From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: they have eyes yet they do not see, was (I'm God) [340+ LINES]
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<71084@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:32:30 GMT

In article <71084@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|Yeshua, if he even existed, did not pull the wool over many of the eyes
>I thought most people believed he existed - some just don't attribute
>the glory to him he deserves.

Well, let's just say the historical evidence is at best weak.

>|of Hellenistic Jews. It remained for Paul to take Christianity and
>|market it to the remains of the Roman Empire. Clearly, "convert or die"
>How can you say Paul preached what the Romans like in light of:
>   Acts 16:19-22

Well, that's myth not fact. There is a difference. And I would add that
I think Paul found his converts not in the Romans but in the Roman
subjects. Certainly Christianity was at odds with Rome, that is until
they took it over. Kind of like the US and the Christian Coalition.

>|was a very effective technique of selling Paulist Christianity to the
>Paul was called to be the Lord's apostle to the Gentiles.  Jesus preached
>the same message - if you do not repent, you will perish.

Paul's message was quite a bit different from Jesus's.

>|>|monotheism, one God of Israel, He whose name is not to be pronounced, He
>|>Jesus repeated this. The Lord our God is one. The question is who is the 
>|>Lord.
>|He provided the answer when He said, "I am that I am".
>Correct.

Um, so what was the question again?

>|>|who responded, "I am that I am", no Christian Devil, no Christian Jesus,
>|>I suppose the book of Job wasn't in the OT, huh?  Who came to God after
>|>roaming to and fro on the earth?  I think it was Satan (i.e., the Devil).
>|Satan is a Hebrew word meaning adversary, it is not the name of another
>Understood.  How does this compare to the book of Revelation's description
>of Satan.
>   Rev 12:9   The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called

There's a big difference. The Christian Devil is not just an adversary,
as a matter of fact it's fair to say that Christian history is a case of
a people becoming obsessed with the Christian Devil and persecuting
innocent people on the grounds of seeing the Christian Devil. Clearly the
Christian Devil is central to Christianity. The existance of the
Christian Devil allows Christians to persecute and HATE whomever they
chose to target. The idea is that the Christian Devil is so evil that
anything is justified in the name of fighting him, HATE and even killing
innocent men, women and children. That is a big difference. It is the
Christians who have invoked this absolute evil demi-god or fallen angel
and it is they who understandably have the most trouble controlling him
in their own ranks. If you actually read the account of how he came to
fall from grace you find that he's actually not all that bad of a
fellow, history records Christians with far worse records. Certainly
there is no need for him in Judaism, the Lord of the Hebrews is a war God
and is more than capable of handling everything Himself. I don't recall
ever hearing of the Christian Devil ordering babies smashed against
rocks, for instance. You see, Judaism is pure monotheism. Christianity
is flirting with Persian light/dark dualism here with Jesus the Lord of
Light and the Devil being Lord of Darkness. Christianity is monotheism
in name only. In character it is dualistic or tritheistic or even
polytheistic. This major diversion from Mosaic Law is one of the reasons
for Islam which is a return from Christianity to a religon more inline
with Mosaic monotheism. Christianity is a very pagan religion.

>|God or some prince of darkness. You will not find the Christian Devil in
>|the books of Judaism, what you find in Christian translations is
>|mistakes in translation, lots of them. That's what happens when you
>Oh. Which translations - you mean the whole book of Job??????

Interesting you mention that book, it turns out to be one of the more
difficult to translate. I'm not going to post the entire book, but if
you have a few favorite verses you'd care to compare, I'm ready.

>|forget to ask the Hebrews what their own books mean. Though the claim is
>|that 72 Hebrews, six from each of the twelve tribes, translated the
>|Hebrew scriptures into Greek and produced the Septuagint in Alexandria,
>|Egypt, each one translating separately yet yielding the exact same words,
>|it is obvious that the result was a poor translation. As to what
>|went wrong, one can only speculate. Christianity was based on this poor
>|translation. It remains for modern Christians to seek a better
>|translation, that is if they seek the truth.
>Where are the errors?  Be specific.

