HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Moshe and Yehuda
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:49:19 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <LJMORLY.92Apr17125250@polaris.utu.fi> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
>
>         THE AIDS REMAINED IN THAILAND /David Lavi
>
>   Moshe Sabag (?) and Yehuda Belmis (?), two drug addicts from Yavneh, were
>   sentenced to 25 years in jail in Thailand for an attempt to smuggle heroin.
>   After six years in prison tests arranged for them showed that they had got
>   AIDS. The King of Thailand pardoned them. When they returned to Israel, 
>   came out that they are healthy.
>                        
>Does someone still claim that miracles don't occur anymore?

Did I miss something?  Where is the "miracle?"  Somebody botched a test.

Divine miracles are when blind people see and lame people walk and dead men
are raised from the grave after four days.  Calling such events "miracles"
trivializes the real work of the Holy Spirit in working true miracles.

But perhaps you need to share more of the story.  If these men are drug
smugglers, they needed to repent of their sin.  If they did repent and were
converted to faith in Messiah, then THAT'S THE REAL MIRACLE!

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: sl@ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn)
Subject: Re: Children of Abraham question
Organization: Advanced Technology Department, Harris Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:37:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.215546.4971@news.eng.convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr3.213147.19120@trantor.harris-atd.com> sl@ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn) writes:
|>                            [...]
|> >     Was Issac a Jew?  He seems to meet your qualification of a
|> >"subset of the children of Abraham  . . . . through whom Messiah
|>                            [...]
|> You are wasting our time.  It is obvious who the Jews are.

    You and I will beat each other black and blue over this.  I'm not
sure how to carry on this discussion.  I've lost your original post
and my reply.  We appear to be using the same words in such totally
different meanings that we are unable to talk to each other.  I
admit that my post was off the cuff and not very well written.  Please
accept my apology.  We will probably get back to it again some time.

     Take care, and God bless you.   

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Mundum,                       | The slave mind hates freedom, 
                                     | but it merely resents slavery.
Scott Linn                           |
sl@ccd.harris.com                    | R. J. Rushdoony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Armageddon NOW!
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:43:22 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <1992Apr14.114913.11936@trantor.harris-atd.com> sl@ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>
>      I would assume that a theology that interprets "generation"
>as "race" would continue to see persecution of the Jewish race
>as a fulfillment of prophecy.

It's interesting to see the correlation between bad hermeneutics, which
allows for bad eschatology, as evidenced by many premils, and the
resultant anti-semitism.

Because of their presupposition about end time events, some premils are
forced the interpret the word "genea" as "race" in Matthew 24:34.  That's
because they don't "literally" believe that "all these things" (Matthew
24:3-31), came upon "this generation" in AD70.

Of course that opens them up to a theology of anti-semitism.  After all, if
"genea" in Matthew 24:34 means race, can't it also mean "race" in Matthew
12:45 where Jesus speaks of "this wicked genea".  Or Matthew 16:4 where
Jesus refers to a "wicked and adulerous genea."  Maybe Jesus was teaching
that the Jewish "race" was inherently wicked, and they need to be dealt
with as such wherever they may be found.  Such people have no hermeneutical
reason to translate "genea" in Matthew 12:45 as "generation" but in Matthew
24:34 as "race."

When you examine the theology of modern premillennialism, and the way it's
progressed over the last 150 years, you certainly see the "fruit" of their
bad hermeneutics.  I'm sure folks like Wilson, a premil himself, are
dismayed to be associated with such bad interpretive methodology and the
resulting bad theology.  I would imagine that's why he wrote the book.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: "20583, BENNING, BRUCE" <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!BENNING>
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Resurrection day
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:00:00 EST


>In article (Kenneth J. Hendric>kson) writes:
>>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>So Bruce Benning was right.  If someone asks you when Easter is, you
>>should probably reply that you don't care about any pagan fertility
>>festivals, but that RESURRECTION DAY *IS* 3 days after Pesach.
                   *     *     *        ^^
>From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) comments:
>
>You mean to say, "resurrection day WAS 3 days after Passover."
>                                   ^^^
   Both are correct. The day of Yeshua's resurrection WAS 3 days 
   after Passover. Since Passover is still celebrated, except 
   where Tom is concerned, the day of Yeshua's resurrection IS 
   still 3 days after Passover. =-)

   ---->   The foolishness of this argument. Lord forgive us.

   | KEEP REMINDING them of these things. Warn them before God   |
   | against quarreling about words; it is of no value, AND ONLY |
   | RUINS THOSE WHO LISTEN. -2 Tim 2:14                         |

>According to the way the new covenant reckons things, Passover is no more.

  Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as 
  you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 
  Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast 
  of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of 
  sincerity and truth. -1 Cor 5:7-8

  As one commentator said, We who are in Messiah celebrate the feast of
  unleaven bread all year through, and not just for one week, because we
  are a new batch of bread without yeast, thanks to the sacrifice of the
  Passover lamb. [ II Cor 5:17; 5:21 ]

>And there is no command in the Scripture to celebrate an annual feast of
>"resurrection day" (or Easter for that matter).
>
   Correct. But there is no harm in honoring G-d and His name by doing so.

> Christians celebrate the reality of Our Lord's resurrection every Sunday.
>--
>Tom Albrecht
       -------------------------------------------------------
  *** Some of us celebrate His resurrection everyday of our life!!! ***
       --------------------------------------------------------
                                |
                              AMEN......

       Bruce Benning __________ benning@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com

          -------------Religion may inform and reform-------------
          ----------but only Messiah Jesus can Transform----------
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: re:pesach and easter (resurrection day)
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:47:24 GMT

In article <9204071421.AA25403@abvax.icd.ab.com>, "20583, BENNING, BRUCE" <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!BENNING> writes:
|> >Subj:	RE: Pesach and Easter -- 1854
|> >From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
|> >Subject:Re: Pesach and Easter
|> >Date: 6 Apr 1992 14:43:30 -0700
|> >
|> >In article <1992Apr6.130123.1@tamar.compserv.utas.edu.au> b_robinson@tamar.compserv.utas.edu.au writes:
|> >>Looking at the calendar last night, I noticed that the Passover falls on Easter
|> >>this year (i.e. they coincide).
|> >
|> >Shouldn't they *always* coincide?
|> >
|> >Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu      ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
|> 
|>  Some people do seem confused. When asked what day EASTER falls on, I
|>  respond, "If you mean the RESURRECTION Day, it falls a few days after
|>  the Passover. If you mean the celebration of SPRING, I don't really 
|>  know."
|> 
|>  --- Bruce Benning
|> 

Speaking of Passover...as a gentile christian I have always thought
that we have lost a great deal by ignoring our Jewish heritage. In
particular since we believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of the
passover lamb it seems that Passover should be a very important event
for us. I also note that Communion was instituted at the Passover and
Jesus said "as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me". I can
only assume that the this that he referred to was Passover. Sooo...
I would like to learn more about the cerimony with an eye toward
participating in a Passover next year. How should I go about this?
Are there some books I should read (the Torah of course but I was
thinking of a step by step how to book)? Should I maybe contact a
messianic congregation in my area?

Please respond via. email as I may not get to read the news very
often.

BTW. I have been watching the conversations for a couple of days. Very
interesting stuff.

				mike
			shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: More on free will
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:58:43 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <1992Apr6.221709.12120@news.eng.convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.185756.1707@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>                                [...]
>>We know that God is the potter and we are the clay.  Why do we need to 
>>discuss whether free will is really free will at all?
>
>Which was my point exactly.  I found it humorous and sad that the very
>statement that we have free will (without delineating any implications)
>brought out such a strong outburst.

I don't think my "outburst" was very strong, I was simply trying to get you
to support your off the cuff comment from the Scriptures.  What are the
implications of the doctrine of "free will?"

One of the reasons we end up discussing "free will" is because humans, and
even Christians, think too highly of themselves when it comes to their
relationship with God.  Advocates of the doctrine of "free will" sometimes
seem to believe that the fall was kind of a glitch on the path to
everlasting righteousness.  Nothing serious ... just a minor inconvenience
that needed to be adjusted by Jesus.   They teach that unbelievers are just
sick, and need some of Dr. Jesus' medicine to get better.  As I understand
the doctrine, "free will" is the notion that a human's will is not so
totally affected by the fall that he cannot respond positively towards God
given enough encouragement.  We are sort of like spiritual fence-sitters,
waiting to be pushed in one direction or another.  If Jesus yells loud
enough, and gets our attention, our "free will" will take us in His
direction.  If Satan gets the upper hand in the shouting battle, then we
may want to go his way.  But it's ultimately our choice to make.  We are
the one's in control.  We're not so bad as to be totally unable to "accept
Christ," and we're not so good as to be totally immune from the devices of
the Devil.

This may be a caricature, but it's the way I've heard it presented.   And
so I believe it's an incorrect understanding of the biblical teaching on
the subject.  The Bible teaches that all men are dead, not just sick.  Sick
men can reach out and take the medicine, or reject it.  They have "free
will."  Dead men can't and don't.  The Bible teaches that Jesus calls each
of His children by name, just as He did with His friend  Lazarus.  When He
calls us by name we come to life.  A dead man cannot pick himself up from
the tomb without an act of resurrection taking place in his soul.

