HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Very Old question for Rob Levene
Date: 11 Oct 1992 04:06:16 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Bruce Tiffany writes:

RL >>OK, let's rephrase.  The term "good" is too vague:
>>    "The only authentic Jew is a Christian Jew."  Well?
>
> I'd still say you sound like Tom Albrecht, and I'd still disagree.

Great.  Since you disagree, please tell me who are
the authentic Jews who reject Christianity?

> How about this one: "The only authentic Jew is a Rabbinic Jew."  Well?

Accurate.

>> If the later is a "strictly a Jewish question" then why is it that all
>> the "ayes" are Christian and all the "nays" are Jewish?  It's only
>> "strictly Jewish" if you call Christianity a form of Judaism, in which
>> case we would be discussing the former question of the line of distinction.

> The "ayes" are Messianic, and the "nays" are Rabbinic.  So these two
> factions within Judaism disagree about who Messiah is.  But only the
> Rabbinic faction is saying you can't be Jewish unless you agree with
> them.

Then why the amazing coincidence that all these "Messianics" 
happen to be Christians?  If they are, then it is a matter of
distinction between Christianty and Judaism.  If they're not,
then please tell me which Messianics are not Christians.

Please answer, or point out the flaw in my logic.  I try
to keep it as tight as possible.


>> Does acceptance of Jesus automatically make one a Christian?  If yes,
>> then the follow-up is "Is Christianity a different religion from
>> Judaism."
>
> YOUR followup.  But you are wrong.

My first premise is the assertion that accepting Jesus makes one a
Christian, therefore "Messianic Jews" are Christians.  Is this wrong?
( Don't answer with "they're completed/fulfilled Jews."  The question is
 "Are they Christians?" )

My second premise is that assuming that accepting Jesus makes one
a Christian, then the legitimacy of using "Judaism" to encompass
Christianity hinges upon their being or not being different religions.
Is this wrong?


>  Biblical Christianity is not a different
> religion from Biblical Judaism.  But it certainly is a different religion
> from Rabbinic Judaism, and RJ's want us to believe that Rabbinic Judaism
> is the only Judaism.

Please clarify your terminology:

1. What forms of Judaism exist apart from "Rabbinic Judaism" today?

2. What forms of non-Christian "Biblical Judaism" exist today?

3. Are there any forms of non-Christian, yet still legitimate Judaism today?

4. What forms of Christianity exist apart from "Biblical Christianity" today?

5. Are any of these "non-Biblical" forms of Christianty legitimate?

Rob

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Out Of Context Zohar Passage Clarifi
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:53:36

In article <9210080400.AA00965@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> Response from my "Zohar expert" friend...

> My translation was directly from the Zohar's original Aramaic.  If the
> quote Carlson posted is typical of the "Amsterdam Zohar" (or its
> English translation), it is not only "markedly different" but rather a
> fraud and a forgery.  Carlson's posting of it smacks of the same.

The quotes provided by R. Levene's friend are indeed from Zohar, even
correct translations, but not the same as provided by B. Carlson (which
is a correct translation as well).

- Laura
--
Rabbinic Judaism is a relationship with Rabbis,
Messianic Judaism is a relationship with the Messiah Yeshua.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: women in church -- torah / NT
From: tbeaudoin@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:39:27 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

>We don't allow women elders in the church simply
> because there were occasional female leaders under the old covenant.

	Why not?  


Thomas Beaudoin
From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: (old) Question For Rob Levene
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:32:12 EDT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

           ** Submitted for Bruce Benning by Bruce Tiffany **
           --------------------------------------------------

>Subject: Re: (old) Question For Rob Levene
>From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
>Date: 30 Sep 1992 11:49:50 -0500
>
>Bruce Tiffany writes:
>> Imagine this!  Adopting a belief in no God -- denying the very existence of
>> Hashem -- is OK, but keeping Torah while trusting Yeshua is not!
>
RL>I didn't say "OK" - I said it's not as bad as adopting another religion.
>
  Isn't HUMANISM a religion with "CHANCE" as the creator, and Creation
  itself plays god? In fact there are some who have suggested that the
  REFORM version of Judaism is a form of Humanism.