Richard, there are a few too many to post here and you know it. You've
been reading t.r.m for awhile now and should be aware of the
discrepancies. I think a few verses of Job will be sufficient to point
them out, I await your favorites. On the other hand, why not start out
in the very begining so to speak:

KJV:Genesis1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
JPS:Genesis1:1: When God began to create heaven and earth -

It's subtle in this case but it does make a difference don't you think?
And this is the very first verse, it's largely downhill from here.

Why not look at the last verse of the OT:

KJV:Malachi4:6: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the
children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come
and smite the earth with a curse.
JPS:Malachi3:24: He shall reconcile parents with children and children
with their parents, so that, when I come, I do not strike the whole land
with utter destruction.

>|>The whole OT points to the coming of a Savior, the Messiah, the Annointed
>|>One.  In Malachai 3, we see the Lord Almighty telling us that he (the
>|>Lord) will come.  Often we see THE angel of the Lord being referred to
>|>as God.  (angel means messenger.)  In Zechariah chapter 1, we see this
>|>angel of the Lord (who is at times referred to as God) and the Lord
>|>Almighty in the same passage - a hint of the trinity.
>|>Jesus even said he was the "I AM" - and that he was before Abraham.
>|All Christian exegesis propaganda and you fell for it! Why don't you consult 
>|with a Judaist for the meaning of the Hebrew scriptures? After all, whose
>|scriptures are they anyway?
>They are God's scriptures - given to both the Jews and the Christians.
>The Jews are sadly still looking for what they desire - the Messiah.
>Christians recognized the Messiah as having come in the flesh - he is
>Jesus of Nazerath - Christ the Lord (Luke 2:10-11.)

Again, whose scriptures are they? What language are they written in? And
who are the people who speak that language? And yet you claim to know
better? Christianity, based on the poor Septuagint Greek translation and
with all its pagan influences claims to know Mosaic Law better than the
Hebrews? Why does that seem unlikely? Is it just me or do you find
something to be a bit unusual here? Is this like Dan Quayle telling a
Latin American country that he wished he took Latin in school so he
could understand the language better?

>|>|no Christian Hell and the day of rest is the seventh day, Saturday. The
>|>Saturday is the Sabbath.  It is still observed by the Jews.  However,
>|>Jesus told us that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the
>|>Sabbath and that IT IS LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath, as it is any
>|>day of the week.
>|Jesus told? Do you have a reference of what Yeshua said in Aramaic? And
>Give your reference - why Aramaic - could you please spell out your
>concern, for I don't follow you.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The NT are written in Greek, that's a translation
already and given the problems with the Septuagint, you don't expect any
problems? Like perhaps Luke14:26? I am unaware of any recording of the
Aramaic words spoken by Jesus. Are you?

>|you still haven't explained why most Christians seem to think that
>|Sunday is the day the Lord rested. Could that be a mistake? If such
>We don't think it is the day the Lord rested.  It is the day we
>celebrate as the resurrection of the Lord, Jesus the Christ.
>|a simple mistake as a confusion over which day of the week the Lord
>|rested exists, what else do you suppose might be mistaken? It's no big
>|deal really, provided that if you seek the truth that you search for the
>|truth in earnest. Truth is seldom found in propaganda.
>Some may dispute it from lack of knowledge, but there is not real dispute.

Alright, fair enough.

>|>|irony of Christians trying to tell the Jews the meaning of their own
>|>|Hebrew scriptures is not lost. Part of the reason for this
>|>Again, the Jews are the ones who gave us the NT.
>|Oh really. Then why is it in Greek and Aramaic? Hebrew wasn't good
>|enough anymore? Think Richard, think! Hebrew has been the language of
>Oh. Then why did the Roman controlled Jews translate the OT into Greek,
>if Hebrew was good enough - the same reason holds - they spoke Greek.

