HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred)
Subject: Re: A Neutral Prayer (was Re: Disproof of "Proof 2")
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:32:00 GMT

In article <fYv5u5U@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes...
>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.
>

Oh! Now I see. You simply don't have any idea what the New Testament
position on the Oneness of HaShem happens to be. You pick something
out of context, and parade it around. Of course you are confused, just
like I would be if I were to call the Tanach idolatrous because Job
records the "sons of Elohim" coming before HaShem.

>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.

It is quite difficult to know where to start when someone deliberatly confuses
the blood and body with crosses and fish. I could answer the (sensible, from
a nonMessianic Jewish perspective) wine and the bread issue, if I thought
it were a sincere question, and not simply an antagonistic jab.

fnixon@sol.cs.utc.edu
fnixon@utkvx.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.slack
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Bible Prophesy
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:36:46 UTC

In article <93021.112435U60829@uicvm.uic.edu> <U60829@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Is there any group on the net which deals with Bible Prophesy concerning our
>future either Jewish or Christian, which I feel, is esseintialy (sp?) the
>same.  Also maybe a Islamic group.  Or is this it?

alt.slack
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Length of years (was Re: ***MoJ: Proof 1: The Amazing Prophecy***)
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:46:27 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <KRULWICH.93Jan25110158@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
>
>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.
>
>
>Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
>krulwich@ils.nwu.edu
>

You must have missed my original posting when I pointed out that the 
Genesis Flood Record uses 360 day years.  Also the Jewish calendar was
not given until the exodus so what need did God have for such a calendar?

The switch from 360 to Jewish is important in understanding my proof no 4
which is Elijah's teaching that Messiah would come at the 4,000 th year.

Vijay

> 
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: Length of years (was Re: ***MoJ: Proof 1: The Amazing Prophecy***)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
	<KRULWICH.93Jan20103948@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
	<1993Jan21.172455.14665@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:46:06 GMT


I wrote:

> >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.

and ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) replied:

> 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

I agree with you.  It's up to Him, and He said that years must be set up such
that Pesach is in the spring, and so leap months must be added.  This was done
in the times of the Temples as well as in the diaspora.

Now, I've given Biblical support for the fact that years cannot be simply 360
days long according to the Torah, and historical support for the fact that
leap months were always added.  Do you have any support for this fantasy that
G-d means something different "whilst" talking about prophesies?


> Still waiting for sensible refutations.

Still waiting for a sensible proof.


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

 
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: Length of years (was Re: ***MoJ: Proof 1: The Amazing Prophecy***)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
	<1993Jan21.172455.14665@ucl.ac.uk> <1993Jan22.163414.6565@udel.edu>
	<1993Jan22.171745.7456@engage.pko.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:01:58 GMT


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.


Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
krulwich@ils.nwu.edu
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: *** MoJ: A good disproof of proof 1 should be... ***
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:17:14 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


I have said it before and I will say it again - There is no SENSIBLE
refutation of the Daniel 9 prophecy.  So far all that the refuters have done
is to cast aspersions on the 360 day year and other such trivia.

A refutation will consist of posting up any fulfilment that discludes Jesus. 
I already took the trouble to refute any versions containing Cyrus because I
knew that all the Jewish commentaries contain this version.

Suppose that you all agree with 445 BC as the start date but insist on a
Jewish or solar year then you will have to name the mashiach nagid after
exactly 7 or 69 (depending on your own choice of punctuation) 'weeks'.
Then name the mashiach cut off (executed) between 39 CE and the destruction
of the Temple. ( 39 = -445 + 69x7 +1 ).  Substantiate dates and facts with
sources - Jewish or non-Jewish I dont mind.

OR you might want a different start date - please say which date and why and
then proceed as above.

OR please accept this prophecy as proof of Jesus' Messiahship.

Thank you

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: 'the' interpreting of daniel
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:04:52 -0800
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <1993Jan25.111610.1@unca.edu> bthurman@unca.edu writes:
>but
>what may not be known would be the understanding of thousands of christians
>with whom i was associated in Greece

A week ago, a friend of mine mailed me a book.  (You should all have
such friends!)  It was from the Geneva Bible Comentary series, and it is
Jean Calvin's commentary on Daniel.  (You shall not covet.  :-)  I don't
have a lot of time for reading it, and so I probably won't get to it for
a few months.  However, after I read it, I'll post any really
interesting things that Calvin had to say.

For those not in the know, Jean Calvin was one of the great figures in
the Protestant Reformation in western Christendom.  If you are a
Protestant, of any flavour, you can trace the history of your branch of
Christ's Church back through him and/or Martin Luther.

