HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Reply-To: H_Markowitz@att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
	<LJMORLY.93Jan14105051@polaris.utu.fi>
	<KRULWICH.93Jan19160058@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
	<LJMORLY.93Jan21113710@polaris.utu.fi>
	<KRULWICH.93Jan25112343@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
	<LJMORLY.93Jan25213734@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:18:37 GMT

On 25 Jan 93 21:37:34, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) said:

> In article <KRULWICH.93Jan25112343@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:

> As I said, here you aren't taking the whole sentence into consideration.
> There are two possible *interpretations* for "being incapable of giving 
> birth",

> a. being a virgin
> b. being barren

> but here we aren't discussing about interpretations but *a translation*.

> But let's go on...

>> Now, for some reason my translation above didn't count as "taking the whole
>> sentence as it is," so here we go:

>> 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"

The point being made was that the word in dispute is almah.  Therefore
in order to show the context in which it is being used it was left
untranslated here (though it has been translated elsewhere).

>> v'eina re'uya li'valed		and was not capable of giving birth

>> What were Hillel and I missing by not looking at the whole verse?  The point
>> is that Rashi discusses the alma as being incapable of giving birth.  Not that
>> she was a virgin, which is how you originally mistranslated it.

> 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.  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.

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

> - Laura
--
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: The Messiah
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
	<C1E7D1.LzI@feenix.metronet.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:12:11 GMT


marcbg@feenix.metronet.com (Marc Grant) writes:

> 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?).  
...
> The key is to recognize the true Messiah when he comes.

The problem is that Judaism believes that waiting for the Moshiach is _not_
the key, the key is acting and believing in accordance with the Torah.  X-ians
and J-for-J types have concocted excuses for not observing the Torah.  Now,
there's no reason whatsoever for NON-JEWS to observe the Torah, because it
wasn't given to them and they're not at all obligated in it.  Jews, however,
must follow the Torah, and the J-for-J types say otherwise (at least in
practice).


> 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.

Dov
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: A Neutral Prayer (was Re: Disproof of "Proof 2")
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:54:04 GMT
Organization: Castle Anthrax

In article <1993Jan26.153512.26825@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
>Here's a neutral prayer that we can all say together:
>
>"Father, if Jesus is the Messiah then please reveal this to me,
>but if Jesus isnot the Messiah then reveal this also. I promise to
>seek until I have found the answer and will diligently read the New
>Testament...

...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.

-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"Wait a minute! You guys are NINJAS!"
                ---The Tick
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: The Trinity in The Tanakh (Re: accusations of idolatry)
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:28:50 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


All these accusations of idolatry in Christianity remind me of the first time
I read that the Trinity *WAS* in the Tanakh.  We need to discuss this so I
will get the ball rolling.  

I believe that it was a Jew who analysed the shema:

Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai, Elohaynu, Adonai, Echad

His comments were:

"The word echad is found in Genesis 2:24 with reference to a man and woman
becoming one flesh - basar echad.  It never implies absolute unity but always
a composite unity.  For example eshcol echad is applied to a cluster of grapes
(Num 13:23).  The Shema is therefore best translated as: 

Hear O Israel, The Lord Our God, The Lord is a Composite Unity."

And I believe that the Zohar says the same thing (no references today - maybe
next week if someone hasnot supported this by then).

Vijay
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: **More on the 360 day year**
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:16:55 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

I have been researching the 360 day year more for you.
Somebody told me to look in the Book of Jubilees.  When I do,
if I find ample proof of its usage then I hope you will
accept it as proof.

If not, then the brilliant Book of Revelation is based on the
360 day year so here's what I say:

God gave EVERYTHING to the Jews - Torah, Israel, Prophecy and Messiah
But they failed miserably in pleasing him.  The Tanakh is witness to this:
Exodus - Went after other gods
Israel - Failed to keep sabbaticals
Prophets - Imprisoned Jeremiah. Killed Zecheriah
Messiah - Rejected him.

So finally God gave the book of Revelation to the Christians.  It seems to
contain all the secrets for solving Tanakh prophecy especially in terms
of chronologing events.  In his 'end-times' study :FOOTSTEPS OF THE MESSIAH
(Ariel Press, 1982) Arnold Fruchtenbaum cites 550 similarities between the
Book of Revelation and the Tanakh. 

I am sure you could tell me that the writer got his inspiration not from God
but from the Tanakh  but where did he get his inspiration for the 360 day year?
An inspiration that solves a lot of prophecy.

