HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abvax!ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM!BENNING
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: re: Messianic Judaism (inter-marriage)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:28:47 -0500 (EST)

>Subject: Re: Messianic Judiasm
>From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)

>>The idea of MJ sounded quite ridiculous to me when I first heard about it.

>..[deleted text...]  They spend millions of dollars to keep these fronts
>going simply so they can fulfill their goal of helping Jews see the
>light of their savior.  In general, they target the Jewishly ignorant
>and the psychologically vulnerable (the later a tactic frquently used
>by cults).  It takes little more than a third grade Jewish education to

 Have you used enough BUZZ words? FRONT; JEWISHLY IGNORANT; PSYCHOLOGICALLY
 VULNERABLE; CULT...
 The typical SCARE Tactics propaganda of the uninformed and prejudice.
 
 First, this continued rumor that Messianic Judaism targets Jewishly
 ignorant and psychologically people is incorrect.
 We target sinners, first those who are Jewish and then the Gentiles.
 Yes, we welcome those who are unable to cope, and those who you would
 call Jewishly IGnorant. But then I guess they have no room in Your house
 of worship. Just as Yeshua went to the needy, so do we. Just as Yeshua
 has compassion for sinners in need of God, so do we. 
 Of course, you and your type would never stoop so low to help out those
 in the above category. B-)
 To label this mighty work of God a cult shows how far removed you really
 are from the heart of the Lord.(IMHO)

>>Has anyone heard any statistics on this?  Having thought about it
>>for awhile, I admit I still find it completely ridiculous, but I am
>>not surprised to hear that it is growing.  Almost none of my Jewish
>>friends and family have married in the faith and, while none of them
>>have shared with me their solution to the infamous how-do-we-raise-the-
>>children enigma,  MJ seems like the only religion on earth capable of
>>supporting both traditions (sort of, that is).

>Messianic (messy-antic) "Judaism," "Jews for Jesus," and other Jewish
>cults are far more likely to be of no use in this dilemma.
 
 WRONG. In Cleveland, the Messianic Congregation has been very beneficial
 in helping intermarried couples find a working solution in raising the
 children. I have two children who are currently involved.
 I guess you could say we also minister to this demographic group.
 (besides the others you appear to have left out of the club house.)
 
Bruce Benning__ BENNING@ALF.CS.HH.AB
From: pauld@sdd.hp.com (Paul Dillinger)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Jews killing Jesus
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:52:07 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdl102.sdd.hp.com


In article <Bz9tLI.Cz7@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
   eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:
>
> I have always been curious as to why Christians have persecuted Jews for
> centuries on the pretense that the Jews killed Jesus.  Assuming that this
> was true, should not the Jews be thanked?  Jesus could only have brought
> deliverance to the world through his death.  His purpose was to die because,
> according to the New Testament, redemption would be brought about by his blood.
> If this is all true, then the alleged murderers of Christ (the Jews) would
> be fulfilling scripture.  Had the Jews not "killed" Jesus, no one would have 
> been saved.  To put it bluntly, Jesus was only good dead.  What then was the
> Church's rationale for condeming the death of Christ?
> 
> Ed.
> 

As a Christian, my opinion is that it is inexcusably wrong to persecute
Jews on the pretense that the Jews killed Jesus. Or for that matter,
under any pretense. 

My best guess as to *why* Christian history is filled with such acts, is
that unbridled religious pride engenders murderous rage. Explaining
that those who do such things indeed are not Christian can sound empty.
So perhaps it might be better to simply publicly renounce all such acts
of pride and hatred, even those done in Jesus' name. It does not
represent Christianity as I know it.

Additionally, according to the NT, while Jesus was dying, he asked God
to forgive those who had done it. My feeling is that all Christians
should reflect Jesus' desire, by affirming that the Jewish people are
released from any possible guilt in the matter.


