HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cnc@sweep.bt.co.uk (Colin Crist)
Newsgroups: alt.vampyres
Subject: Re: Anne Rice movie--FINALLY!
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:42:18 GMT
Reply-To: cnc@sweep.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

In article 3907@nic.csu.net, beth@nermal.SantaRosa.Edu (Beth Winegarner) writes:
>I read this morning that there really is going to be a movie made of
>"Interview With the Vampire."  The director is the guy who made "The Crying
>Game"... Geffen movies is producing it, and the script has been written by
>Rice herself...
>
>I can't wait to see it.
>
>No actors have been signed on yet....


Odd, on "Loose Ends" on Radio 4 on Saturday, Ned Sherrin had Anne Rice as a guest
and she made is clear that although Geffen was investigating the film, he has
until (i think) end of Feb to come up with a proposal with Warner. She said
nothing about writing the screenplay (although I didn't hear all of the interview)
and actually discussed the problems that other writers have had with the
screen play.

Can anyone clarify exactly whats going on ??

Colin.
Newsgroups: alt.exploding.kibo
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:47:56 EST
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Getting the facts!

I agree with 'Newport' on the matter of lack of historical proof about Jesus,
his birth-date, his so-called crucifixion, and surely about what he said and
preached. The whole history about these important pieces are either missing,
or are of dubious origin, knowing very well how these have been distorted or
corrupted by zealous evangelists to make a god out of a human being. Out of
this mess, as Newport rightly mentioned, the gospel accounts are anything but
trustworthy, and that is why, there are so much inconsistencies between the
various narrations, from birth to so-called ascension of Jesus. All these
writings about Jesus in the NT cannot be considered to be inerrant word of
God, or inspired by God, when they contradict each other on essential details.
There are other writings about Jesus, which are considered to be Apocryphal
by christian clergy, and which has survived, which provide quite a different
understanding about the teachings of Jesus, and about his life. Which one
to believe in - is it these pseudepigraphic books which now form the canonical
books of NT or the Apocryphal books (e.g., Gospel of Barnabas, and the Second
Treatise of the Great Seth. The first is available through American Trust Publi
cations, and includes comments by M.A. Yusseff.)?

I have posted a reply to Vijay's mathematical proof in the talk.religion.misc.

---
Siddiqui.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred)
Subject: Chabad and Messiah
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:12:00 GMT

I went home and reread the Jerusalem Post article on Chabad and Rebbe
Schneerson. It isn't as clearcut as I had remembered and posted. *sigh*

The article quotes a Rabbi Nashon as proclaming the Rebbe as King Messiah.
The "usual" Chabad spokesman, Menachem Brodt, originally told the reporter
"no comment", but "when pressed" stated that the fact that Rabbi Nashon
is leading this "should tell you something". Hummm. Apparently there is
an internal division, and the fact that Rebbe Schneerson cannot speak is
allowing this situation to continue (Rabbi Nashon is based in Israel).

I should know more after the weekend; some friends are going to NY and visiting
in Crown Heights. If I find out anything, I'll let you know.

Until then, let me withdraw my earlier assertion that Chabad had officially
declared Rebbe Schneerson the Messiah. They are apparently divided on the
issue, and it isn't clear (to me) exactly what the situation is.

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

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 17:22:05 GMT

In article <1k0r70INNj01@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber) writes:
]Mark C. Carroll (carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu) wrote:
]: 
]: 1] Jews don't believe in human sacrifice. That's the lesson of the binding
]:   of Yitzhak.
]: 
]There is no indication of that in Torah. The lesson of the binding of Yitzhak
]is that Avraham had faith to believe that HaShem would resurrect Yitzhak.
]

There is no indication of THAT in the Torah. For citations of the
Jewish interpetation, I'd recommend taking a look at the Soncino
Chumash. (I don't have a copy with me in the Office; I'm relatively
sure that I'm mentioning the correct publisher for the one my
synagogue has always used, but I tend to confuse this.)

]Such faith was enough to be credited to Avraham as righteousness. So the
]lesson for us:
]	Righteousness can come apart from Torah by faith in a resurrection.

No Jew would *ever* say that. Tzedakah comes from following Mitzvot,
and from doing the right thing. Not from blind faith, without action.
(Can someone help me find the citation, I believe from Rambam, that it
is better to perform Mitzvot without belief, than to have belief but
not perform the Mitzvot?)

]While we're on the subject, why does Moshe say `it is said to this day, "In
]the mount of the L-RD it *will* be provided."' if the providence is referring
]to the ram-substitute provided for Yitzhak?

