Anti-Missionary Hypocrisy

[dizzle]

Just in case anyone does not come through the home page or did not realize this article was there, Dr. Brown does a great job of showing the hypocrisy of the anti-missionaries. Ironically TWeb has one anti-missionary, Joe Wallack, who has promptly ignored the article without response, and one athiest Mandalorious who uses the anti-missionary arguments who has refused to address Dr. Brown on whether or not he is still Jewish after he has accepted Christ as Saviour. Here is the link

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5701


It is only on the home page for another week but will remain in the article database.

[Solly]

Lonely Thread Bumping Service

[fiddlerzvi]

06-21-2003 @ 06:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129549#post129549)
Dee Dee Warren:

Just in case anyone does not come through the home page or did not realize this article was there, Dr. Brown does a great job of showing the hypocrisy of the anti-missionaries. ...Here is the link

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5701


It is only on the home page for another week but will remain in the article database.

Actually, the link is still valid.

Dee Dee, do you know how Joe or I analyze the Hebrew scriptures? If not, how can you say we use different criteria?

For that matter, do you know how Orthodox Jewish anti-missionaries analyze the Hebrew Scriptures? Hint -- a lot of them (not all) take a very different approach than you take to your scriptures.

Hypocrisy is a strong word, and frequently used in a self serving way. Be sure you know how we think before you accuse us of having a double standard.

Now, if you want to discuss details of Browns article -- just ask. And if not, I haven't wasted any time with explanations you don't care about.

[dizzle]

Today @ 08:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172493#post172493)
fiddlerzvi:



Actually, the link is still valid.

Didn't mean to imply it wouldn't be. I said it would not be on the home page.

Dee Dee, do you know how Joe or I analyze the Hebrew scriptures? If not, how can you say we use different criteria?

You later admit that you do, so that comment was slippery. And before you speak know that I have had the misfortune of knowing Joe from years ago, and the pleasure of beating him at his own games then.


For that matter, do you know how Orthodox Jewish anti-missionaries analyze the Hebrew Scriptures? Hint -- a lot of them (not all) take a very different approach than you take to your scriptures.

Yes I do. Debating anti-missionaries was an interest of mine until I got sick of the deceptive tactics of a LOT of them and the sheer obsessiveness of them. Hint - know what a person knows before getting all indignant that they don't know.


Hypocrisy is a strong word, and frequently used in a self serving way. Be sure you know how we think before you accuse us of having a double standard.

Preach that little diddy to your friend.

Now, if you want to discuss details of Browns article -- just ask. And if not, I haven't wasted any time with explanations you don't care about.

Post your comments in the article thread. I will see if Dr. Brown is available to reply. He may not be. Forewarning, the featured ministry articles are held to a much stricter standard of conduct. Wallack probably wouldn't be able to compose a post decent enough to make it there. You could. Post it there.

[fiddlerzvi]

You later admit that you do, so that comment was slippery.

Huh? What are you saying was slippery? For that matter, what are you saying I admitted that I do.

I'm not orthodox, and I don't pretend to be orthodox even though, for reasons I don't mind discussing, I will often take the orthodox point of view.

Do you call that slippery????????

Debating anti-missionaries was an interest of mine until I got sick of the deceptive tactics of a LOT of them and the sheer obsessiveness of them.

What a coincidence -- that's how I feel about missionaries.

Post your comments in the article thread. I will see if Dr. Brown is available to reply.
If he is available, or if someone else wants to discuss it, I'll post. If no one else cares, why should I?

Wallack probably wouldn't be able to compose a post decent enough to make it there.

I've known Joe for years on the net. Granted, his jokes at time wear thin, but I have never seen any of the ethnic slurs so often talked about here (that no one is willing to tell me). I'm impressed by the sheer volume of invective against him, and the paucity of concrete responses to his ideas.

Just out of curiosity -- do you know that many pious and orthodox Jews do not assert that the Nach (prophets and writings without the Torah) is infallible?

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 10:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172759#post172759)
fiddlerzvi:

Huh? What are you saying was slippery? For that matter, what are you saying I admitted that I do.