-
  Paul       Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another:
Dillinger                                                    Mal 3:16a
-
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Newest proof of Messiahship Of Jesus
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:46:54 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


 This is the newest proof of the Messiahship of Jesus.  It is 
unlikely that you have seen it before since it has only just 
been discovered by a central London Messianic group who specialize
in using the Talmud to prove Messiahship of Jesus.

Consider the Jewish chronology which gives 1993 CE = 5753 AM 
(from Babylonian Talmud, A. Z. 9a-10a)

Creation to Exodus                                     2448 years
Exodus to building of Temple                            480
Existence of 1st Temple                                 410
Babylonian exile                                         70
Existence of Second Temple                              420
Destruction (Talmudists assumed 68 CE) to 1993         1925
============================================================
TOTAL                                                  5753
============================================================

In actual fact the Talmudists were guessing that the interval
between the 2 destructions was 490 years ironically on the 
basis of Daniel 9:24-27 (Readers of SCJ know what I am talking 
about).  See Naz 32b for confirmation.

In reality there was a 20 year gap from end of Babylonian exile
to building of Second Temple (535 to 515 BC). Also the 2nd Temple
stood for 585 years - an error of 165 years.  Total obvious error
is 185 years plus others besides.

Now, there are other chronologies such as Zunz (5981) and Ussher,
Lightfoot (both over 5990).  Also prophecies such as Ezekiel 38:8 
talk about invasion (failed) of Gog/Magog/Meshech/Tubal/Rosh 
(some say Russia) to occur in the *latter years* when Israel has
been re-gathered. 

So the suggestion is that we are living close to the 6000th year.

Why is this a proof? Because the Talmud mentions the Tradition of Elijah
(San 97 a+b, A. Z. 9a) which says Messiah would come at the 4000th year
(i.e. about 2,000 years ago) and his teachings would last 2,000 years
(i.e. Messiah's teachings should be present now).

To finish off, the biggest irony is that the Zunz chronology is 
probably very reliable.  Leopald Zunz was a German Jew who invented
*The Science Of Judaism*.  His method of chronology was to reconcile 
Jewish history with non-Jewish history.

He was also fiercly anti-Christian.  

If he knew that his great work was being used to prove Messiahship
of Jesus then he would be spinning in his grave.

Vijay
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: "Biblical" Christianity
Date: 14 Dec 1992 08:06:16 -0600
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

> your premise.  Christianity as a Faith is not linked to Rabbinic
> Judaism but rather to Biblical Judaism ...

I've seen Harvey Smith and Bruce Tiffany use these terms, but
I still haven't seen them defined.  Harvey, would you please
favor us all with a little more information?


- What is Biblical Christianity?

- What is Biblical Judaism?

- Which groups today practice Biblical Christianity?

- Which groups today practice non-Biblical Christianity?

- Which groups today practice Biblical Judaism?

- Which groups today practice non-Biblical Judaism?


These terms would be much easier to understand if you'd
provide some concrete examples of the above.  For example,
where would the following fit?

Jews: Reform, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, Conservative,
      Chassidic, Secular Zionist, Ethiopian ...

Christians: Episcopalian, Anglican, Latter-Day Saints, Assemblies of
            God, Seventh-Day Adventist, UMJC, Calvinist,
            Roman Catholic, Jews for Jesus, Eastern Catholic,
            Slavic Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Liberation Theology,
            Christian Scientist, Maronite, Unitarian, Presbyterian,
            Amish, Quaker, Mennonite, Nat'l Council of Churches, ... 

Rob
--
levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
From: abvax!ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM!BENNING
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: re: Almah SHmalmah
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 9:18:48 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: Almah SHmalma

>  (Bruce Benning) wrote:
> >
> > I've seen so much information go past my CRT that I'm going into overload.
> > We have heard from scholars, and experts who had no "religious bias" and
> > rabbis who translated, and the scoundrels who altered the original texts.
> >
> > In prayer, I asked the Lord for a word on this topic. 

 Jack Love responds:

> Since you have a direct channel to God, I guess you don't really
> need to discuss anything with scholars, lay people, rabbis, priests
> or anyone else. Congratulations!

 Hey, is this a sarcastic remark? B-)

> But for the rest of us who are not so blessed, we may need to keep 
>discussing these things.
  
 Discuss all you want brother, but don't forget to include The Lord.
 After all The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Proverbs
 2:6 says the Lord gives wisdom, and from His mouth comes knowledge and
 understanding. But since you were making fun of me I guess you either
 1)don't believe in God; 2)believe in God, but don't believe He communicates
 to His people anymore; 3) other.
 
> Since you are so disturbed by the material crossing your terminal,
> I suggest you add the subject to your "kill" file. That way, 
> you won't need to read any more.
> Jack F. Love

 I don't recall saying I was disturbed by the discussion. And I can assure
 you that I don't use kill files. God forbid that my heart becomes so hard
 that I can't even read what others have to say. It would be hypocritical
 of me to ask the Lord to remove His kill file on those who oppose Him,
 and then place them in kill files of my own.

 Bruce Benning  Benning@alf.cs.hh.ab.com
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Why do Messianics believe in the NT (was: Humanism (personal experience))
Organization: University of Turku
	<1992Dec8.023756.8647@news.eng.convex.com>
	<1992Dec08.171416.37528@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Dec8.181443.16341@news.eng.convex.com>
	<1992Dec09.025557.15529@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:57:46

In article <1992Dec09.025557.15529@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <1992Dec8.181443.16341@news.eng.convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
> |> In article <1992Dec08.171416.37528@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
> |> >Nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Paul was selected
> |> >to lay the foundation for the church.  He wasn't one of the 11.
> |> >
> |> >If you say that Jesus authorized Peter, and Peter authorized
> |> >Paul, then you are using the "apostolic succession" argument
> |> >of the Catholic Church, and there is no logical reason why
> |> >you can't continue this reasoning all the way down to
> |> >John Paul II.
> |> 
> |> This is simply a false argument, Rob.  You are being dishonest
> |> in your continued use of it.  There is no apostolic succession
> |> described in scripture.  However, Paul was appointed as an apostle
> |> directly by Yeshua.  This is not recorded in the gospels because
> |> it occured after the ascension.  It is recorded by one of the
> |> gospel writers, Luke, in the book of Acts (Acts 9:15).
> |> 

> I'm not using the argument.  I'm trying to understand how
> you claim someone can come to accept the NT as scripture
> based only on the Jewish Bible plus the words of Jesus.

Why not to try first accepting the words of Yeshua ?

> |> This is all pretty obvious, but you don't even accept the authority
> |> of the eleven, so why should I try to convince you of Paul's authority?

> I'll see that and raise you one.  I don't accept the authority
> of Jesus, as you know.  That's not what this discussion is about.

That's exactly what the discussions here on alt.messianic are about.

>   I'm not trying to shoot down Christianity,
> or to persuade her to change her beliefs, and you
> should not be trying to persuade me to change mine.

This is a newsgroup and we are only replying to your postings...

> I'm trying to shoot down the statement that one
> can start with the Jewish Bible, add in the belief
> that Jesus is Messiah and that then all the rest
> follows automatically.

Seems to me you'll be trying to shoot it down the rest of your life, 
since it's impossible.

> -- 
> Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
> IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

- Laura
--
"They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and
strength.' All who have raged against him will come to him and
be put to shame. But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel
will be found righteous and will exult."       Yeshaya 45:24-25

"Achen Ata El mistater Elohei Israel Moshia."  Yeshaya 45:15
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Jews killing Jesus
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:39:17 GMT

I have always been curious as to why Christians have persecuted Jews for
centuries on the pretense that the Jews killed Jesus.  Assuming that this
was true, should not the Jews be thanked?  Jesus could only have brought
deliverance to the world through his death.  His purpose was to die because,
according to the New Testament, redemption would be brought about by his blood.
If this is all true, then the alleged murderers of Christ (the Jews) would
be fulfilling scripture.  Had the Jews not "killed" Jesus, no one would have 
been saved.  To put it bluntly, Jesus was only good dead.  What then was the
Church's rationale for condeming the death of Christ?

Ed.
From: abvax!ALF.CS.HH.AB.COM!BENNING
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: re: Almah SHmalmah
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 9:18:22 -0500 (EST)

From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Subject: Re: Almah SHmalma

>Last I checked, these newsgroups were part of a public process. That's
>why those of us who are more interested in Jewish topics can't keep
>evangelicals out of scj. As I have made clear on a number of occasions,
>I have no intent to question or disparage your beliefs. When the
>issues are factual, I may occasionally attempt to make a contribution.
>If you don't appreciate my remarks, then you have the same recourse
>I have--you can add my name to your kill file.

>Jack F. Love
 
Hi Jack,

 Were this news group like SCJ, you would probably be harassed until you
 removed yourself from A.M. However I pray that our hearts NEVER become
 like that again (hard and bitter). I enjoy reading your posts and those of
 the other SCJ posters for two reasons. I get a feel for your spiritual
 outlook, and I have your name so that I can present you before the living
 God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and pray for you, and ask the Lord's
 tender and everlasting mercies to be given to you so that you might also
 know him by name.

 Post as you think is proper. We are a newsgroup for those in the body of
 Messiah (primarily) and for those who need to know Yeshua. If you can add
 to the conversation, why would I have any complaints. 

 Bruce Benning  Benning@alf.cs.hh.ab.com
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Why Jews Hate Proselytizing
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:52:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   There have been various recent efforts to link Christianity to 
Judaism.  These efforts range from the repeated use of the phrase   
"Judeo-Christian" to groups of evangelists refering to themselves
as 'Jews' for Jesus.  All of these efforts, calculated to convert 
Jews to Christianity, are doomed to failure.  These efforts prove
that those who do this know little or nothing about Judasim.

   To begin, there is much about how Christians worship that Jews
regard as idol-worship.  From the Jewish point of view, Christian
prayer is wierd and demeaning.  Jews actually do not have visions
of God, let alone any sort of icons.  God is considered as beyond 
anything that we mortals could possibly grasp.  The very thought, 
that "Jesus is Lord," assaults the basic concept of God for Jews. 

   Moshiach(messiah) is not a supernatural being.  He is supposed
to be a man, and only a man.  For this reason, it is not possible
for the Jewish messiah to be born, die, and be resurrected, so he
can try to get right what he never accomplished the first time.

   And finally, the concept of God crucifying his own son for the
sins of any other person, let alone all of humanity, is, from the 
Jewish point of view, totally unacceptable.  It flies in the face
of everything that is important in Judasim.  Judaism teaches that
salvation is achievable by how one behaves.  In Judaism, even the
atheist who behaves in a decent and kind manner will have a place
in the world to come.  Since people of any creed have the ability
to behave in a holy and humane manner, Jews beleive that ANY good
person can go to heaven.  As the old ad slogan for the kosher rye
bread claimed, you don't have to be Jewish...

   If, as Judaism teaches, one can achieve salvation by behavior,
then Jesus would have died for nothing.  This is the basic reason
that Christianity can never accept Judaism.  Judasim holds that a
person is responsible for his or her own salvation.  We also view
an act such as the murder of Jesus as cruel and barbaric.  As the
concept of God in Judasim is one of a loving God, the reason that
is given for God's sacrifice is not acceptable to Jews.  To us it
is repugnant in the extreme.  It flies in the face of all that we
Jews hold dear.

   I hope that this is not regarded as judgement of Christianity, 
for it is not.  Please consider this as simply an explanation why 
Christianity can never find common ground with Judaism.  It is my
hope that this will shed light on why Jews are so deeply offended 
by, and resentful of, Christian proselytising.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: hem@col400.col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: What Did Judas Betray?
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Reply-To: H_Markowitz@att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:03:15 GMT

In article <141501.2B2FA7EA@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:

   To: hem@col400.col400.att.com

	HEM> In article <141385.2B22E59E@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
	HEM> Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
	HEM> To: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com >

	>(Also in his comment on Song of Songs 1:3 Rashi explains that
	>"`ALAMOT" (the plural of "`ALMAH") means "B'TULOT" ("virgins").

	HEM> Just as a minor addition, Rashi in Yeshaya comments on the word
	HEM> HaAlmah - "Ishti" my (yeshaya's) wife and this was in the fourth
	HEM> year of Ahaz['s reign].

		 But, the context doesn't bear out the insertion of "ishti" in Is.
		 7 at that particular verse.  So..., why did you re-quote the ref.
		 to Song of Songs above?  Maybe your point just escapes me.

The point was that trying to say that Rashi in a different place may say
that the context is betulot does not mean that he says it in yeshaya
(which is the original argument).  In fact Rashi specifically says that
the woman in yeshaya is not a betulah but is yeshaya's wife (tho others
disagree).

	HEM> Another point is that the word HaAlmah is THE young woman, not A
	HEM> young woman.  That is a woman known to both the speaker (Yeshaya)
	HEM> and the listener (Achaz).

		 Well, I wouldn't make an appeal in using "ha" before almah as too
		 much in Biblical Hebrew there.  After all, it is often written:
		 "Ha"Mashiach, & surely that is spoken of in the future tense in
		 Tanakh :-)

The point is that ha-almah is a specific young woman just as ha-mashiach
(THE mashiach) is a specific person whose identity is known to everyone.
Similarly we sah HaShem meaning THE name, that is the name we all know
that I (the speaker) am referring to.

Thus it means that both Yeshaya and Achaz knew which specific young
woman was being referred to.

--
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
From: pauld@sdd.hp.com (Paul Dillinger)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Humanism (personal experience)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:04:39 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdl102.sdd.hp.com

In article  <1992Dec07.231528.32107@watson.ibm.com>,
             strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>
> Of course there is no such passage.  Even if you believed
> there were such a passage, it wouldn't yield the Messianic
> position, which is, as far as I can tell, 100% identical
> to the Christian position --- namely that,
> (1) t'shuvah is not required
> (2) belief in the God-hood of the human being who died is required
>
> Do you agree that (1) and (2) are the Messianic position?
> And that they are also the Christian position?
> And therefore that you are more than simply a Jew who
> interprets Is 53 in a non-normative way and more than simply
> a Jew who thinks you know who Messiah is --- you're
> a Christian who ultimately get your view of repentance
> from Christian tradition.
>

(First, I would like to introduce myself. I am a Christian who is
interested in both Judaism and Messianic Judaism, and have been
following this news group for some time. I feel sometimes that I am not
grasping some subtle concepts that seem to be exchanged here, so I
would like to apologize in advance if my comments demonstrate such a
lack of understanding.)

I think both #1 and #2 above are not real characterizations of
Christianity.

 1)  In Christianity, t'shuvah is required.  The NT shows that John the
Baptist preached repentance, Jesus preached repentance, and the apostles
preached repentance.

2)  Although the NT does require certain beliefs, (which is why
sometimes we call ourselves "believers"), the NT does not state that we
are required to believe in the God-hood of Jesus. The relationship
between God and Jesus is debated among Christians: Some feel that the
two are the same identity, others feel that they are two identities and
yet part of each other. I think that there are other variations also. I
would guess that most (if not all) Christians believe that there is one
God.


-
  Paul       Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another:
Dillinger                                                    Mal 3:16a
-