>Put it this way.  Suppose you had $500 to your name.  Then you
>paid your rent of $500.  You now have zero dollars, and are "broke."
>
  Not another example of Levene_Metaphors... B-<
  WHAT if I took the $500 and sold my furniture in the apartment giving
  me a total of $850. Then I went and bought a small boat that was
  complete with a outboard motor and a set of oars? Does that make me
  spiritually broke but able to atone for myself in more than one way?
     ...B-)

>Similarly, a Jew who (G-d forbid) gives up Judaism for atheism is
>"broke."  A Jew who practices another religion is "in debt,"
>which is worse in a spiritual sense than having no religion.
>
>Rob

  Are not idolatry and denial of God the same thing in the eyes of
  the Lord? Does Scripture not say, "Worship the Lord you God, and
  serve Him only."? [DEUT 6:13]

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

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

      For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of
      the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not
      enter the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:20
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Rabbinic gymnastics
Date: 11 Oct 1992 00:04:39 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


> Orthodox kabbalistic trend), it seems that RL and his 'buddy', are more
> content to deny the existance of the whole affair, call a well known
> version of Zohar a fraud, and belittle and cast doubts on my person, -
> and so cloud the issue, - once again.

Bill, I'm not a participant in this Zohar thread.  My friend is.
Besides, how could *I* possible belittle *you*?  After all, 
you speak on behalf of the entire readership, as shown by
your comments...

  > One might wonder if perhaps the hide & seek tactics, that RL and his
  > 'nameless' "Zohar expert" employ, are typical of Rabbinic Judaism as a
  > whole.  (Yet then there are the Hillel's and Ron's, that are more able
  > to debate on a 'noble' note, - and so restore our confidence.)

> I'm still waiting to hear why a Midrash that calls The-Messiah by the
> VERY NAME OF HASHEM, (not a 'form' of the Name, nor a name 'qualified'
> by the verse in Tanakh; but a Name 'supported' by the verse in Tanakh),
> can exist in recognised Rabbinic lit.!

I'm going to give you a Jewish response: "Why not?"  Please cite the
halacha which forbids a person from using a name of G-d in his name.
Although names like Tzidkiyahu have parts of G-d's name, other names
such as Basya and Gedaliah end with complete names, and that's
perfectly OK, and doesn't imply that people with that name are G-d.

R
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: (old) Question For Rob Levene
Date: 10 Oct 1992 23:18:38 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu



>RL>I didn't say "OK" - I said it's not as bad as adopting another religion.

Bruce Benning:

>  Isn't HUMANISM a religion with "CHANCE" as the creator, and Creation
>  itself plays god? In fact there are some who have suggested that the
>  REFORM version of Judaism is a form of Humanism.

It isn't.

RL>Put it this way.  Suppose you had $500 to your name.  Then you
>>paid your rent of $500.  You now have zero dollars, and are "broke."
>>
>  Not another example of Levene_Metaphors... B-<
>  WHAT if I took the $500 and sold my furniture in the apartment giving
>  me a total of $850. Then I went and bought a small boat that was
>  complete with a outboard motor and a set of oars? Does that make me
>  spiritually broke but able to atone for myself in more than one way?
>     ...B-)

That depends on whether or not you accept Row vs. Wade.

[...]

>  Are not idolatry and denial of God the same thing in the eyes of
>  the Lord?

No, they're different.  

> Does Scripture not say, "Worship the Lord you God, and
>  serve Him only."? [DEUT 6:13]

Yes.  Therefore, an atheist is not fulfilling this.
But neither is he violating the prohibitions against
serving false gods.