No, the reason is they were no longer following Judaism. In Judaism, all
children learn Biblical Hebrew and they read and recite the scriptures
in the original Hebrew thus avoiding the translation problems. This was
the case almost everywhere Hebrews went who where still practicing
Judaism, despite using other languages in everyday life. Hebrew is the
language of Judaism, not any local language. This is why the center of
Judaism was in Babylon at this time. The Hellenistic Jews largely spoke
Aramaic and used Greek as the written language. They were out of touch
with Hebrew, thus the need for the Septuagint, and they no longer
adhered to the Mosaic Law, thus the need for a new covenant. Strangely,
Christianity wasn't a big hit with the Hellenistic Jews who drifted
towards other religions or rediscovered Judaism. Judaism was kept alive
in Babylon, not Roman Palestine. Judaism survived in exile, largely
unknown to the Christians.

>|Judaism from the very begining right up to the present, continuously
>|without interruption. Hellenistic Jews did produce the NT, but don't get
>|that confused with the Hebrew scriptures with which they have little
>It is not confused.
>|comparison. The center of Judaism was in Babylon at this time, not
>|Hellenistic Judaea nor Alexandria, Egypt. The mistakes in the Septuagint
>|make that rather obvious.
>Cite your claims specifically.

I'll leave that as an exercise, I could be making it up, but I think
that if you do some research on the history of the Septuagint at your
local library, no encyclopedias please, you will find this to be the
case. Perhaps if you badger me I'll post a little intro reference that I
have on it in another post.

>|>|miss-communication on the part of the Christians is that the center of
>|>|Judaism was in Babylon at the time and Babylon was outside of the known
>|>|Christian world. Some Christians even try to claim that the Hebrews of
>|>I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Why were all of the Jews in 
>|>Jerusalem for the feast (Passover and Pentecost, etc.), if what you
>|>say is true?
>|I said that Babylon was outside of the known Christian world, not that
>|Jerusalem was outside of the known Babylonian and Hebrew world. Big
>|difference.
>Oh.  I don't follow you concern.

Babylonian Jewry was well aware of the former land of Israel, but
Christianity was not very aware of the existance of the center of
Judaism, in exile, in Babylon. The early Christians weren't scholars,
the keepers of Judaism were.

>|>|the OT died out or disappeared and the Jews of Babylon adopted the
>|>|ancient scriptures and claimed it as their own. Thus, by this logic,
>|>I've never heard this claim - the Jewish high priest was there in Jerusalem.
>|The center of Judaism was in Babylon at the time, not Jerusalem.
>Cites please - wasn't the temple in Jerusalem????????????????

Yes, but I've already stated the differences between Hellenistic Jewry
and Babylonian Jewry. The former land of Israel was under substantial
Greek (pagan) influence. Judaism was in exile, in Babylon.

>|>|Christians are the rightful heirs of the Hebrew scriptures and Judaism
>|>|is a more modern re-interpretation of Hebrew scriptures that are more
>|>|modern than the Greek Septuagint. The fact that Judaism has been in 
>|>|practice
>|>Jesus the Christ is the fulfillment of the Scriptures.
>|Why is it that few followers of Judaism believe this? Could it be that
>|they know their own Hebrew scriptures better than you do? Why do you
>Paul was a high ranking Jew - many Jewish people and priest came to faith
>in Jesus the Christ.

Not very many, no. As I've already stated.

>|suppose that they find the Christian argument to be unconvincing? Do you
>|suppose that the mistakes are just too comical? Judaism is monotheistic,
>|that's one of the things that separates it from other religions, why do
>|you think they would find the European pagan notion of a Holy Trinity to
>|be appealing?
>Christianity is monotheistic - we have one God.

Sure. Three (+Devil) equals one, only in Christianity.

>|>|continuously from the begining of the oral tradition right up to the
>|>|present, against all odds, and in the same Hebrew language is something
>|>|that the Christians prefer to ignore. Clearly, from a Christian
>|>How is this (Hebrew language) ignored?????
>|In incorrect translation into other languages and Christian attempts to
>|make the errors of the Septuagint correct. In a total failure to consult
>|the keepers of the faith of Judaism.
>Again, help us out here and give some examples.