Because when the words were said, Abraham had not yet seen the Ram
that God provided. "It will be provided", and so he looked, and it
was.

	<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.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Organization: University of Turku
	<LJMORLY.93Jan21113710@polaris.utu.fi>
	<KRULWICH.93Jan25112343@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
	<1k1fhkINNppq@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 08:25:22 GMT

In article <1k1fhkINNppq@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love) writes:
> In article <KRULWICH.93Jan25112343@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
> >veyesh potrin			and there are those who interpret
> >				[the "sign" that is mentioned in Is.]
> >she'zeh ha'os			that this is the sign 
> >				["os" is the Ashkenazic pronounciation]
> >she'alma hi'sa			that she was an "alma"
> >v'eina re'uya li'valed		and was not capable of giving birth

[...]

>  But, in context, "livaled" is clearly pi'el and means "to
> give birth." Because transliteration is a difficult art, I would
> suggest that vocalizing "sheva" should be rendered by the "'"
> sign: l'valed.

That's according to which I transliterated it in the first place. 
(Just used 'e' for shva.) Nice to see at last some sensible stuff 
from you.  (-:

And BTW, how would you (or anyone else) translate 'almah' in the 
above translation by Dov ? (Remember, Rashi is using it as an 
ordinary word and not giving an interpretation for 'almah' which
he has done already.) 

> ________________________________________
> Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
> 		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)

- 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
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: *** MoJ: Proof 4b: Chronology (2 of 3) ***
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:09:41 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


Yesterday I said that I would take the 5,937 years that I had arrived
at in my research and make them into something bigger.

My initial conjecture is that God is still using the 360 day year in
the fulfilment of his plans and prophecies and what we understand by
6,000 years should really be 6,000 years of 360 days each.

I mentioned last week that the Genesis flood record was based on the
360 day year.  So an important question is 'When does the Tanakh stop
talking about 360 day years and move onto something different?'

It must be at the giving of Law 2,448 years after Creation.  Here the
Jewish year is introduced.  Whilst the Jewish year is not the solar
year, it turns out that over a long period of time, n Jewish years are
equal to n solar years. (n > 20 say).

Therefore the 5937 consists of 2,448 "prophetic" years and 3489 solar
years.  We have to convert only this last quantity back:

2448 =======> leave alone ============> 2448
3489 ====> x 365.242 / 360 ===========> 3539.8 +
----                                    ------
5937 =======> becomes ================> 5987.8
----                                    ------

So, according to this Messiah should be revealed 1987.8 "prophetic"
years ago.  In solar dating this is:

1993 ======> leave alone =============> 1993
1987.8 ====> x 360 / 365.242 =========> 1959.3 -
                                        ------
                                          33.7
                                        ------
According to this, Messiah would be revealed in the early 30's.  I am
the first to admit that this date is still 1 0r 2 years greater than
the 31/32 which I already cited for the Crucifixion - but what's 2
years when you are talking about 6,000 ?


Here's the task for the refuters: 

I am sure that you could re-work my calculations and prove that Jesus
was about 5 or 10 or even 20 years too early or late to fulfil the
Tradition of Elijah.  That's fine!  But what I really want to know is
WHY Messiah didnot come at the 4,000th year.  If you want to invalidate
this tradition which actually comes from a part of the Midrash then how
much more of the extra-Biblical stuff should we invalidate?

How much of the Tanakh?  Infact why dont we just throw everything away
and start a new religion or join the New Age? And how would you accuse
God of breaking the 4,000 year tradition?

Surely it would be easier to accept that Messiah came at the right time
but that we failed to recognise it?

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Length of years (was Re: ***MoJ: Proof 1: The Amazing Prophecy***)
Organization: University of Turku
	<1993Jan22.163414.6565@udel.edu>
	<1993Jan22.171745.7456@engage.pko.dec.com>
	<KRULWICH.93Jan25110158@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:46:24

In article <KRULWICH.93Jan25110158@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
> > carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> > >There is _no_ evidence of _any_ use of a 360 day calendar.

> > Babylonians were known to use a 360 day calender, which is consistent with
> > their use of base 60 arithmetics.  Remember that the Book of Daniel was
> > written in Babylonian Exile.  It is perfectly appropriate for it to use the
> > Babylonian 360 day year.

> Baloney.  Jews have always based everything religious on the Jewish calendar.
> Look at history and you'll find that elements of the calendars of the nations
> in which we've resided have never been adopted.  If fact, Jews have been so
> resilient about this that among the common anti-semitic decrees made by
> friendly cristian governments of the diaspora (such as prohibiting bris mila
> and Kosher food) was to prohibit calendrical calculations and celebrations of
> the new months.