You know exactly what I am talking about. First you insinuate that how in the world do I know that orthodox Jews (and my comment was never limited to the orthodox, it was to anti-missionaries not all of whom are orthodox) apply different standards. That is an insinuation that I am ignorant of the issues. Bad little game there Fiddler. But you are doing pretty good at playing the somewhat better cop to Joe's rotten cop.

Then after making that insinuation you admit:


For that matter, do you know how Orthodox Jewish anti-missionaries analyze the Hebrew Scriptures? Hint -- a lot of them (not all) take a very different approach than you take to your scriptures.

So while first deflecting attention by insinuating that I made an ignorant comment, you concede that your point was just filler for they do take a different standard to their own Scriptures than the "Christian Bible."

Of course the main issue was the application of the consistent standards they apply to the Christian Bible. But you know that.



If he is available, or if someone else wants to discuss it, I'll post. If no one else cares, why should I?

To prove against the issues raised. Who cares if someone wants to interact or not. I am not going to take a poll to see who is interested. To lift an expression, post or get off the pot.

I've known Joe for years on the net. Granted, his jokes at time wear thin, but I have never seen any of the ethnic slurs so often talked about here (that no one is willing to tell me).

And when did you ask? It is no secret that I am the Moderator who made the edits, you have emailed me numerous times on other issues, or this another insinuation that there is some great Joe coverup conspiracy. I do not appreciate the insinuation. You see Joe (and perhaps you) are putting your foot in it in not realize that the entire text is preserved under all the edits. Joe is going to be shown to be a liar. But I am going to play the prophetess here and predict that you and Joe will equivocate and hem and haw and justify. That's okay. I think you guys are doing great to innoculate our readership against anti-missionaries.

I'm impressed by the sheer volume of invective against him, and the paucity of concrete responses to his ideas.

What was that sound I heard? Your credibiity flying right out the window. I am just wondering if you see out of your other eye or talk out of the other side of your mouth. Your complaint would be the equivalent of me painting JP to be Patron Saint of Southern Politeness and complaining about anyone who sparred with him. Joe has behaved from the moment he got here like the wrong end of a pack animal. He violated numerous moderators warnings in his first couple posts and again so much that he is on permanent moderation. Spare me these games Fiddler there are so unbecoming it is embarassing to you. That is enough of this from me on this thread. Post or get off the pot.

Just out of curiosity -- do you know that many pious and orthodox Jews do not assert that the Nach (prophets and writings without the Torah) is infallible?

Nice diversion. End with again insinuating ignorance.

[fiddlerzvi]

My my. You do play the outraged high priestess well.

You know exactly what I am talking about.
I don't play that game. If I know what you're talking about, I answer it. If don't know, or if I suspect but am unsure and don't want to insult you by assuming the worst, then I ask.

First you insinuate that
I'm not going to waste time on what you think I insinuate. If you disagree with what I say -- fine. I'm not responsible for what you think I said.

Now, in my experience the vast majority of Chrisitians -- missionaries and non-missionaries alike -- are pathetically ignorant of Judaism. Maybe you're an exception -- but when I ask you a question and you get enraged, then I doubt it. You protest too much.

That is an insinuation that I am ignorant of the issues. Suggestion -- rather than get enraged, show me your knownlege.

To lift an expression, post or get off the pot. Ah -- such graceful prose. All right -- I'll ask a question about 'hyperliterality." Where should I put it? Uh - let me rephrase that -- what URL should I post it in?

And when did you ask? It is no secret that I am the Moderator who made the edits, you have emailed me numerous times on other issues, or this another insinuation that there is some great Joe coverup conspiracy.
Ask nicely and without insinuating (oooh, Zvi, you're not allowed to use that word) that I'm lying and maybe I'll take the time to look it up.

I don't tell ball faced lies. Believe it or not, as your own level of honesty guides you.

I do not appreciate the insinuation.
Nochamol insinuations. Count how often you've used that word.

I think you guys are doing great to innoculate our readership against anti-missionaries.
It is so nice to be appreciated (Oooooh, Zvi, you're being sarcastic.)

