HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Bruce Tiffany's .sig quote
Date: 14 Sep 1992 23:46:49 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Bruce Tiffany writes:

> "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black."  -- Henry Ford

Any reason in particular why you chose to feature a quote from one of
the worst Jew-haters in American history?

Rob




Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: lifdot & l'chaper (was: Re: Paradise (was Re:
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:30:52

In article <9209132200.AA13517@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.92Sep11140552@polaris.utu.fi> 
> > matter how you interpret the word 'bible'.) Without the sacrifice of 
> > Yeshua we are unable to go back. (See Is. 53, Ps. 40:7-9 & Job 19:25,26 
> > and forget about the wishful "explanations" of RL.

> That's a statement of Christian faith, not an argument.

Do you include all those Rabbinic views (by Bill Carlson) to this 
"Christian faith" as well ?

> >  As to the word 'ransom',
> > it's 'kofer (nefesh)' in Hebrew, not 'kapparah', although they have the 
> > same root.)

> The actual expression is "l'chaper" - "to atone."  Kapparah is the
> noun form, denoting the concept of "atonement."  The term "pidyon"
> denotes "a ransom" and this language is used throughout the Torah to
> indicate a redemptive ransom, such as Ex. 13:11-16, and elsewhere such
> as numbers 3:49, where "kesef hapidyom" denotes ransom.

"kopher" - "ransom" (R. Alcalay Complete Hebrew-English dictionary)
Both verbs, "lifdot" and "l'chaper" mean "to atone". "kapparah" is 
not the only noun form derived from the root kaf-peh-resh. "kapporet"
means "the Holy of Holies" and "kopher" means "atheist" as well. 

> Rob

- Laura
--
Loving the truth is loving God.
From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:44:40 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA


           ** Submitted for Bruce Benning by Bruce Tiffany **
           --------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book

>>In article <LJMORLY.92Aug30185025@polaris.utu.fi> writes:

>> [there] is no atonement of sins without a blood sacrifice (Lev. 16,17).

 Rob Levene suggests:
RL> Some atonement offerings were bloodless, and some atonement
RL> didn't even involve sacrifices.

R:> R

  While your statements are true, they are negligent. While some
  sins were atoned for initialy without blood, they were indeed
  covered by blood once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kippor.

  Once a year, atonement by blood was performed to cover the sins
  of Israel.

  Leviticus 16:16 says atonement will be made for the people of
  Israel by  blood, no matter what their sin might be. That
  was done after the mediator, the High Priest, atoned for his own
  life, and that of his family with blood.


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

       -------------Religion may inform and reform-------------
       ----------but only Messiah Jesus can Transform----------

     Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do
     what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what
     it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and,
     after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what
     he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect
     law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting
     what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed in what he
     does. -James 1:22-25
From: connie@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Constance Stillinger)
Subject: Re: Gentile Christianity is false?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:32:17 GMT

In <19920915.110627.837@almaden.ibm.com> mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Mann) writes:

>In private communications with Tom A., he is of the impression that some
>MJs in this newsgroup feel that MJ is not a sect of Christianity (like
>Methodist, Baptist or Roman Catholic), but the one true way, and gentile
>Christianity (as practiced by most Christians) is basically a false
>religion.

>Can you please comment on this?
>Please direct your responses to/at me, not to/at Tom.  Thanks.


Please post instead of or in addition to emailing, because I (and no
doubt others) would also like to see the responses to this.


--Connie
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Shunning and Psy-war
Date: 6 Sep 1992 22:32:58 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Bruce Benning writes:
>  Self-destructive activity? Having one's heart circumcised by the
>  Lord to the Lord?  Self-destructive? Lord have mercy!
>  - How is this action self-destructive?

For a Jew to practice other religions is spiritual destruction,
just as eating non-kosher food is spiritually injurious, on
a lesser scale.

>>>  So you do believe that the use of emotional/psychological warfare of
>>>  this nature is proper for Jewish parents against their children....

It isn't "proper" in the sense of polite, but when necessary,
I support it.  I didn't mean "proper" in the sense "permissible."

[...]
> I suspect that the shunning of a child, and dramatizing their death, though
> they still live is a Diaspora facilitation of the commands to stone a
> child who strikes or curses his parent(s). Am I correct?

Nope.