> We've always used the same religious calendar, and it is this calendar, with
> leap year additions, that G-d was obviously using in prophesies.

Just a side note: Bill Coleman has an alternative interpretation for 
this prophesy (which Bruce Tiffany btw refuted), and he uses a 360-day-
year as well...
 
And I'd refrain from sticking ideas into God's head...

> Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
> krulwich@ils.nwu.edu

- 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
From: fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:15:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <HEM.93Jan26111837@col400.att.com>, H_Markowitz@att.com writes...
>On 25 Jan 93 21:37:34, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) said:
>> Ah, but you AREN'T TRANSLATING THE WORD 'ALMAH' ! 
>> Now, how would you translate it ? 'Barren' ??? 
> 
>The point being made is the sign is that an "almah" who was INCAPABLE of
>giving birth now gave birth.  Thus the translation of the word almah as
>young woman is completely valid.  That is, the sign is similar to that
>shown by Sarah when she gave birth to Yitzchak.

Not really all that similar. Sarah wasn't an almah, she was a old woman,
well past the age of childbearing. Was her pregnancy refered to as a sign?
Not in the Torah. HaShem simply states this is what will happen.

>The sign does not
>require that she be a virgin.  If almah meant a barren woman then Rashi
>would not need to add the last phrase.  If the word was to be virgin
>then he would have added something like "veish lo yeda'ah" as appears in
>several places.  Thus the phrse means a young woman who is not capable
>of giving birth.

It is also a pretty poor sign when a young (married) woman, of childbearing 
age, gives birth to a child. This sort of thing happens all the time, and
while we may regard it as God's favor, very few people would take it as
a sign "as deep as Sheol or as high as Heaven". Now if a virgin gives birth,
that *is* highly unusual! (Unless you think perhaps Achaz had the doctors
of his day examine the woman and know that she was medically infertile?)

But you are correct... it doesn't *prove* it one way of the other. All we
have is the Septuigint translation, and the tens of thousands of first
century Jews who did in fact accept this account, as used by Matthew, that
the sign was a virgin would give birth. This would also be in perfect
accord with your use of almah. But the conclusion would be... naaah.

fnixon@sol.cs.utc.edu
fnixon@utkvx.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Bar Kochba And Moshiach
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 23 Jan 93 12:58:23

In article <1jp4tvINNhq1@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@fir.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
> In article <142035.2B5F54C8@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>, Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
> |>  GF> It is true that Rabbi Akiva felt that Bar Kochba was the Moshiach.
> |>  GF> But you have to understand more than this sentence before jumping 
> |>  GF> to a conclusion.
> |> 
> |>      Well..., Bar-Star took the Rebbe Akiva seriously enough, that he
> |>      required his "brethern" to chop off a finger to show alliance!

> Thank you for proving my point.  These people were not observant Jews.  
> Chopping off a finger is a serious averah.  In order to discourage such a 
> thing (including via ma'aris ayin) anyone who serves in the Bais HaMikdosh 
> must be physically complete (except foreskin).  If one chops off his finger, 
> he is no longer able to serve in the Temple, and he has mutilated the body 
> lent to him by HaShem.

> Therefore these people were not *really* observant Jews, and if they were so
> far away from Judaism that they cut off a finger, then certainly they 
> could have followed anyone (including fFrank, Tzvi, Mickey Mouse, etc.)

By that time there was no temple, and Rav Akiva was one of the great 
Rabbis, so I wouldn't be as quick as you here. 

> Give us a mainstream learned Jew who follows the mitzvos and halacha as 
> examples to prove your points, instead of a heretics.

Has it ever occurred to you that Judaism might not be the same anymore 
as it was 2000 years ago ? Like, if we drop out all Gentile influence
from Christianity, and only think about whether Yeshua is the real Messiah
or not, how can it be that he doesn't fit so well to the picture of Messiah
you have learned in Yeshiva ? Yeshua wasn't any scholar, as they teach the
Messiah will be; he did miracles, unlike what is expected of the Messiah,
he died, opposite (?) of what the Messiah should do...