Don't think too highly of yourselves or the unsaved.  Only God's definite
action upon their soul can cause them to be raised from the dead.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Armageddon NOW!
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:41:37 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <1992Apr14.094400.15815@pbs.org> btiffany@pbs.org writes:
>
>>He was born in literal Bethlehem, just as the prophet said.  He
>>will return to literal Jerusalem, just as the prophet said.  And
>>so on ...
>
>Amen!  Maranatha!

This seems to be a curious twist of the words of Scripture.  Where did the
prophets say the Messiah would RETURN to literal Jerusalem?  In fact, where
did the prophets teach that the Messiah would come, and then go away, and
then return to "literal" Jerusalem to reign on a "literal" throne?

We know God tells us in the NT that Messiah has already come to the
Jerusalem above which is free.  And there He will reign, enthroned in the
power of the majesty on high, until He has put all enemies under His feet,
including death.  The throne and the city which Jesus now occupies, and the
reign which He now enjoys, are far more "real" and "literal" than the
invention of the "literalists."  Because they are the true biblical
manifestations of Jesus' power and dominion.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: re: pesach and easter (resurrection day)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:00:54 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Apr9.195129.13635@portland.mdc.unisys.com>, tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr8.164724.11735@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> >
|> >Speaking of Passover...as a gentile christian I have always thought
|> >that we have lost a great deal by ignoring our Jewish heritage. In
|> >particular since we believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of the
|> >passover lamb it seems that Passover should be a very important event
|> >for us. I also note that Communion was instituted at the Passover and
|> >Jesus said "as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me". I can
|> >only assume that the this that he referred to was Passover. ...
|> 
|> I would not make such an assumption.

I don't even understand Michael's paragraph.  He's using
the word "fulfillment" in a technical sense different
from the technical sense which Laura Manninen defined
earlier.  What does it mean for a person to fulfill a lamb?

Incidentally in an earlier posting about Passover, I pointed
out that the original passover (from Torah) required not *a* lamb, but
multiple lambs, a different one for each household.  What
do you believe is the connection between these multiple lambs
and the single Jesus?

|> 
|> It seems odd to me that Christians would want to look at rabbinic
|> traditions regarding Passover, most developed long after the time of
|> Christ, in order to better understand our Lord's sacrifice, and the meaning
|> of the new covenant in His blood.  As Bruce Tiffany has pointed out on many
|> occasions, many of the rabbinic traditions were specifically formulated in
|> opposition to the emerging Christian community of believers.  The modern
|> Passover is no different.

Bruce has asserted this in general, but I wouldn't call that
"pointing out".  Which features of the modern Passover do
you claim were specifically formulated in opposition to the
emerging Christian community of believers?  

|> 
|> Jesus adjusted the Passover to suit the needs of the emerging, universal
|> Church.  Apparently it changed from an annual feast to a weekly one (Acts
|> 2:42), and was simplified considerably on the night before He was betrayed.
|> Don't forget, He gave the Church His Supper to teach us about of His death
|> and resurrection, and as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup we
|> "show His death until He comes again" (I Cor. 11:26).
|> 

Having implied that the Jews changed the passover, you now admit
that the Christians changed the passover more drastically.  This
sort of undercuts the motivation for the Jews to change theirs
to distinguish it from the Christian, doesn't it?



-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Pesach and Easter
Date: 10 Apr 1992 03:08:25 -0700
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

I'm not sure about this, but I seem to remember that Easter in the
western church always falls on a Sunday, and is tied to a lunar event.

-- 
favourite oxymorons:   student athlete,   military justice,   civil war
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu      ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Archives Wanted (US And World Views)
From: psmoker@desire.wright.edu
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:32:44 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

Wanted-Archives
More specifically, a copy of my response to Patrick a while ago under
US and World Views. If anyone has archives they could send to me, or
direct me in the proper direction for an FTP site, Please, save me the
agony of having to do it all over again....

Geosh VonVathauer
psmoker@desire.wright.edu
From: nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:11:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Apr8.111117.1977
Organization: Indiana University

In article <53798@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> jan@oas.olivetti.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.153752.20990@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.200503.9860@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu 
>>(Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>>	I thought that the artical was classically conservative - try and
>>>show how a certain section of society is defined by the criminal class,
>>>and attempt to punish that section based on that relationship. I wonder if
>>>she considers herself pro-family?
>>
>>    Strange, I thought that the article was classically extremist - 
>>first outline a problem in simplistic terms, and then use statistics to
>>try and blame all instances of the problem on some unrelated and probably
>>innocent third party. I wonder if she's in favor of a negotiated compromise
>>about who should pay in light of the fact that she benefits from locking
>>up these dangerous criminals just as much as the rest of us.
>
>Are y'all serious?

