wouldn't you say?

Why did Jews, even people who had given up everything to follow Jesus, have expectations of a 'glorious' Messiah, when they could read such passages?

I wonder if Praxeus will explain to me......