Well, yes, I suppose by repeating an argument you strengthen it against any possibility of being questioned from some angle you are unfamiliar with and wish to avoid learning about.mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:50 am Whatever can be found in Judaism and the Tanakh can hardly be related to the scribblings of the NT that, apart from anything else, establish far beyond any reasonable doubt that its authors were unfamiliar with Hebrew, Judaic customs, Judean geography, and the meaning and application of Tanakh material in the broadest sense of the word.
You will be very pleased to hear that I have no argument that the Greek language NT works were written for non-Hebrew audiences; yes, even in Greek, and yes, that they include Latin loanwords (hardly "infested" though, but that's a subjective judgment) and even include explanations of Judean customs and Aramaic terms. If they include explanations of Hebrew words, too, then I would not be at all surprised. None of that is a point of contention between us.
(Suggestion: ask questions, read more, to find out what the argument is that you think you are disagreeing with before trying to debunk it.)
Oh, I see where we disagree. Yes, there are times when it is quite proper to make clear distinctions among those terms but, hey, there is also a common lay language that we can even use among scholars. They will usually explain the terms they use in their introductions. But if you think I use common lay terms sometimes in order to insidiously introduce deceiving ideologies then I fear you will perhaps also fall into the perfect description of a conspiracy theorist, seeing the world in black and white, seeing other people as occupying either the good or evil camps.mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:50 am But you just use the term OT, as if that exists. And then you jump to the term biblical, as if you want to drag it even closer to Christianity, while you mention Proverbs as an example, which is a perfectly Judaic text in a perfectly Judaic book: the Tanakh, sometimes erroneously called OT by people who want to make their point by covert induction. The Bible doesn't exist in biblical academic, only in lay circles.
I was actually thinking of the scholarship (including Jewish scholars) who make that link, or see that period as a point of origin from which Christianity emerged on the one hand and the rabbinic literature we have today on the other -- even though the latter dates from much later. Jewish scholars are among those who argue that some of what is found in that literature does very likely go back to "the time when Christianity began to emerge as a distinct movement".mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:50 am Then you link rabbinic writings to an era when Christianity began to form and emerge as a distinct movement in order to avoid naming late 2nd / early 3rd CE, and you even further contaminate that by then referring to that as this same period of Judaism, happily abusing yet another occasion to link Judaism to Christianity
Well, I've never been called a demagogue before. And I don't really understand how what you have said above fits the meaning of "demagogue" -- maybe that's why you say I'm a "bad" demagogue. But then you got rather upset with me when I tried to point out the difference between transcription and translation, and how holding a flame to one's eye actually blocks one's vision. But I did so, yes, matter of factly, but without insult, I hope, or any personal attack.
Why not drop the personal attacks and engage with my comments as if I'm a normal person who disagrees with you and has strange ideas you've never heard of before and go from there -- with an openness to learning more about how others think and a willingness to accept a point that shows we are wrong (I've had to apologize or recant a few times) and a humility in the way we present our own ideas so that we don't give the impression that we are some sort of closed-minded dogmatists. (I came here approaching you that way but unfortunately found my approach was not reciprocated.)
Shalom. Peace. But if you really are into conspiracy theory type thinking then I suspect that appeal will fall on deaf -- even suspicious -- ears.