>> Intentionally portraying parents as enemies is a rather standard
>> technique.  I wonder if such people get their mandate from Luke 12:51-3 ?
>
>  This was actually the case for the early followers of Yeshua. Family
>  members would turn in the believing mom's, dad's, brother's and sister's
>  to the Roman authorities. The "mandate" you suggest in Luke 12 has been
>  misused by many of the cults in the world to separate families. This
>  is NOT the case in Messianic Judaism. We would love an invitation to
>  come over for bagels and coffee. :--)

Then what do you think of Christian missionaries who use it?  See Conway
and Siegelman's _Holy Terror_.  C & S primarily discuss fundamentalist
outreach to other Christians.

[...]
>  So the child who is now a "Jew for Jesus" is not an enemy of the
>  parent(s) unless they seek to bring Messiah Yeshua to other Jews.
>  Is that what you mean?

Only in the general sense that all who try to convert Jews are
enemies of the Jews.  This doesn't mean we can't work together
on common issues, such as tax credits for private school education
and support for Israel.


>>However, the possibility of bringing one's child back to
>>Judaism often justifies continued contact.
>
>  Rob, you make it sound like Judaism is more important than a
>  relationship with God. You also make Judaism sound like it is
>  just a culture, and not a community of priests. No insult intended
>  by the comments, but just an observation.

Judaism is a relationship with G-d.


>>>  Does this mean it is a valid
>>>  action for the children to use upon the parents in return?

>> If the threat "If you convert, you'll never see your grandchildren"
>> needs to be used as a last resort, it should be used.  'Shmad'
>> [spiritual destruction, conversion out of Judaism] is not
>> a matter to be taken lightly.

>  Sounds like a curse toward the parent(s). Isn't there a law against
>  that?

There is such as law, but this isn't a curse toward the parents.
However, this is only speculation, as I am not aware of any cases of
such a threat occurring.

R
From: Peggy.Baker@f2600.n9130.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Identification with Abraham
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:12:54 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:9130/2600

This rings true to me. Thanks for sharing this.

--  
Peggy Baker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Peggy.Baker@f2600.n9130.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: esd3@po.CWRU.Edu (Elisabeth S. Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Finding a Messianic Shule/Synagogue/Temple?
Date: 8 Sep 1992 18:31:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: af749@cleveland.freenet.edu (Philip D. Ferrante)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


How does one go about finding a Messianic Shule/Synagogue/Temple in
one's area?  I am in the greater Cleveland area.  Any Suggestions
will be warmly welcomed!

Thanks

Philip Ferrante
af749@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: The Fathers
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:02:08

In article <139914.2AA74AC1@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio) writes:
> LJ>From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
>     I assume that what is missing from my attempt to translate here is
> "the taking or spilling of...."

No, you've got it all right. Anyway, I'll comment on some points.

> LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag miflatzti -- Amos Oz
>     Jewish blood is a monsterous concept
> LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag matok -- Yasser Arafat
>     Jewish blood is a sweet concept
> LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag nifla -- Saddam Chussein
>     Jewish blood is a marvelous concept (Saddam Hussein)
> LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag meshaker -- haChomeinistim
>     Jewish blood is an intoxicating concept  (Iranian Khomeini)
the Khomeinists (Khomeini himself is dead.)

> LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag meshubach -- haChamas
>     Jewish blood is an excellent concept  (the Hamas terrorists)
> LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag meshagea -- haChizbollah
>     Jewish blood is a make-you-crazy concept  (the Hezbollah terrorists)
"Jewish blood is a concept that makes you crazy."

> LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag nehedar -- neo-nazim
>     Jewish blood is a wonderful concept (searchers for a scapegoat)
> LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag ila'i -- haPamyat
>     Jewish blood is the supreme concept (??? couldn't figure out)

The Pamyat. It's an ultra-right-wing organization in Russia. They accuse
Jews for the damages made by Communists there and wave pictures of 
the Orthodox Church priests and crosses. I haven't followed very much
lately what's going on in Russia; anyway it's in a state of total "balagan"
(nothing works) and old people (Jews included) are starving to death
because they aren't able to stand on a queue for hours. 
 