What was that sound I heard? Your credibiity flying right out the window. I am just wondering if you see out of your other eye or talk out of the other side of your mouth. Your complaint would be the equivalent of me painting JP to be Patron Saint of Southern Politeness and complaining about anyone who sparred with him. Joe has behaved from the moment he got here like the wrong end of a pack animal. He violated numerous moderators warnings in his first couple posts and again so much that he is on permanent moderation. Spare me these games Fiddler there are so unbecoming it is embarassing to you. That is enough of this from me on this thread. Post or get off the pot.
You take yourself WAYY too seriously.

Nice diversion. End with again insinuating ignorance.
Diversions aren't prefaced with BTW.

But hey -- I don't want to insinuate. I'll be open to the point of probably getting flamed for rudeness. Dee Dee, I don't think you or Solly or the majority of Chrtistians here have any more than the vaguest and most inaccurate ideas of what Judaism is and what it teaches. I go further and say I think you have no ideas whatsoever as to the Jewish response to so much of what you consider -- ahem -- gospel.

Clear enough?

Hey -- if you think I'm saying something -- just ask. I'll tell you.

[jpholding]

As a matter of fact, it's quote obvious that most modern Jews have no idea what Judaism of the first century and before taught. This is why we have Jewish scholars like Tigay and Winston now trying to correct the idea that Judaism can be properly called "monotheistic" and Christian scholars like Hurtado saying the same.

Much of what passes as modern "Judaism" is an artifical construct made out of years of cultural change. It deserves as much respect as any respectable religious movement but is no more contiguous with Judaism in the first century than it is with Islam.

[fiddlerzvi]

Yesterday @ 10:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176562#post176562)
jpholding:

As a matter of fact, it's quote obvious that most modern Jews have no idea what Judaism of the first century and before taught. This is why we have Jewish scholars like Tigay and Winston now trying to correct the idea that Judaism can be properly called "monotheistic" and Christian scholars like Hurtado saying the same.

Much of what passes as modern "Judaism" is an artifical construct made out of years of cultural change. It deserves as much respect as any respectable religious movement but is no more contiguous with Judaism in the first century than it is with Islam.

This is a common Christian approach -- that you know us better than we know ourselves.

I'm sure it makes you feel good.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176844#post176844)
fiddlerzvi, replying to:

jpholding:

As a matter of fact, it's quote obvious that most modern Jews have no idea what Judaism of the first century and before taught. This is why we have Jewish scholars like Tigay and Winston now trying to correct the idea that Judaism can be properly called "monotheistic" and Christian scholars like Hurtado saying the same.

Much of what passes as modern "Judaism" is an artifical construct made out of years of cultural change. It deserves as much respect as any respectable religious movement but is no more contiguous with Judaism in the first century than it is with Islam.

This is a common Christian approach -- that you know us better than we know ourselves.

That's a common hypocritical anti-missionary approach -- ignore the hard data of their own history as JPH presents. And the anti-missios pretend that their own man-made traditions and accretions are the true "us" while the equally Jewish Messianic Jews, who are actually closer to Biblical Judaism, are "them". It's a good thing that Dr Brown refuses to let anti-missios define Christian Jews out of existence or let them get away with their double standards.

[GrayPilgrim]

I would reccomend Boccaccini's Beyond the Essene Hypothesis in which he traces out the major strands of Second Temple Judaism, low and behold there were Pharisaic (antecedent to Rabbinic Judaism), Enochic (Christianity would be most directly related to this strand), and Suducaical (which pretty much died out when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD (I stick with AD because it is a theological discussion whether to use it or CE, I respect the use of others who are not Christians in using it but refuse to use it).

Thus your overly simplistic understanding, as shown here, is unconvincining and does not satisfy the material that is extent from that era.

GP

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 04:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176844#post176844)
fiddlerzvi:



This is a common Christian approach -- that you know us better than we know ourselves.

I'm sure it makes you feel good.

What is based on evdience (as GP noted) deserves to be common and better known. I doubt if you know a Qumranite doctrine from a Qatarian doctor.

Good? No. It makes me feel like the education system has failed thanks to massive egos unable to accept the truth about themselves and what they believe. :thumb: