“Without invoking the “new testament?” Or without assuming it’s true? I’m pretty sure you’re gonna eventually say “Isaiah means thus and such because THE WORD OF GOD in Paul’s epistle to so-and-so says so.” What if you can’t do that?”
I don’t know how you can be “pretty sure,” when every time I have responded to you in threads past, it has always been with the Old Testament, and you have never once given a proper rebuttal for anything that I have said.
If anything, I’m pretty sure you’re feeling cheeky today, since usually you’re not this animated.
“And since all criticisms are valid, no form can be true.”
Huh, where’s that in the Torah?
I'm sorry, but I've never seen any of those posts. Sometimes I'm nervous or get upset and avoid reading my pings for a while. At any rate, the only way the "old testament" can be portrayed as teaching chrstianity is if one already, from the get-go, accepts the authority of the "new testament" to interpret it. And I do not.
“And since all criticisms are valid, no form can be true.”
Huh, where’s that in the Torah?
I point out merely that everything Catholics say about Protestantism's deficiencies is true. And what Protestants say about Catholicism's deficiencies is also true. Ditto for every single form of chrstianity in history from the "new testament church" to the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East to whatever version was just made up yesterday.
I'm so sorry you were offended by an article that merely points out that Hebrew is the original language and corresponds to reality better than any other. Apparently you think Genesis is mythology.
It also seems that you take your screen name a little too seriously.