    No, Jan, not really. I was just sort of playing out the parable of
the blind men and the elephant (each blind man felt a different part of
the elephant, so to one the elephant was a wall, to another it was a
tree, etc).

>Face it -- if you want to "simplify" about white men, you're extremist, if
>you want to "simplify" about black people or women or anybody else, you're 
>conservative.

    That sounds like a little bit of a simplification in itself. What
does simplification about Usenet postings make you? (intelligent probably).

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: "Andrew C. Aiken" <aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:25:15 -0500

In <1992Apr10.145243.6031@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:

>In article <1992Apr9.111241.2882@arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.uucp (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Another comment: When the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will 
>>not outlaw abortion, it will simply turn the choice over to the states.  
>>If there is a great amount of public support for abortion, then what 
>>is N.O.W concerned about? People in the individual states will vote 
>>to maintain the legality of abortion. 

>I agree with you up to this point. I think Row vs Wade will be
>overturned. But I don't know what the consequence will be. I don't
>know whether it will be turned over to the states or simply
>UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If unconstitutional (based on protecting the life
>of the unborn child), then States can't legalize it too. I don't
>think Congress can pass a law to allow it either, since the
>Constitution has precedence. If Congress had passed a law, then
>the law would be unconstitutional, by definition. The Constitution
>must be changed. Am I right about this?


	The Supreme Court cannot rule abortion unconstitutional, and in
doing so, prohibit it.  The Court is just the final arbiter of any legal
dispute.  It has been the precedent that the Court may decide upon the
constitutionality of a particular law.  It may say, for example, that
laws regulating abortion are constitutional.  But by the 10th amendment,
it may not simply outlaw abortion.  It can and should, out of respect
for the Constitution, return the decision to the people in their respective
states.  There is no such thing as a law that makes an act legal.  A 
particular act is legal only in the absence of laws prohibiting it.  The
federal Constitution is an intentionally sparse document, one based on the  
principle that the fewer laws there are at the federal level, the better.


Andrew Aiken

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: White House Sleeping Arrangements
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:20:48 -0500

In article <1992Apr13.173338.29068@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com 
(Edward Man) writes:
>In article <44@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>Again Ed, Why does Bill's sexual habbits matter?
>
>Does it make any difference to you if Slick Willy admits that Geniffer
>Flowers was his mistress, and still is? Furthermore, he's 5 other
>mistresses in five different states. He has no intention to stop
>these relationships. Hilary, Gennifer, and all of the other 5 women
>will all move into the White House. (There's plenty of room, don't
>worry.) How do you feel about that? Will you still vote for him?

    Oh come on now... Willy doesn't have these other 5 women living with
him now does he? Why should he have them move in at the White House? He'll
probably park them in a Georgetown condo instead. He may be slick but
he's not stupid.

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: zaphod@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jeff Rountree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Broadcast station adnd times?
Date: 10 Apr 1992 14:57:33 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


Hiya,
	I'm new to this group, but have heard about rush-limbaugh from freinds.
They all told me it's a great program, and they listen to it, HOWEVER,  I am
unable to find out when or on what station it airs.  I live in Manhattan Ks., and
if there's anyone out there who can help me out with this query, I'd be most
thankful.
-- 
| zaphod@matt.ksu.ksu.edu | I wouldn't trust myself any farther than I 
| zaphod@ksuvm.ksu.edu    | could spit a rat! --> Zaphod Beeblebrox
| -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| Jeff Rountree, 626 Marlatt Hall, Manhattan Ks. 66506 
Organization: Junior, Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 1992 11:47:45 -0400 
From: Andrew David Weiland <aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
	<29E3E8F3.12311@ics.uci.edu>

bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes,

>The Pro-Choice movement was never a "fringe" movement.  

Nor is the Pro-Life movement.

>Gallup poll after Gallup poll has shown that a majority of Americans
are >opposed to making abortion illegal.

And also shows that the majority are opposed to abortion as a personal choice.

>Plus, there are many more Pro-Choice Republicans than there are
>Pro-Life Democrats.

Interesting proposition, I assume you have something besides anecdotal
evidence to back it up.  People in my state might disagree with you.

>The Pro-Life movement is dominated largely by devout Catholics and
>fundamentalist Christians.  Not exactly a majority of Americans.

Stereotypes are awfully useful, and often inaccurate.