Vijay
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Complete verification of Jesus
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:56:06 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1k5dakINNk46@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber) writes:
>HaShem had made a promise to Avraham. HaShem then told Avraham to 
>sacrafice the person necessary for the promise to be fulfilled. Avraham
>knew that HaShem would fulfill his promise so either he knew HaShem could
>resurrect him from the dead or he thought somehow, the promise of a nation
>could be fulfilled through a dead son. Surely you're not suggesting the 
>latter!?
>Notice that Avraham says to his servants: `*We* will return.' Either he
>is lying, or is crazy or he believes that HaShem will resurrect him. 

There are many possibilities for interpreting this text beyond
the simplistic ones you offer. First, in polite speech the patriarch
could have been referring to himself alone using the plural form. 
This is seen, for example, in the verse "Let us make man in our
own image..." Second, Abraham could have used the "we" deliberately
to avoid alarming his servants. While you characterize this as 
a "lie" it would not be an unusual human behavior. Third, Abraham
might have had faith that God would not complete this action. Fourth,
Abraham might have failed to reconcile himself internally to the 
notion that his beloved son would not be returning with him.

A number of Jews in the middle ages believed that Isaac was
actually sacrificed and resurrected, precisely because of the
verse you cite. These opinions are denounced by Ibn Ezra in
his Torah commentary, but they did continue for several
centuries as a "minority" view. For a comprehensive and 
beautifully written discussion of this matter, see Spiegel,
"The Last Trial."
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Complete verification of Jesus
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:42:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.174722.17913@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
]In article <1jh9goINNgvm@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@silver.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
]]when moshiach does come, he will get things done right the first
]]time around.  After that, he can come back as many times as he wants
]]and join in the post-moshiach utopia.
]]
]
]
]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.

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

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

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.

]If all the Jews had believed in Jesus then they would have  a pretty hard
]time convincing the rest of the world that their prophecies were genuine,
]but the fact that the Jews dont believe is great.

If the messiah had come, then there would never have been any question.



]Example: A friend said to me "How do you know that the Old Testament
]prophecies were written down at least 400 years before the event?"
]
]My reply "Ask a Jew" (i.e. if they werenot then Judaism would be a 
]ponitless religion started by Christians)

I'm sorry, but this completely fails to make any sense. 

	<MC>

-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"In all seriousness of truth, hear this:
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| without the It, one cannot live. But
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || whoever lives with It alone is not
|| carroll@udel.edu             || human" - _I_and_Thou_, by Martin Buber
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: *Classic Testimony: Christianum Gerson*
Organization: Castle Anthrax
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:14:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.123517.20875@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
>
>The following testimony is a gem for the weekend.
>
>===============================================================
>In about 1600 (exact date unknown) Christianum Gerson, a Jewish
>scholar, took pity on an impoverished old Christian woman by
>paying eight schillings for her New Testament in Luther's
>translation....

Well, his parents should have expected this. Give your son a name like
"Christianum", and you're asking for trouble. Were his brothers named
"Marduk" and "Osiris"?
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"Wait a minute! You guys are NINJAS!"
                ---The Tick
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Harvey Smith - Please Read This
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:40:18 -0600
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Harvey, remember when you wrote:

HS> In fact a Conservative Shul went on record as saying that they were
HS> glad we were in existance as we took in the poor who could not afford
HS> a ticket to High Holy days at the local Synagogue, and we always
HS> advertise Free Seats...

Followed by my challenge:

RAL> Well, if it's on record, where might one proof of this?
RAL> (i.e., newspaper, date, page )

And your response:

HS> Sorry Rob, it was the president of the Shul, who told this to one of
HS> our elders.


And still, not a peep of evidence from you on this.  I've started
investigating, and if all three shul presidents deny saying this
to your elder, I'll assume you were wrong about this story,
just as you were wrong about this being "on record."


It would be much simpler if you would do the following: Please post
the name of the shul in question, or the initials of its president who
allegedly had this conversation.  This should be enough for me to
contact the shul president and confirm/refute your story.


Alternatively, please send me the number of said elder, and I'll
ask him about this conversation.  If privacy is the issue, and
direct e-mail is a problem, call Bill Carlson, Dan Segard, Bruce
Benning, or Bruce Tiffany, all of whom are able to send me e-mail,
and ask one of them to forward the phone number.