-- 
"Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible."    --RC Sproul
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu       ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: The Messiah
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<KRULWICH.93Jan27101211@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:40:37

In article <KRULWICH.93Jan27101211@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
>   > In arguing about the past, we are loosing sight on the true meaning of the
>   > future, and the true mission of the Messiah.
>
>   Just the opposite: we're focusing on the true meaning of the Moshiach.  Jews
>   believe that the Moshiach's mission is to bring peace.  J-for-J types want to
>   convince you that the Moshiach's mission is to be killed.

Not at all.  The Messiah's mission was not to be killed, but to be the
lamb of God that takes away our sins.  That he had to be killed to
fulfill God's promise is only a part of the story.

It is amazing what silly (or malicious?) trivialization will do to a
religion.  You may as well say that a Jew's mission in life is to eat
Matzoh crackers on Passover.

Here is a question for the more informed Messiah-waiters out there:
Why should the Messiah bring peace to the world?  You have to remember
that God has not been an altogether peaceful deity; He has ordered
lots of wars and massacres through the centuries.  Why should He all
the sudden decide that peace on earth is His purpose after all?  I
just don't understand.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Length of years (was Re: ***MoJ: Proof 1: The Amazing Prophecy***)
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:17:45 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <1993Jan22.163414.6565@udel.edu> 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.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Rashi's Quote (was Re: Almah - Betul
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:13:04 GMT
Organization: University of Turku

In article <142063.2B617A67@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
>  LJM> Actually the infinitive form for 'yalda' is 'laledet', not
>  LJM> 'levaled' (lamed-vav-lamed-dalet). They obviously mean the same,
>  LJM> but I have no idea of the usage of 'levaled'. Anybody ?

> I'm no "expert" in Hebrew :-), but isn't that the root VAV-LAMED-DALET
> vaLAD - which means young whelp, infant, or newborn?  So... it would
> be: (dlvL) {considering the  context}: '...according-to-(her)-being-
> too-young.'; or: '...for she was a too young of a girl.'.

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.
 
> ... 012 Am Israel Chai! 210              
> --  
> Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
> UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
> INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG

- 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: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Almah and the controversy
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:09:58 UTC

In article <142118.2B65EEEB@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> 
Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
>Shalom All.  It seems to me that the reasons for not accepting "Almah" as 
>virgin can be listed as the following cf Isa 7:14
>1)  Almah does not mean "virgin" but young maiden.

*Almah* means *young woman*, nothing more, nothing less.

>2) If God had wanted to say virgin, He would have used "betullah"

*Isaiah* is speaking in this passage and the great prophet's words are as
recorded. One would think that if he meant a virgin is pregnant, a
rather unusual situation, he would have used the word for virgin:
Betullah. And one would not normally think of a young pregnant woman as
also being a virgin, however Isaiah does not mention the young woman's
sexual status at all.

>3) The context of Isa 7:14 has nothing to do with the messiah.

Read directly, the context is a prophecy of events to come, not
messianic. The child of the young woman is a sign, not an idol. However, 
there may be other levels of interpretation that may have something to do 
with *a* messiah.
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Rashi's Quote (was Re: Almah - Betul
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:53:02 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi

 LJM> Date: 21 Jan 93 11:37:10 GMT
 LJM> Organization: University of Turku
 LJM> Message-ID: <LJMORLY.93Jan21113710@polaris.utu.fi>
 LJM> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
 
 LJM> Actually the infinitive form for 'yalda' is 'laledet', not
 LJM> 'levaled' (lamed-vav-lamed-dalet). They obviously mean the same,
 LJM> but I have no idea of the usage of 'levaled'. Anybody ?
 
I'm no "expert" in Hebrew :-), but isn't that the root VAV-LAMED-DALET
vaLAD - which means young whelp, infant, or newborn?  So... it would
be: (dlvL) {considering the  context}: '...according-to-(her)-being-
too-young.'; or: '...for she was a too young of a girl.'.

... 012 Am Israel Chai! 210              
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Complete verification of Jesus
Organization: University of Turku
	<1993Jan22.164206.6956@udel.edu>
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:08:43

In article <1993Jan22.164206.6956@udel.edu> carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.174722.17913@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
> ]It really depends on your interpretation of getting it right
> ]first time.  The Jews of Jesus' day believed that Messiah would
> ]lead them to victory over the Romans so he failed.   
> ]
> ]The Jews of today believe that Messiah has to rebuild the Temple
> ]and so on so again Jesus failed.  But if you believe SCRIPTURE   
> ](and I do) then Messiah has to do the following:
> ]
> ]Offer himself as a sacrifice for sin (Isaiah 53)
> ]Be crucified (Psalm 22)
> ]Be cut off 69 x 7 years after the decree of Nehemiah (Dan 9, Neh1 & 2)
> ]
> ]then he succeeded.

> 1] Jews don't believe in human sacrifice. That's the lesson of the binding
>   of Yitzhak.

It isn't. The binding if Yitzchak is a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of 
Yeshua. (There's a Jewish prayer which says that, too, 'Al Chet' or 
something...)

> 2] The supposed crucification prophesy is a mistranslation, as has been
>   discussed on the net several times.

We have discussed on that, that's true, but a fact is that it's not 
any mistranslation but a forgery in the original text. Just make 'yod' 
of 'vav' and you get 'like the lion' instead of 'pierced'. But when you 
look more thoroughly at the context, you'll see which one fits better...
Furthermore it's translated 'pierced' in Syriac and Septuagint.

> 3] That's been dealt with by others; it's a dreadful misinterpretation, chock
>   full of holes. (Why 7 + 62 years? Come on...)

It's called cumulative counting.

> 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.

See my earlier postings on this. 

> 	<MC>

- 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: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah and the controversy
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:04:19 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <142118.2B65EEEB@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
>1)  Almah does not mean "virgin" but young maiden.

No. I speak 20th century American English. I have never heard
the word "maiden" used in common parlance except as part of the
term "iron maiden." Almah means "young *woman*". This is not
an opinion. See the dozen or so references I have already
posted on this subject. On the use of the word "maid" or
"maiden" see especially the citation of Otto Kaiser in my almah
posting part 4.

>2) If God had wanted to say virgin, He would have used "betullah"

This is an over-simplification. If God had wanted to proclaim
a sign by miraculous birth, she would have made it abundantly
clear so that even a simpleton such as myself could understand
it.

>3) The context of Isa 7:14 has nothing to do with the messiah.

Since I am clearly in the crowd of "opponents" you identify, I
would say that I personally don't believe Isaiah 7:14 has
anything to do with messianic prophesy within the context of
Isaiah's own time (8th century BCE). However, since the text
is fairly obscure and since we may no longer have its full
context, I wouldn't be willing to utterly rule out the possibility.
From my reading of major *Christian* commentators, however, many
of them do.

>Now if i am wrong with the above, please correct me. 

Done.
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: 'the' interpreting of daniel
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:53:55 -0800
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <1993Jan25.111610.1@unca.edu> bthurman@unca.edu writes:
>where the 70 weeks text remains a hotly disputed area among these Yeshuan
>Messianists!

I would greatly appreciate it if you would kindly post some of the
interpretations of this text that are popular among the Greek Orthodox.

>the more
>learned many of them are in the scriptures, the more they tend to tolerate a
>latitude of opinion within the christian camp.

That is because they are Catholic--not in the Roman sense--but in the
original definition of the Greek word.  Kathelos means universal.  One
is Catholic if one believes what all Christians have always believed, at
all times, and in all places.  If one *dogmatically* holds to western
dispensationalist interpretations of the Biblical text, one contradicts the
vast majority of Church history.

-- 
"Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible."    --RC Sproul
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu       ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: *** MoJ: B'nai Noah versus Christianity ***
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:36:22 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


The scene is set.  It's judgement day.  Unfortunately, the Gentiles learn that
Jesus ISNOT Messiah and that they have transgressed the Noahide Code: They
have worshipped the man, Jesus, as God.

What might the conversation between God and any Gentile be like?
Here's my vision:

=================================================================
GOD: Gentile, you have broken the Noahide Code.  You have no portion in the
world to come and I am sentencing you to eternal separation from me.

GENTILE:  But I thought that Jesus was Messiah and hence God (e.g. Psalm 2,
Isaiah 9:6 and many other scriptures)

GOD: Why did you think that Jesus was Messiah?

GENTILE: Well there were all those 'proofs' such as Isaiah 53.

GOD: *Actually* that was about Israel.

GENTILE: Then there was Psalm 22, the Crucifixion prophecy.

GOD: *Crucifixion?* Dont be silly, it was all about lions.

GENTILE: Then there was Daniel 9:24-27.

GOD: Er.... You're right! That was uncanny wasnot it? Even I couldnot refute
that one!!

GENTILE: So you admit that I had a right to believe in Jesus as Messiah?

GOD: Er... I suppose you did (even though he isnot)

GENTILE: So, therefore, I claim a right to the next world because it was your
error not mine.

GOD: Er....

[ conversation shortened, I dont want to offend anyone, most of all God. I
just want to make a point ]
==================================================================

What I am trying to say is that I dont think God would allow the above to
happen.  I dont think that He has been PURPOSELY ambiguous to confuse our
faiths.  

The purpose of Messianic prophecy is to ensure that people get it right.

The majority of people in the world arenot as clever as the refuters in this
forum.  They are simple people who desire to know God and want simple
assurances of their faith.

God knows this and hence makes things easy.  Daniel 9:24-27 is supposed to be
the least of all the stumbling blocks for coming to faith in Jesus - but too
many anti-missionaries are trying to make it the biggest.

Open your heart, not your mouth.

Love and kisses in Yeshua,

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)