> Gedaliah Friedenberg
> -=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
> -=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
> -=-Michigan State University

Regards, 
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
From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Disproof of "Proof 2" (was *** MoJ: Proof 2: The Passover Prophecy
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:05:20 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

In article <93026.150319RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
[ challenges about prayer ...]
>Let my christian friends do anyone of the above two prayers, I am
>sure he will get the answer. Don't forget to announce your intention to
>other folks and do it earnestly for several hours. How about that?
>
>Again, I don't intend to belittle my christian friends. I thought this is
>indeed a logical way to go for christians if they believe too strongly about
>the divinity of Jesus. (To this date, I have not found a single volunteer
>to take up the first challenge, the second was taken by one Portuguese-
>American student, who now abandoned christinity.)
\\\\\\\\

I have already done this, in effect, as a former skeptical atheist. And
I got a very startling answer from God that I was wrong about Jesus.

Also, it is a sin for you to challenge others to ask God to harm them
if their beliefs are wrong. Moreover, you are presuming against God's
mercy, and putting God to the test. Yet another grave sin.

D.H.

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: marcbg@feenix.metronet.com (Marc Grant)
Subject: Re: The Messiah
Organization: Tx Metronet Communications Services, Dallas Tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:34:12 GMT
Distribution: alt

For someone who has watched this debate from inside and out for years, I
only ask:  Can someone explain to me what difference it makes?  The point
is clearly made that both Messianic Jew and Traditional Jew agree - the
Messiah will come (again?).  Why does it matter if it is the second coming
or not?  The key is to recognize the true Messiah when he comes.  If he is
the true Messiah, he will recognize those that have been faithful to Hashem.

Do you think that he is going to care on which side of this debate we are?
He will tell us that we are measured by our deeds to serve Hashem, not on
whom can make the best argument for one side or the other.

In arguing about the past, we are loosing sight on the true meaning of the
future, and the true mission of the Messiah.

With love,
Marc
 

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred)
Subject: Re: *** MoJ: Proof 5a: Dispersion (1 of 2) *** (my favourite proof)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:13:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.103314.21211@ucl.ac.uk>, ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes...
>These entries also explain why there are still very few Jewish
>believers in Jesus.  Having rejected Messiah, the last thing that was
>on God's mind was YET ANOTHER reconciliation with Israel.

Uhhh... this is the people that are the apple (pupil) of God's eye. You
really need to read Sha'ul (Paul) and think about this carefully. I think
that God's thoughts are much higher than ours, and I wouldn't want to 
speculate about what is or isn't on His priority list.

>Having sent
>them other prophets and wise men on previous occasions, most of whom
>they also  rejected, God was clearly hurt at this latest and worst of
>all insulting acts.

I think God isn't surprised or hurt (in the sense of being upset) by anything
that happens. It isn't like things are occuring without divine permission.

> 
>"Oh really? Does he? Have you ever read Yoma 39b? [pause to read it]. 
>You see God left the Temple at the Crucifixion so what is He going to
>say when the Temple is rebuilt - ' Oh look! Shiny new Temple! I think
>I'll get straight back in there and restart the Old Covenant. ' - ? 
>I DONT THINK SO!"

What do you think about the Temple of Ezekiel? You might try reading 43:4
from that book.

fnixon@sol.cs.utc.edu
fnixon@utkvx.utk.edu
From: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Getting the facts!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 13:35:26 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

 (RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com) wrote:
: I agree with 'Newport' on the matter of lack of historical proof about Jesus,
: his birth-date, his so-called crucifixion, and surely about what he said and
: preached. The whole history about these important pieces are either missing,
: or are of dubious origin, knowing very well how these have been distorted or
: corrupted by zealous evangelists to make a god out of a human being. Out of
: this mess, as Newport rightly mentioned, the gospel accounts are anything but
: trustworthy, and that is why, there are so much inconsistencies between the
: various narrations, from birth to so-called ascension of Jesus. All these
: writings about Jesus in the NT cannot be considered to be inerrant word of
: God, or inspired by God, when they contradict each other on essential details.

Such as?

: There are other writings about Jesus, which are considered to be Apocryphal
: by christian clergy, and which has survived, which provide quite a different
: understanding about the teachings of Jesus, and about his life. Which one
: to believe in - is it these pseudepigraphic books which now form the canonical
: books of NT or the Apocryphal Books. 

I just ask HaShem and He tells me! Try asking Him, you may be suprised.

: Siddiqui.

In His Majesty's Service

James Tauber (Yaakov ben-Avraham)
jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Re: *Classic Testimony: Reb Asher Wade*
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:01:48 GMT

rincoll.edu> <HEM.93Jan25100743@col400.att.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Keywords:

In article <HEM.93Jan25100743@col400.att.com> H_Markowitz@att.com writes:
>
>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.
>
> Hillel Markowitz

Gedaliah has become an ironist?  Gadzooks!  Maybe it's moshiach
time after all.

nm


Newsgroups: alt.messianic