Library time! Time to gets you some knowledge! Sabe, qui mo sabe?

>|>|perspective, the Jews must be misguided in their interpretation of their
>|>|own Hebrew scriptures. It makes no sense to me, but some people buy this
>|>|argument, then again, you remember what PT Barnum said about suckers
>|>|being born every minute. If they'll go for the free gift grift, they'll
>|>|go for anything.
>|>And there is someone (Mr. Harvey?) trying to sell something to the
>|>sucker, isn't there?  What are you sell?
>|I sell nothing, but you are correct to be suspect. Seek the truth
>|Richard!
>I do seek the Truth.

Glad to hear that, for a moment I thought we lost you.

>I guess Atlanta area libraries are not good enough for you, huh?

Well, then maybe it's pilot error. There is life beyond the
encyclopedias you know.

>|And next you launch into the classic Christian attack on scholars. Sad
>|Richard, truly sad. Why do you resort to common street grifts? Is your
>Sad, I don't follow you grand understanding of my attack on scholars.

What can I say? I suppose you'd justify the destruction of the library
of Alexandria also, eh?

>|understanding of Christianity so poor that you must do this when you are
>|confronted with the truth? Why do you fear the truth? Why do you
>Be specific in when you levy critizism.
>|distrust yourself? No one will lead you, you must find your own way.
>|Allow yourself to be led by others and you will most likely be misled.
>|Use your mind Richard, it was given to you for a reason. Learn from
>|dogma but please don't become dogmatic. Don't insult the Creator.
>Understood, but get you head out of your own arrogance and give
>some practical response instead of this your vague attacks.

Alright, fair enough, I'll give it my best.

>|<Devil may quote scripture deleted.>
>Devil quotes sciputre badly.  You didn't like it did you.  Why
>delete it.  Does it speak to directly to you????????

No, not really, I deleted it to try to control the size of this thread
which is largely out of control at this point.

>|>|interested in the truth, that would be far to complicated, instead they
>|>You are right - they are far to complicated.  Wisdom is not required
>|>to enter the Kingdom of God.  Faith is required - you can be wise, but
>|>that doesn't get you in.  Else, why would an ability one is born with 
>|>be the factor of one being able to merit salvation.
>|One is not born with knowledge of truth, that is why. If you seek truth,
>|then seek it honestly. If you seek deception, the strength of ignorance,
>|don't mask it by claiming to seek truth. Ignorance is strength, but not
>|the way of truth. Are you seeking truth, or ignorance, Richard?
>I seek the Truth and it has been revealed to me, but not to me alone
>and it is available to all who believe.

Are you saying there is nothing else for you to learn, to know?

>|>|Christianity is the marketing concept that all you have to do is believe
>|>|in Jesus and ride his coattails into Heaven when you die. If you believe
>|>That's right.  Jesus paid the price - you got a pretty good grasp of what
>|>is required to follow Jesus and so be saved.
>|You sound like an authentic person leading an inauthentic life. I
>|thought you were seeking the truth. How have you been misled?
>I do seek the Truth, how do you know your own personal ability 
>and pride has not misled you?

I don't.

>|>Don't let it be said of you that you never understood, but just heard.
>|>Open you heart up to Jesus the Christ - humble yourself and he will 
>|>exalt you.
>|If you seek truth, seek truth. Learn from dogma but please do not become
>|dogmatic.
>If one believes what we Christians believe, would you expect us to be any
>less dogmatic?

I don't see a direct relationship between Christians and dogmatics, well
other then it just happens to turn out that dogmaticism does seem to be
more prevalent amongst Christians, but I don't see a fundamental reason
why that has to be the case. Certainly one does not have to be Christian
to be dogmatic and being a Christian does not mean one is dogmatic. Look
the word up in a dictionary, it's a good one and I don't know that I can
explain it.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18045 alt.atheism:18849