> And finally what appears to be the "Christianized" version of denial
> which gives life to the "Dam yehudi hu musag nehedar" perspective:
>     LJ>The Jewish blood... What's that ? -- Tom Albrecht  :-)

>     Shalom, Donna

Later, Laura
--
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans 
of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from ancient, from the days of eternity." - Micha 5:1

"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing 
love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.    - Yeshaya 54:10

met b'chet, CHAI B'Y'SHUA !
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Christian Use of Synagogue
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:25:26 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: bthurman

Did not the earliest communities of followers of the Rabbi from Nazareth,
Yeshua, sometimes apply the term synagogue to their meetings or meetingplaces?
Does not the Epistle of James 2,2 say, "If there come into your synagogue..."?
Could one not generalize that the Greek term synagoge underwent a transition
analogous to that which ekklesia later underwent?  Did both not move from quite
generic signification to more specific application to particular groups and
ultimately to the structure where they met?  May one not generalize about early
Christian writing that therein synagoge often refers to a building, but that
ekklesia still means the people?
Would not a quest for the heart of the truth be served by asking where the
'House of God' and where 'the Temple' is?
Wouldn't bearded Bill be remiss not to say that this is his first post in this
group?  And to ask whether anyone could possibly imagine that these represent
the opinions of UNC-A?
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Words Like Arrows
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:43:11 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <139978.2AAD8FE9@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
>    While, (at times), He 'helped certain Goyim'; He was not SENT to
>    them.  Matt. 28:18-20 is after Yeshua's resurrection; and is a
>    commission to His Talmidim, and was carried out directly by them
>    rather than Himself.

I'm not sure what your point is, but I think you may be trying to stretch it.
Jesus also said:

  I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
  As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my
  life for the sheep.
  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must
  bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one
  shepherd.  (John 10:14-16)

While Jesus was certainly a Jew, and ministered during His life primarily
to Jews, nevertheless on more than one occasion He preached good news to
non-Jews.  This would indicate that His ministry was hardly confined to the
Jews  He was certainly "sent" to save His people from their sins.  That
includes both Jews and gentiles.  

It baffles me as to why some MJs continue to stain that these issues of racial
distinction.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Words Like Arrows
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:44:26 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0


To: Robert Levene
 RA=>But you don't practice Judaism, you practice Christianity.  Your
 RA=>self-identification shouldn't cover up what you practice.

Robert, i practice Biblical and Rabbinic Judaism.  Of which is the mother 
of what you call Biblical Christianity.  However, i do not practice post 
Nicean Christianity, which i call Churchanity, because of its failures, and 
wrongs, and bad doctrine...

Of course, Robert i am an AOG minister, and i do not hide that either.
In fact no one ever comes to our Shul expecting to find a traditional 
Rabbinic Synagogue.  What they are looking for is Yeshua or they wouldn't 
come, as He is the center of all teaching at our Shule... 


--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Mann)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:12:36 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Genesis
Reply-To: mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM
Organization: IBM
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

In Article 3285 of alt.messianic I wrote:
>I would like to know what the MJ position is on interpreting Genesis,
>specifically the Creation account.
>Was it six 24-hour days, or millions of years?
>Was Noah's flood worldwide r just figurative?
>Does the UMJC has an "official" position?

So far, Tom Albrecht has been the only one to respond!

Is there a particular reason why any fellow MJs are avoiding this question?

Rob (Strom or Levene) care to provide a non-MJ, Jewish viewpoint?


 Shalom!  |  INTERNET: mannk@fshvmfk1.vnet.ibm.com            Christ
   Ken    |  VNET:     FSHVMFK1(MANNK)                          is
          |  IBMnet:   mannk@saskatchewan.fishkill.ibm.com    risen!
-----------------------------------------------------------
               You can only coast downhill!
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Rob's Law
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:31:43 GMT
Return-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>

Mr. Levene.  Not to sound disrespectful of your beliefs, but I'm having a
difficult time understanding where you are coming from.  I have been reading
your postings for some time now and while, on one hand I understand (somewhat)
you seem to feel your purpose is to lead MJs and other "lost" Jews back to
Judaism and the Torah, but, on the other hand, you seem not to fully embrace
the Torah yourself.

I am confused.  You advocate following the "letter" of the Law right down to
not eating pork et al.  But at the same time you seem to have renounced all
the things in the Torah that advocate physical harm toward others.

This doesn't make sense to me.  Either you are a Jew who follows the Law to
it's very last letter (as you seem to be telling me, Laura, and others) or you
are showing a form of hypocrisy.  If you believe so stongly in holding so
tightly to the Torah's every word why do you not give "blood" sacrifices?  Why
do you not seem to follow the commandments of "stoning" others for thier sins?

Do you practice a diluted form of Judaism or is the Torah "truth"?

At the present I fail to see your form of Judaism as true Judaism.  Is there
some "real" reason you and others now only obey 85% of the Torah (made-up %)?

I know why *I* believe this is true, but you would probably disagree.  I
believe that the REAL reason blood sacrifices have ceased is because for a Jew
to shed blood for the remission of sins *today* would be a most henious deed.
The Temple was destroyed to prevent this form of sacrilege continuing.  Yeshua
paid the ULTIMATE price for our sins, to sacrifice today would be like
slapping God in the face for his most precious of gifts: His Son.