Let me take a guess at what's causing the confusion.  Perhaps a literal
reading of Matt. 12:30 impairs the ability to distinguish between
indifference and opposition.

Rob
From: 21010JIS@MSU
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: lmendels@waynest1
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:08:04 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Out Of Context Zohar Passage Clarifi
Date: 7 Oct 1992 23:01:28 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Response from my "Zohar expert" friend...

---------------------

Bill Carlson writes:

     Tell your "friend" thanks for the information.  However, while I
     appreciated the commentary on the Zohar, the ref.'s I gave are
     found only in the Amsterdam Zohar, (which are markedly different
     than any other version), and was a word for word quotation of the
     English found there.

My translation was directly from the Zohar's original Aramaic.  If the
quote Carlson posted is typical of the "Amsterdam Zohar" (or its
English translation), it is not only "markedly different" but rather a
fraud and a forgery.  Carlson's posting of it smacks of the same.

Regarding his typically-out-of-context mention of the Jewish
Encyclopedia's mention of Cabala: Unlike Christianity, the Cabala does
not ascribe divinity to the Unity's many different manifestations into
the physical world.  Cabala operates within the Jewish framework of
theology -- Christianity (including "Messianism") does not.

Carlson continues:

          You might also mention, that when he says:

     RAL's friend> ...It could easily be understood as an effort to
     RAL's friend> deceive and/or mislead.

          -I find it is usually good to follow the Mitsvot of Torah
          before making such claims against another.  It helps to
          ascertain if one really has a case, before trying to 'second
          guess' the motives of another.

True, but in this case Mr. Carlson's motives are very clear.  No
'second guessing' is necessary.

Thank you.
From: abvax!ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM!BENNING
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Idolatry and atheism are equal
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 8:45:01 -0400 (EDT)

>From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
>Subject: Re: (old) Question For Rob Levene
>
> ->]Bruce Benning askes:
>
>>  Isn't HUMANISM a religion with "CHANCE" as the creator, and Creation
>>  itself plays god? In fact there are some who have suggested that the
>>  REFORM version of Judaism is a form of Humanism.
>
>It isn't.

  What isn't? Humanism isn't a religion? Or Reform isn't a version of
  humanism?

>>  [...] Does that make me
>>  spiritually broke but able to atone for myself in more than one way?
>
>That depends on whether or not you accept Row vs. Wade.
>
  I'd write an answer but my pen went dry. Will you accept pencil?

>>  Are not idolatry and denial of God the same thing in the eyes of
>>  the Lord?
>
>No, they're different.

  Maybe to you or your belief system. Scripture equates them as equal.

>
>> Does Scripture not say, "Worship the Lord your God, and
>>  serve Him only."? [DEUT 6:13]
>
>Yes.  Therefore, an atheist is not fulfilling this.
>But neither is he violating the prohibitions against
>serving false gods.

 Question: If an atheist isn't serving GOD, who is s/he serving?
 If not other god's then it must be himself. After all it is the fool
 who says that there is no God. This action is rebellion and arrogance
 against God. Scripture says that "rebellion is like the sin of divination,
 and arrogance like the evil of idolatry." This was spoken to King Saul who
 was acting on his behalf and not the Lord's. A charge was laid upon
 Saul. "Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you
 as king."
 Since an atheist rejects the word of God, and in his/her arrogance believe
 there is no God, the charge is the same and the sin equal.

 EVEN IN Jeremiah 5, the charge against Israel is idolatry and atheism.
 The punishment was the same for both sins.

>Let me take a guess at what's causing the confusion.  Perhaps a literal
>reading of Matt. 12:30 impairs the ability to distinguish between
>indifference and opposition.

 Perhaps to much rabbinic writings and not enough of the word of God has
 impaired your ability to distinguish between God's view of sin and man's.