Thank you for your cooperation,

Rob


-- 
--
Robert A. Levene     Internet: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
  "/  //  / /"         Bitnet:   RXL1@APLVM
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixson, John Fred)
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:46:00 GMT

In article <1k6ig8INNdcu@life.ai.mit.edu>, dweinste@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein) writes...
>In article <26JAN199323151295@utkvx2.utk.edu> fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred) writes:
>#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.
> 
>Tens of thousands of Jews? That means we are talking on the close order
>of .75% of the Jewish population. So, if less than 1% of the Christians
>were to leave Christianity, obviously Christianity would have it wrong?
> 

Ummm... the tens of thousands is a reference to the Jews in and around
Jerusalem when Paul returned to the city (see Acts 21:20, those were Jews
"zealous for the Torah"), not to modern populations. See "first century".

As for the last sentence, I cannot parse it in a sensible way; perhaps you
could help me out?

fnixon@sol.cs.utc.edu
fnixon@utkvx.utk.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>
	<KRULWICH.93Jan25110158@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
	<LJMORLY.93Jan25214624@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:35:14 GMT


Summary of the background:

Someone posted the usual J-for-J proof that Daniel was talking about JC, which
assumes that the prophesy is based on a 360-day year.

Several posters pointed out that the Torah does not permit the calendar to be
based on a 360-day year, since the holidays (in particular Passover) are
required to occur in particular seasons.  For this reason leap months are
inserted into the year to make the calendar fall out corresponding to the
seasons.

The point is that G-d prohibits the use of a calendar that does not do this,
such as a straight 360-day calendar.

The J-for-J folks responded that G-d uses the Jewish calendar for general
life, and a 360-day calendar for prophesies.  Unfortunately there is no notion
anywhere in the Torah that any calendar other than the standard calendar is
used, and it is prohibited to base this calendar a 360-day year.

I would suggest that the J-for-J people who are proposing the 360-day year
either find support for it in scripture, or please refrain from making up
ideas and forcing them on G-d.


Dov
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:37:24 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

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

I agree with Dov in this posting, and I can now see the full context
for the rabbinic Hebrew involved. My apologies for suggesting a
nifal in my earlier post, that is clearly incorrect. Because 
sometimes a.m. is a fairly "charged" atmosphere, let me make clear
that I am retracting only my statement that "livaled" could be
nifal; the question as to whether one could read "livaled" in
isolated translitoration and think that it might be nifal is still
open. 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. This would have made the sentence clearer (at
least in my mind). The problem with "i" is that it is often
associated with the "ee" pronunciation in English. Thus, the
nifal infinitive l'hivaled (l'heevaled) can contract in rabbinic
Hebrew to "livaled" pronounced "leevaled". If we had a pointed
text of Rashi, we would see a dagesh hazaq in the lamed. Unfortunately,
as far as I know, there are no authentically pointed Rashi texts.
(By the way, it is not even certain that the text in question was
written by Rashi, but that's another story...)

Earlier in this thread, one of the a.m. stalwarts (either Harvey Smith
or Bill Carlson) said something about the root of the word being
vav.lamed.dalet versus yod.lamed.dalet. In the period of which
we are speaking (rabbinic Hebrew circa Rashi), in my opinion it
is best to regard the root as vav.lamed.dalet. However, 
lexicographers tend to use their own internal schema, so you 
might find the word listed under that root or yod.lamed.dalet
depending on that schema. The historical root for all of the
words in question is vav.lamed.dalet. But in the Biblical
period, these roots (first vav) migrated to first yod, and
this pattern has held ever since.
-- 
________________________________________
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 Messiah
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:32:00 -0800
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <C1E7D1.LzI@feenix.metronet.com> marcbg@feenix.metronet.com (Marc Grant) writes:
>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.

This is the Rabbinic Jewish answer, and is totally contrary to the
Christian answer.  The Christian says that G-d predestined certain
people to be set apart from before He created the world, and for these
people, He became a man, the G-d--Man Yeshua, lived a perfect life, and
suffered and died on the cross for their sins.  Those people whom G-d
predestined to eternal life with Him are united to Messiah Yeshua, in
both His death and His resurrection; their sins are reckoned to Him, and
His righteousness is reckoned to them.

Now, these answers are mutually contradictory.  At least one of us is
wrong.  We could both be wrong, but we can't both be right.

If we are measured by our own deeds, we will surely be sent to hell.

I challenge you to study the Torah for yourself, and see what HaShem
really requires.  See if you have followed the 10 words completely
throughout your entire life.  Do you really think that an infinitely
Holy G-d will be satisfied with anything short of absolute protection?
Or maybe you think He lied in the Torah?

Of course, if you are studying Torah with that VEIL over your eyes, you
won't be able to understand what G-d is saying.  I don't expect that a
single one of you will become followers of Yeshua after studying Torah.

-- 
"Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible."    --RC Sproul
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu       ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
Xref: sparky alt.messianic:4112 soc.culture.jewish:25886