HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: were it not for the VEIL . . .
Organization: University of Turku
	<1993Jan19.020440.18803@netcom.com> <1jfr1oINNk75@pollux.usc.edu>
	<HEM.93Jan19141902@col400.att.com>
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:54:01

In article <HEM.93Jan19141902@col400.att.com> hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz) writes:
> On 18 Jan 1993 19:03:20 -0800, kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) said:
> > He who has will be given more, but he who has not will have even the
> > little he does have taken away from him.

> I prefer the Jewish version.  He who wishes to do good Hashem will open
> the way for him.  He who insists on doing evil, Hashem will allow him
> [to continue on that road].  I would rather follow the path Hashem has
> opened than turn around and follow a human beings made up myths.

I agree with Hillel here, although the above quote from Ken is also 
OK when said in an appropriate context. 

> ____________________________________________________
> | Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
> | H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
> |_____________________|____________________________|

- Laura
--
"Who has gone up to heaven and come down ?
 Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands ?
 Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak ?
 Who has established all the ends of the earth ?
 What is his name, and the name of his son ?
 Tell me if you know !"      - Mishlei 30:4
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: mswihart@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael R Swihart)
Subject: confusion in the disproof
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: alt.messianic
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:40:05 GMT


In "Disproof of Proof 1" the following assertions were made :

>>Under this method it was suggested that there were 2 separate
>>mashiachs - the first after 7 weeks and the next after another
>>62 weeks.

>Please read below.  You argue here that the messiah will come after 7
>weeks or possibly again after 62 weeks.  Below you argue that Jesus
>came after 69 weeks.  This is inconsistent.  

and then it was later said :

>By your statement here you show 69 weeks until the coming of Jesus.
>But, above you say that he will come in 7 weeks and again in 62 weeks.
>This is an obvious contradiction.  He either came in 7 weeks or 69.
>Pick one and stick to it.

I have re-read the original posting several times and believe that the
original proof does not,IMHO, in any way, shape, or form, claim that
the messiah was to come after 7 weeks or after 7 weeks and
after 62 weeks. Footnote 1b discusses other interpretations
that the author does not agree with and reads as follows:

> (*1b) seven AND sixty two weeks - Many Bibles both Jewish and
> Christian punctuate the first seven away from the next sixty two. 
> Under this method it was suggested that there were 2 separate
> mashiachs - the first after 7 weeks and the next after another
> 62 weeks.
> 
> Cyrus is usually interpreted as mashiach nagid whilst the
> identity of mashiach cut off is taken to be Onais III or King
> Agrippa II.
> 
> Any version which puts Cyrus as the anointed prince starts at 586
> BCE, the date of the destruction of Jerusalem.  But such versions
> fail since Daniel states the year of the prophecy in verse 1 as
> the first year of Darius the Mede i.e. 538 BCE, well after 586
> BCE. Also, the starting point has to be at the rebuilding of
> Jerusalem not the Destruction.
[ stuff deleted to save space ]

In 1b Vijay appears,IMHO, to discussing and refuting another interpretation
of the verses in Daniel. In no way,IMHO, is Vijay claiming to hold
the veiws that are being refuted in the footnote.

It follows, the claims of contradiction and inconsistancy
are not from an internal contradiction of the proof,
but arise from a misunderstanding in the mind of the disprover.

( Normally, I am only a lurker, but this "contradiction" 
seemed to be such a misunderstanding of the claims of the
proof that felt I should comment.)

M.Swihart

Newsgroups: alt.messianic,soc.culture.jewish
From: hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: *Classic Testimony: Reb Asher Wade*
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Reply-To: H_Markowitz@att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
	<1993Jan22.190547.13992@starbase.trincoll.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:07:43 GMT

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:05:47 GMT, nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) said:


> Gedaliah Friedenberg's breathless account of how the Rev. Wade couldn't
> find Luther's anti-Semitic writings (in a German library yet) was totally
> unbelievable until I noted that said Wade now hangs out at Aish HaTorah
> Yeshiva which --for the uninitiated-- is also the place whence all that
> high-class Codes "research" emanates.

> Norman Miller

For those reading this on s.c.j, Gedaliah's article was in response to a
missionary post on an alleged middle ages rabbi who converted to xianity
after  reading of a Lutheran bible that he had purchased from a poor
beggar woman (in order to give her charity) that appeared in
alt.messianic.  I would say that he is pointing out the unbelievability
of those posts in a sarcastic (or is it ironic) manner.

Then again, there are people who come to Judaism through a process of
investigation such as Rabbi Cardozo in Eretz Yisroel who taught at
Michlalah College for Women in Jerusalem.

--
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: were it not for the VEIL . . .
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Reply-To: H_Markowitz@att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
	<1993Jan19.020440.18803@netcom.com> <1jfr1oINNk75@pollux.usc.edu>
	<HEM.93Jan19141902@col400.att.com> <LJMORLY.93Jan21105401@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:03:03 GMT

On 21 Jan 93 10:54:01, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) said:

> - Laura
> --

See the Rashi on this for the answers.  The Judaica Press edition gives
a good explanation of this in English.  It is asking, who can replace
Moshe Rabbeinu.

> "Who has gone up to heaven and come down ?

Like Moshe went up to get the Torah.

>  Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands ?

Like Moshe took the ashes which he threw into the air for the plague in
Mitzrayim.

>  Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak ?

Like Moshe stretching out his staff to split the Reed Sea.

>  Who has established all the ends of the earth ?

Like Moshe bringing the Torah to Israel which is the basis for the
existence of the universe.

>  What is his name, and the name of his son ?

If such a person exists, he must have a known family and lineage like
Moshe whose human lineage is specifically shown in the Torah.

>  Tell me if you know !"      - Mishlei 30:4


The above  is a paraphrase from memory as I do not have the seforim
here.

--
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: A Neutral Prayer (was Re: Disproof of "Proof 2")
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:14:40 GMT
	<1993Jan26.153512.26825@ucl.ac.uk> <1993Jan27.005404.12705@netcom.com>
	<26JAN199322524077@utkvx2.utk.edu>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

In article <26JAN199322524077@utkvx2.utk.edu> 
fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.005404.12705@netcom.com>, 
solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes...
>>....and the Qur'an, and the Baghavad Gita, and the Poetic and Prose
>>Eddas. Why give one pagan scripture pride of place over the others?
>>Allow me to apologize for that. I was out of line in calling the
>>Qur'an pagan; it, unlike the other scriptures above, is solidly
>>monotheistic.  It is erroneous, but at least it isn't idolatrous.
>Please post a proof that the New Testament is polytheistic, or offer
>an apology.

Holy Trinity. 3 = poly. Son of God = at least two = poly. Human God =
Pagan. Virgin birth = Pagan.

>I do not think it is in the Jewish tradition to call
>CHristians idolators. If it is traditional, then please give me a citation 
>for the belief.

Cross, fish, wine and bread as idols of the blood and body of Jesus, a man who
was idolized as a god. A cannibalistic death cult - in short; pagan idolaters.
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re:  Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:55:46 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1993Jan19.202538.1020@dragon.com> cms@dragon.com writes:
>
>	When the Messiah returns to rule with a staff of iron 
>	(Rv. 12:5, 19:15) he will compel cessation of hostilities 
>	between nations.  ...

Anyone know of a prominent figure in the MJ movement who is NOT
premillennial?

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Length of years (was Re: ***MoJ: Proof 1: The Amazing Prophecy***)
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:24:55 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <KRULWICH.93Jan20103948@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
>
>ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
>
>> The Amazing Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks is now the standard proof of
>> Jesus' Messiahship (Daniel 9:24-27).  I say "standard" because there is no
>> SENSIBLE refutation to be found anywhere.
>...
>> Daniel writes that from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until
>> "Mashiach Nagid" (Messiah the Prince or an anointed prince) will be seven
>> AND sixty two "weeks" or "sevens" (of years) (*1).
>...
>> Throughout these last two milleniums Christians have always believed that
>> this prophecy referred to Jesus but what was missing was an EXACT fulfilment
>> since Daniel writes that from event A to event B will be the full 69 x 7
>> years. He does not say "approximately".  It was only this century that the
>> 360 day year was suggested (*2).
>> 
>> Under this method this takes us EXACTLY to Nisan 10 in 32 (or 31)
>> CE. (69 x 7 x 360 = 173,880; 173,880 / 365.242 = 476 solar years
>> and 25 days; there is no year zero).
>
>Sorry, but a 360 day year is contrary to Jewish law.  the Torah says clearly
>that the three harvest holidays MUST be in their seasons, and specifically
>that Passover must be in a particular time period in the spring.  This is why
>the Jewish year has ALWAYS had leap months added to lengthen certain years to
>keep in line with the seasons.
>
>If there was ever a strict 360 day calendar used for more than a few years,
>Passover would be in the winter, then the fall, etc.  Over the course of 483
>years, Passover would cycle through the seasons 5 times!  Definitely contrary
>to the Torah, and _never_ the practice in Judaism.
>
>But it was a nice try!  
>
>
>Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
>krulwich@ils.nwu.edu
>
> 
In the time of the exile, the Jews added an extra month too, whenever
necessary.  The idea is that whilst God is using Jewish years for festivals
He is using 360 day years for his prophetic fulfilments .
It's up to Him and I wont argue with Him

Still waiting for sensible refutations.

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred)
Subject: Re: Complete verification of Jesus
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:04:00 GMT

In article <9301251358.AA03906@aplpy.jhuapl.edu>, levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes...
>In article <24JAN199314040627@utkvx2.utk.edu> you write:
> 
>> that anyone who declares someone as Messiah before all the
>> requirements are complete can't be part of Judiasm? Are the Chabad
>> Jews now separate from the Jewish people because they believe they
>> know who the Messiah is... before world peace arrives?
> 
>They believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the person in this
>generation (every generation has one) who is the *potential* Messiah
>(Hezkat Moshiach) and who would be restored to full health and
>anointed the actual Messiah (Moshiach Vadai) if G-d wished for the
>Messianic age to begin now.  Some of the breathless, unauthorized
>newspaper ads which individuals in Chabad occasionally place don't
>always make the potential/actual distinction clear, and I have
>complained about this to Chabad friends of mine.
> 
According to recent articles, not ads, in the Jerusalem Post, the Chabad
has officially declared Rebbe Schneerson the Moschiach. They are now
putting up signs that say (to the best of my reading ability, I still 
really need vowel points) baruch haba melek hamaschiach with the Rebbe's
picture in place. Since the JP interviewed official spokesmen from Chabad
I assume it is indeed official, and not tentative. If you like I could post
the relevent parts of the article (it is at home).

I agree that in the past the official pronouncements were that the Rebbe
was the potential Messiah, and that some ads "jumped the gun", but I believe
that is changed now. I'll ask one of my Chabad friends to see if the JP has
it correct...

fnixon@sol.cs.utc.edu
fnixon@utkvx.utk.edu

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: mswihart@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael R Swihart)
Subject: apparent confusion in the disproof
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: alt.messianic
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:43:20 GMT



In "Disproof of Proof 1" the following assertions were made :

>>Under this method it was suggested that there were 2 separate
>>mashiachs - the first after 7 weeks and the next after another
>>62 weeks.

>Please read below.  You argue here that the messiah will come after 7
>weeks or possibly again after 62 weeks.  Below you argue that Jesus
>came after 69 weeks.  This is inconsistent.  

and then it was later said :

>By your statement here you show 69 weeks until the coming of Jesus.
>But, above you say that he will come in 7 weeks and again in 62 weeks.
>This is an obvious contradiction.  He either came in 7 weeks or 69.
>Pick one and stick to it.

I have re-read the original posting several times and believe that the
original proof does not,IMHO, in any way, shape, or form, claim that
the messiah was to come after 7 weeks or after 7 weeks and
after 62 weeks. Footnote 1b discusses other interpretations
that the author does not agree with and reads as follows:

> (*1b) seven AND sixty two weeks - Many Bibles both Jewish and
> Christian punctuate the first seven away from the next sixty two. 
> Under this method it was suggested that there were 2 separate
> mashiachs - the first after 7 weeks and the next after another
> 62 weeks.
> 
> Cyrus is usually interpreted as mashiach nagid whilst the
> identity of mashiach cut off is taken to be Onais III or King
> Agrippa II.
> 
> Any version which puts Cyrus as the anointed prince starts at 586
> BCE, the date of the destruction of Jerusalem.  But such versions
> fail since Daniel states the year of the prophecy in verse 1 as
> the first year of Darius the Mede i.e. 538 BCE, well after 586
> BCE. Also, the starting point has to be at the rebuilding of
> Jerusalem not the Destruction.

In 1b Vijay appears,IMHO, to discussing and refuting another interpretation
of the verses in Daniel. In no way,IMHO, is Vijay claiming to hold
the veiws that are being refuted in the footnote.

It follows, the claims of contradiction and inconsistancy
are not from an internal contradiction of the proof,
but arise from a misunderstanding of the disprover.

( Normally, I am only a lurker, but this "contradiction" 
seemed to be such a misunderstanding of the claims of the
proof that felt I should comment.)

M.Swihart

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Complete verification of Jesus
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:14:45 GMT

In article <24JAN199314040627@utkvx2.utk.edu> fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.164206.6956@udel.edu>, carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes...
>>4] According to the Jews, the Messiah doesn't come twice. He doesn't come
>>  halfway, do part of the job, and then die claiming that he'll come back
>>  and finish the job. The messiah is the man who will fill ALL of the
>>  requirements of the messiah during his lifetime. Period. If the messianic
>>  age is not here, then the messiah has not come. Take a look at Bosnia right
>>  now, where thousands of people are being maimed, raped, and killed in the
>>  name of Christianity, and then try to tell me that Jesus brought the 
>>  messianic age.
>
>  I suppose that's why the Chabad has declared the Rebbe as the Messiah... 
>after he was "dead" in his recent illness...  Are you really trying to say
>that anyone who declares someone as Messiah before all the requirements are
>complete can't be part of Judiasm? Are the Chabad Jews now separate from the
>Jewish people because they believe they know who the Messiah is... before
>world peace arrives? 
>

Well, first, as I understand it, Chabad itself hasn't declared the
Rebbe to be Moshiach.  It was a group of Rabbis acting without the
permission of the Rebbe or the movement.

Second, they have said that he is the Messiah presumptive of our
generation, meaning that they believe he will be the Messiah, if God
chooses to make the messiah come now. (Many Jews believe that there is
a potential Messiah in every generation. As I understand it, the
Lubavitchers believe that the Rebbe is the potential messiah of our
generation, which doesn't necessarily mean that he will be the person
who brings in the messianic age.)

Thirdly, if the Rebbe dies without bringing in the Messianic age, the
Lubavitchers will not insist that he WAS the messiah, and that he'll
come back later and finish the job. And if that happens any
Lubavitcher who claims that he WAS the Moshiach, and will come back
later to finish the job will be considered a heretic by Lubavitch and
the rest of the Jewish community.


	<MC>
-- 
[ Mark Craig Carroll <MC> ] You say you know no tricks, have no talents -
[ U of Delaware, CIS Dept ] Isn't everyone supposed to have their own?
[ Grad Student/Lab Hacker ] Yes, but few are obvious. Few draw notice to those
[ carroll@udel.edu        ] who posess them, like flags waving themselves.
From: bthurman@unca.edu
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: 'the' interpreting of daniel
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:16:10 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville

seems like an assumption lurks in talking about this or that interpretation as
'the christian interpretation', especially where Daniel's concerned.
for decades it has been perfectly clear to me that the bar enosh 'son of man'
figure in daniel 7 represents, not one personal entity like Jesus himself, but
'the people of the saints of the most high', as the revelatory interpretation
itself in verses 16-18 seems so clearly to state.  today many educated
christians, despite the appeal of Yeshua to Daniel, recorded in the gospel,
reject the authenticity of the writing outright.  you know all of that, but
what may not be known would be the understanding of thousands of christians
with whom i was associated in Greece, whose official bible will have been the
'Old Greek Versions' commonly termed 'Septuagint' from the Aristeas story, and
where the 70 weeks text remains a hotly disputed area among these Yeshuan
Messianists!  more careful students among them do not travel over the whole
thing so rough shod as superficial students of scripture often do. you would
find many of them much more thought provoking and questioning of trite
assumptions like the 'day for a year' theory -- and at the same time, the more
learned many of them are in the scriptures, the more they tend to tolerate a
latitude of opinion within the christian camp.  let me not over-idealize
Hellenic christianism -- they do have their donnybrooks -- but in my own
experience they seem to make less progress in selling, or wanting to sell,
large followings on peculiar rapture slants (eschatological particularisms)
than superficial american splinter groups do.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: Rashi's Quote (was Re: Almah - Betul
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
	<LJMORLY.93Jan24181304@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:18:24 GMT


ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:

[In a discussion of Rashi's comment on Is 7:14]

> I already took into account the possibility of 'valad', but to me it seems
> quite clear that the last word is a verb. "eina reuyah" - "she can't..."
> what she can't ? She can't to an infant ==> She can't give birth.

Wow, I think she's got it!  As has been said many times before, and as Laura
has now realized, Rashi is saying that an Alma is someone who can't give
birth.  Just like Sara, Rachel, and Rivka couldn't initially give birth.
Nothing at all to do with virginal status.  Rather an inability to give birth.

Now that you've realized what Rashi meant, let's go on to something else.

Dov

 
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: Almah (Isaiah 7:14) part 1
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:03:25 GMT


Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:

> Shalom Laura, I am about to post more this week on the Almah, and Betullah
> problems in Scripture.  It should solve the issue beyond any shadow of
> doubt..

Funny how you missionary types have been saying this for 2000 years.  We're
still waiting...


> The only problem with the two anyway is modern scholarship... Of course they
> completely overlook the origins of the word "maid" "maiden", which

Modern scholarship is irrelevant, as is the entire English language.  The
question is what the ORIGINAL HEBREW word means.  English translations are
irrelevant.  Of course, most J-for-J types (such as are posting here) never
read the original Hebrew.


> those who are argueing are not even aware of what they are even saying, for
> there is a case for both betullah and Almah referring to virgins...
> 
> The burden of proof lies with them, as they cannot from antiquity find any
> scripture or ancient document that refers to almah as being not a virgin..

You can't find any source that refers to alma as not having two legs, but I
hardly think that "alma" is defined to mean "a woman with two legs."

This reminds me of a mock-proof that Jewish men are required by the Torah to
wear yamulkas (skullcaps).  The Torah says (Ber 28:10) "And Yaakov went from
Beer-Sheva."  Would a man as rightous as Yaakov walk outside without a
yamulka?  Of course not!  So here we have it -- the Torah says that Yaakov
left Beer Sheva with a yamulka on, so that's proof that the Torah requires us
to wear a yamulka.

Unfortunately the J-for-J types that post here have used "proofs" just like
this for what alma means.  "Here Miriam is refered to as alma.  Obviously
Miriam was a virgin!  So the word must mean virgin."  As silly as this seems,
the J-for-J types here really believe that this is a proof!


> On the other hand they would be hard pressed to find a place in Scripture
> alone, that makes betullah an absolute virgin as well...(grin)

Well, the word "besulim" is used to refer to signs of virginity from a newly
married couple's first night together.  Unless the J-for-J version of the
Torah has changed that part of the Torah too...


Dov