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

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

       For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that
       of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly
       not enter the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:20
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Idolatry and atheism are equal
Date: 13 Oct 1992 21:06:06 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

>>>  Isn't HUMANISM a religion with "CHANCE" as the creator, and Creation
>>>  itself plays god? In fact there are some who have suggested that the
>>>  REFORM version of Judaism is a form of Humanism.
>>
>>It isn't.
>
>  What isn't? Humanism isn't a religion? Or Reform isn't a version of
>  humanism?

Humanism generally is not a religion; most true atheists I've met
attribute their first principles to "natural law" but not to
a higher power.  Also, Reform is not Humanism.  I was Reform
back in the 70s, I still have my notes from Hebrew School.


...
> Question: If an atheist isn't serving GOD, who is s/he serving?
> If not other god's then it must be himself.

Most apply some sort of Kantian ethical system to balance 
individual and social needs.  Generally, their first principles
are in line with the 7 mitzvos, so it usually works out OK.

>  After all it is the fool
> who says that there is no God. This action is rebellion and arrogance
> against God.

Only for a 'kofr.'  The large majority of self-professed Jewish
atheists I've met would be classified as 'tinokos shenishba.'

...

R
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Very Old Question For Rob Levene
Date: 7 Oct 92 08:34:39 GMT
Organization: University of Turku

In article <9210051831.AA15185@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> Laura Manninen writes:
> > Chabad has declared the Rebbe dead. (I'm afraid I threw away the newspaper
> > where I saw that...)

> My friends in Chabad inform me that the Rebbe is alive, and even
> addressed his community this past Rosh Hashana.  Perhaps your
> newspaper's translation was faulty.

I've posted this before. Now I'll include the original.
Ma'ariv August 7, 1992 / Chet b'Av Tashna"v  by Menachem Rahat.

B'rishona meaz nafal harabbi miLubavitch lamishkav, moda t'nuat Chabad
b'firsum rishmi, sheharabbi hu b'chezkat "nafal l'lo chayim". Chabad
masbira, shedavka shalav ze shel "nafal l'lo chayim", chiyuni b'derech
l'hitgalut harabbi keMelech haMashiach.
  Chabad koret l'am Israel l'kabel et "ol malchuto" shel harabbi. Hak'riah
nichlela b'igeret l'tzibur, shechulka b'teivot doar b'rachavei ha'aretz
v'kotarta "hachtarat hamelech".
  B'igeret nomar, bein hayater, she-"melech hamashiach harabbi miLubavitch
shalita, hu m'al kol b'nei ha'adam umeal haolam kulo. T'munim bo kochot
elokiyim mufla'im k'mo nevuah.

Now, the first time after the Lubavitcher Rabbi fell ill, the Chabad
movement announced in an official publication that the Rabbi is 
considered as "dead". Chabad explains that precisely the stage of 
"dead" is vital in the process to acknowledge the Rabbi as the King 
Messiah.
  Chabad calls for the nation of Israel to accept (/receive) "the yoke
of kingdom" of the Rabbi. The calling was in a public letter that was
distributed into postboxes all over Israel and labelled as "the crowning
of the king".
  The letter said e.g. that "the King Messiah, Lubavitcher Rabbi shalita,
is above all people and the whole world. He has hidden (lit. there are 
hidden in him) marvellous godly powers like prophesy. 
                
                         ****

I haven't heard whether the Israeli Chabad leadership has changed its
mind afterwards, but according to the above the Rebbe is considered as
dead, or more precisely to be "in a stage of dead". 

Now, naniach that he would get well and start doing "what the Messiah
must accomplish". Do you consider him as the Messiah ben Yosef or the
Messiah ben David ? What do you do when he eventually dies ?

> Rob

- Laura
--
Rabbinic Judaism is a relationship with Rabbis,
Messianic Judaism is a relationship with the Messiah Yeshua.
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Out Of Context Zohar Passage Clarified
Date: 8 Oct 1992 08:43:13 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

From my friend......

-----------------------

David Harwood wrote:

        To clarify: I mean that the response made by Rob L's "friend"
        is anonymous, and is "phoney enough" to indicate that that
        person is "theologically embarrassed" by the passage cited by
        BC. ...

        While we are at it - this passage of a well-known version of
        Zohar (of which Rob's "friend" is surely aware) - is not
        miss-translated according to scholars, as the other person
        said. And while I am at it - you frequently hear from some
        religious Jews that the "translations" used by others are all
        wrong. This this a "warning" signal to you - most of the time
        - that someone is being deceptive. Most Jewish texts are
        translated by expert, religious Jewish scholars, who are far
        more expert than most rabbis. ...

	Rob's anonymous "friend" was trying to pull the rabbinical
	wool over our eyes. He is not trying to enlighten us, but to
	obscure.

In this case it's easy to discover whom is deceiving whom.  Just see
how many of the early manuscripts and published editions of the Zohar
had the Christological references that Carlson cited -- you'll find
none other than the one.  In case you missed it, Carlson already
admitted that he quoted a non-standard edition.

In the Middle Ages, Church scholars tampered with Jewish sacred texts
(the Talmud, the Zohar, and prayer books among others), deleting
negative references to Jesus and Christianity and inserting supportive
Christological references when they could.  This was done as part of
their unceasing (and unprincipled) missionary efforts to convert Jews
to Christianity.  Luckily these deceptions can be discovered by
comparing the modified texts to texts from both outside the sphere of
Christian influence and from other geographical areas within the
Christian sphere of influence.

Mr. Carlson's and Mr. Harwood's posts are disingenuous continuations
of these deceptive missionizing practices.  Plainly said, it is
dishonest to cite references from editions that are non-standard or
that have been modified without explicitly stating those facts.

--------------------
From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: More RL Strawmen
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:24:36 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Proof that Judaism is based on rejecting Jesus
Date: 11 Oct 1992 03:06:44 -0500

>I'll make it easier.  Here
>are some hypotheses which are IMHO totally bogus, but which
>appear on alt.messianic with some regularity.

Please prove that.

>  Go ahead and fill in the blanks.

Putting words in our mouths again?  You can't deal with the arguments, so
you make some up that you think you can deal with.

>1.  Many great sages accepted Jesus, but for their own
>    nefarious reasons, chose to cover up the evidence.

Who said this?

> >Proof:

YOU said, it, so YOU prove it.

>2.  The fundamentals of Judaism were tailor-made to rule
>    out Christianity, not non-Jewish religion in general.
>
>Proof:

See Hilchos quotes in my easlier post.

Besides, your assertion that man is basically good and perfectable is only
opposed to Biblical Judaism / Christianity, not anything else.  It's a
belief common to the world's false religions, and only opposed by the truth.

>3.  Jews who reject Christianity do so not out of differences
>    in tenets, but because they hate Jesus.

Quotes, please.

(I wouldn't disagree that many Jews have been trained to hate Jesus based on
what people claiming to represent Him have done to Jews in the past, but
I also don't blame them for that.)

>4.  It is acceptable for Jews to be atheists or accept
>    the tenets of any religion except Christianity.

You essentially say they're still Jews even if they don't keep Torah and do
not believe HaShem exists, but if they keep the Torah and believe in HaShem
and believe Yeshua is His Messiah, they're not.  This is quintessential
hypocrisy.

>5.  It is impossible for any intellectually honest, open-minded
>    person to reject Christianity after studying it, therefore those
>    who reject it must be intellectually dishonest, closed-minded,
>    stupid, or possessed by Satan.

Quotes, please.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     /\			And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal
____/__\____		life, and this life is in His Son.  He who has the Son
\  / || \  /		has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does
 \/--++--\/		not have the life.
 /\  ||  /\						-- 1 John 5:11-12
/  \ || /  \
----\--/----		-- Bruce Tiffany
     \/