When Jews start practicing the ENTIRE Torah, then I'll have more confidence
that what you say about Jews needing to return to Judaism (as an RJ) is a
faithful representation of your beliefs.  Until then you seem to be advocating
a different Judaism than your forefathers practiced (before Christ).

Don't you find it odd in the least that there has NOT been traditional Judaism
sice the time of Jesus Christ?  Could it be that something really did happen
to change the course of history?

While I sincerely thank you for your perspectinve on Judaism, especially in
light of my inheritance, I cannot follow you or your ways when they seem so
incongruious with what you seem to be advocating (i.e. obeying the entire
Torah... nothing less).

-Rich
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Racial Issues
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:16:32 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <140014.2AB13CD2@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio) writes:
>
>     I have replied to you in depth on Romans 11 before, Tom, so you are
> either ignoring that or it has been lost in computer space.  But I will
> be happy to address that again.

I must have missed it.

>     Racial issues are NOT the point of Romans 9-11. (How do you come
> up with that conclusion anyway?)  ...

Because I read it in the Bible.

>                                   You must listen to the heart of the
> apostle.  I borrow in what follows from the writings of a friend, Reuven
> Doron "The Mystery of Israel and the Church":

Donna,

Did you actually read what you quoted?  The whole issue in Romans 9-11
is racial.  Paul appeals to his brethren "after the flesh".  Is that not
a racial issue?  The question is: how does this racial issue play itself
out today?

Some simple questions will suffice, I think, to make my point.  Romans 11:
says:

  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
  lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is 
  happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out
  of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
  11:25,26)

Who is the "all Israel" being spoken of in this passage?  Does "all Israel"
refer to a nation, a corporate entity?  Is "all Israel" referring to racial
Jews (i.e., the physical descendents of Abraham)?   Is it referring to
covenantal Jews (i.e., physical Jews as well as converts to Judaism from
the gentiles)?   If "all Israel" includes converts to Judaism as well as
physical descendents of Abraham, does "all Israel" include converts to
Judaism since the time of Christ?  If "all Israel" refers to covenantal
Jews, doesn't that also include Christians, since we're called the
"children of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7).  Is that what who the apostle Paul had in
mind?  (Maybe those questions are not so simple.)

In other words, please give us a precise defintion of the phrase "all Israel"
in this context.  Is your definition a matter of race, yes or no?

BTW, contrary to what the author of the article says, the "restoration of
the Jewsish people as a nation to their land" is nowhere indicated in this
passage of Romans.

I would like to hear you share your own thoughts on this matter.  

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Xianity.
From: tbeaudoin@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:06:22 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

> My "conversion" to Christianity (NOT "Xtianity", I do not find that humorous!)
[...]
> -Rich

	Rich -- i'm a few days behind reading mail, so i assume someone
has written to you about "Xianity." It's usually not meant to be insulting,
and in fact has a long tradition -- look up the Greek letter "X" and perhaps
you'll understand why "Xianity" has been shorthand for "Christianity"
for a long time!

Thomas

TBEAUDOIN@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Anti-Semitism charges
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:55:28 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0


To: Donna D'Iorio
 DD=>    It's a matter of sight-lines, Tom. Your viewing from a 
 DD=>perspective
 DD=>that regards the traditional stance of the Church toward Jews as 
 DD=>normal

From TA's stance on that Jews are not really the true Jews today, i would 
say that he is either part of the Identity Church, or at least reads some of 
their literature, as that is what they postulate.  Their assumptions are 
that Jews are of Mongoloid descent, and not really related to those Jews who 
lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago.  That we are en essence related to 
the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the 8th century.  The main error 
with that is that the Khazars only continued for 200 years in Judaism and 
when overrun by the Moschis, (Russians), converted to Christianity...

I don't believe his stance reflects what traditional christianity believes 
at all...

So so much for theories... We are Jews because we are literal descendants of 
Abraham, just as the Palestinian Arabs are descendants of Abraham through 
Esau.  Of course there has been a lot of intermarriage along the way, but 
the seed that G-d counts for the promise will not pass away.

Next, from the beginning there was intermarriage.  If you remember Jacob 
married Syrians, out of the house of Laban his uncle.. Moses married 
Zipporah, an Ethiopian.  all along the way there has been intermarriage, but 
not dilution of the Jewish People.  That is because G-d keeps us...
 

--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG