HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Bar Kochba And Moshiach
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:39:01 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: friedenb@fir.egr.msu.edu

GF> Date: 22 Jan 93 15:47:11 GMT
GF> Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
GF> Message-ID: <1jp4tvINNhq1@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
GF> Newsgroups: alt.messianic

 >     Well..., Bar-Star took the Rebbe Akiva seriously enough, that he
 >     required his "brethern" to chop off a finger to show alliance!
          -=> Quoting Gedaliah Friedenberg to Bill Carlson <=-
 GF> Thank you for proving my point.  These people were not observant
 GF> Jews. Chopping off a finger is a serious averah....

 And actually, that proves my point.  If the "great" Rebbe Akiva was
 so deceived in proclaiming bar-star as the Messiah; how do you know
 that the rest of the Rabbis, (most who are not as 'great' as R. Akiva)
 are not as deceived in thinking that Y'shua is not the Messiah?!

 But you want the name of one that was Observant of the Mitzvot and the
 halachah?  Ok..., Shabbaton Tzvi was Orthodox, Observant, and a
 kabbalistic Jew when large portions of Observant Jews, (including a
 GREAT deal of Rabbis of note), on three continents, including almost
 EVERYBODY in and around Amsterdam, proclaimed his as Messiah!  Again:
 if these Rabbis and great numbers of "ORTHODOX/OBSERVANT" folks could
 be so deceived in thinking that S. Tzvi was the Messiah -- and were
 wrong; why do you think it is so strange that MJ's suggest that the
 Rabbis are likewise deceived - when they (the Rabbis) think that
 Y'shua is not the Messiah?

Think about it, there are plenty of false-messiahs over the centuries,
that have fooled, at different times, a great number of the Rabbis,
including some major "sages"!  But here we are 2,000 years later, and
Jews are still discussing why some do and some don't believe that
Y'shua is the Messiah.  But over the last two millenium there are no
significant numbers of the Y'hudim who take any other one personage in
history seriously as being the Messiah for long - not Tzvi, not Frank,
not Bar-Kochabba; not even the Rebbe from Brooklyn-(yet another in a
long line of false-messiahs!)  But yet, here you are, discussing with
Jews if Y'shua is the Messiah. - And the numbers of Jews you can
discuss this with is rapidly growing!

Meanwhile, "modern" Judaism (for the most part) looks for a time of
"peace" before they will acknowledge the Messiah - while Tanakh and the
sages say: ...Messiah first comes and dies, in a time of distress, and
even on the foal of an ass!

... 012 M'shacheeym Y'hudim: Those who want HaMashiach now - AGAIN! 210  
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Almah and the controversy
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:25:48 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0


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.

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

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

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

Since this seems to be the crux of the arguement we should endeavor to speak to each of those points exactly...

Once i have agreement on this, we shall proceed again...
If we cannot agree on what the issues are, how can we speak definitively on
the word Almah.

Would appreciate a response from the opposing forces that be on this forum to agree as to what exactly the arena for discussion is..
 

--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: The Messiah
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:32:45 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <C1E7D1.LzI@feenix.metronet.com> 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?).  Why does it matter if it is the second coming
>or not?  The key is to recognize the true Messiah when he comes.  If he is
>the true Messiah, he will recognize those that have been faithful to Hashem.
>
>Do you think that he is going to care on which side of this debate we are?
>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.
>
>In arguing about the past, we are loosing sight on the true meaning of the
>future, and the true mission of the Messiah.
>
>With love,
>Marc
> 
Unfortunately or fortunately : if Jesus is the Messiah then you must 
accept it before he gets here for your death or the second coming, whichever
is sooner, is the point of no return.

Vijay
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Bar Kochba And Moshiach
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:19:05 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: friedenb@boswell.egr.msu.edu

 GF> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:52:47 GMT
 GF> Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
 GF> Message-ID: <1jiepvINNosh@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
 GF> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
 GF> 
 GF> It is true that Rabbi Akiva felt that Bar Kochba was the Moshiach.
 GF> But you have to understand more than this sentence before jumping 
 GF> to a conclusion.

     Well..., Bar-Star took the Rebbe Akiva seriously enough, that he
     required his "brethern" to chop off a finger to show alliance!

... 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: friedenb@silver.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: $150,000 Challenge - disprove Daniel 9
Date: 26 Jan 1993 16:07:00 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: friedenb@silver.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)
NNTP-Posting-Host: silver.egr.msu.edu


In a private email from Vijay to six regular posters to a.m, our friend
Vijay sent the following paragraph on December 21.  I left for Israel a few
days after getting his mail, and did not have time to see if it was ever 
discussed here.

>Also, there is a chance for you to win 100,000 pounds (UK) (over
>150,000 dollars (US)) for a successful refutation of the Daniel 9
>prophecy.  I can send you a very short Postscript file to start with
>and if you think that you can do it then I will send you details
>about claiming your prize. Let me know.

What Vijay does not understand is that we SCJ readrs have been through this
type of thing before (why do non-Jews feel that there must be a monetary prize 
for disproving their claims?).  

To Vijay-

Please provide us with the following information:
1)  The name of the bank and the account # where the 100,000 pounds is waiting,
along with a letter of proof from the bank that the money *actually* exists.
The letter from the bank must have the name of the owner of the account on 
the signed letter with the balance figure.  This will keep you from asking 
your rich uncle for a copy of his last bank statement and offering it as proof.

2)  The *exact* rules under which the money will be paid.

3)  The signed agreement to have the final decision on proof/payment of this
issue by a tribunal of active/retired federal judges to be chosen by an
unbiased mediator.  The mediator and tribunal will be paid by the loser of
the case (as decided by the tribunal).  This will keep you from putting
a number of pre-decided people on the panel to "stack the deck" in your favor.


Only after these requirements are fulfilled will I (or probably any other
possible claimant) spend his time to refure Daniel 9.

I am also interested in email discussion among the non-messianic readers here
of which charity (probably Jewish and in Israel) to give the money to.  Maybe
we will give it to Jews for Judaism for anti-missionary work.   ;^) 

Gedaliah Friedenberg
-=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
-=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
-=-Michigan State University
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:03:19 EST
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Disproof of "Proof 2" (was *** MoJ: Proof 2: The Passover Prophecy
 <1993Jan25.160835.35787@ucl.ac.uk> <1k1ht4INNjt7@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
 <1993Jan26.153512.26825@ucl.ac.uk>

This is in regard to Vijay's neutral prayer to know the identity of Messiah:
Vijay, I could not let it pass by, although I have no intention to insult
you. A friend of mine suggested long time ago to believing christians why
not they pray to God earnestly and ask for wrath on themselves if they are
lying if Jesus is not God. How about that? How many of our christian friends
are willing to pray earnestly: "O God of Abraham and Moses, I believe that
Jesus is God. If I am lying, then bring down the wrath upon myself by killing
   me, so that it becomes an eye-opener for others not to except Jesus as God.
If, on the other hand, Jesus is indeed God, then let it be known to all
others that he is God."
I have a softer one than that which my christian friends can try without
invoking wrath upon themselves if they were lying as to godship of Jesus.
This is by earnestly praying: "O God of Abraham and Moses, if Jesus is truly
not God, then let me live and repent and come to the truth by abandoning
Christianity."
Let my christian friends do anyone of the above two prayers, I am
sure he will get the answer. Don't forget to announce your intention to
other folks and do it earnestly for several hours. How about that?

Again, I don't intend to belittle my christian friends. I thought this is
indeed a logical way to go for christians if they believe too strongly about
the divinity of Jesus. (To this date, I have not found a single volunteer
to take up the first challenge, the second was taken by one Portuguese-
American student, who now abandoned christinity.)

Best wishes with your prayers.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: nixon@cs.toronto.edu (Brian Nixon)
Subject: Triunity in the Tenach & Zohar
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: alt
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:37:01 GMT


There is a book on the subject of Triunity in the Tenach and Zohar.
It is "The Great Mystery (How Can Three be One?)" by Hirsch Prinz
(Tzvi Nassi).  He was a lecturer at Oxford (in the 19th century, I think).

It has been reprinted in English, and translated into Hebrew.

Brian Nixon.
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Arrogance and self-righteousness : Christlike ?
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:56:33 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <hfortuin.5.727453420@stellenbos.csir.co.za> hfortuin@stellenbos.csir.co.za (Henri Fortuin) writes:
>
>Finally, any belief which rests on *one* scripture is doomed to fail. I am a 
>Christian because I believe the *message* Jesus preached. I believe that it 
>liberates us from the struggles of human existence. Interpretations of Isa 7:
>14 and Dan 9:27 are peripheral, though important. His sacrifice is worth 
>much more than this.
>
Agreed here.

BUT the majority of Jews find discussion about Jesus offensive.

At my college, there is a mini-mission amongst Jews.
A few of us have so far showed about 10 Jews things like
Daniel 9 and Psalm 22 and 4 of them are considering the
possibility that Jesus is the Messiah.

I cant see how this would have happened if we had just told them things
like 'Jesus loves ya' since the Christian example contradicts this.

Vijay
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:55:45 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <LJMORLY.93Jan22181811@polaris.utu.fi> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
>> Actually, Laura, li'valed is the rabbinic Hebrew niphal infinitive
>> of the root yod.lamed.dalet.
>
>There's 'heh' in between, whereas in the above there isn't. And
>what do you mean by rabbinic Hebrew ? 

Exactly. In rabbinic Hebrew, the letter "heh" is frequently elided.
This doesn't mean that in the particular citation you're looking
at we do have a nifal--I'd have to take the time to actually
look at the text and see whether there are variants, etc.

As for what I mean by "rabbinic Hebrew": The term is a general
one suitable for all Hebrew following the close of the Biblical
period and until the beginning of modern and Israeli Hebrew.
Because the time and geographic frames are so broad, this period
can be sub-divided in many different ways. 

>(BTW don't forget that if it would be nif'al, it would mean 'to be born',
>not 'to give birth'.)

A good point, Laura, but not necessarily. In the first place, you
are assuming that the nifal represents the passive voice. This
is often true, but not always true. The origin of the nifal is
as the *middle voice* of the first Hebrew conjugation. This 
explains why verbs such as lehilahem can mean "to make war"--
hardly a passive voice construction! Because the nifal is 
much more flexible than your response would indicate, we would
have to look at your citation a bit more closely to see how
it might best be translated.

>I'm still waiting for some of you to translate the whole sentence:
>"veyesh potrin sheze haot shealmah haita ve'eina reyuah levaled".

Here I'm going to have to use a cop out. Since I don't keep any
Jewish scholarly sources at my work desk, and since I am unlikely
to have the time at home to do the research, I'll just have to
hope that someone else will be willing to put in the effort to
help you with this. But I'll be happy to answer any more questions
based on grammar.
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Changing letters at will  (was Re: Complete verification of Jesus)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
	<1993Jan21.174722.17913@ucl.ac.uk> <1993Jan22.164206.6956@udel.edu>
	<LJMORLY.93Jan24190843@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:30:59 GMT


ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:

> > 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'. 

Sillier and sillier.  When the word we want isn't in the Tanach, we change
letters in the Tanach to make it the word we want.  

You agree that the word in the original Hebrew, "k'ari," means "like a lion."
You want to change the Tanach to have a "vav" instead, to make it mean what
you want it to mean.  Isn't this getting a bit silly?

I think that you should look at the tenth commandment.  The word as it appears
in the Torah is "lo tachmod," meaning "do not covet," but the "daled" should
really be a "raish" (like it is on the wall at Yale), which makes it say "lo
tachmor," meaning "do not make an ass out of yourself."


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

 
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,soc.culture.jewish
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Re: *Classic Testimony: Reb Asher Wade*
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:05:47 GMT

Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Keywords:

Gedaliah Friedenberg's breathless account of how the Rev. Wade couldn't
find Luther's anti-Semitic writings (in a German library yet) was totally
unbelievable until I noted that said Wade now hangs out at Aish HaTorah
Yeshiva which --for the uninitiated-- is also the place whence all that
high-class Codes "research" emanates.

Norman Miller
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Rashi's Quote (was Re: Almah - Betul
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:22:48 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0

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

Valed and Yeled are the same.  Some believe the Yod was originally a vav, and hence we still see the vav lamed dalet in biblical hebrew... 
--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:04:20 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <LJMORLY.93Jan21113710@polaris.utu.fi> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
>
>> This is the meaning of "yalda," which is the same as "li'valed," to give
>> birth.  (The same use of "yalda" is found in bereshis 30:1).
>
>Actually the infinitive form for 'yalda' is 'laledet', not 'levaled' 
>(lamed-vav-lamed-dalet). They obviously mean the same, but I have no
>idea of the usage of 'levaled'. Anybody ?

Actually, Laura, li'valed is the rabbinic Hebrew niphal infinitive
of the root yod.lamed.dalet. In the Hebrew language, all active
voice and middle voice patterns have infinitival forms. In
addition, the specific forms of the infinitive can vary with the
era and location of the text. One of the problems that we face 
with people who attempt to study the Bible or medieval Hebrew
texts after having learned modern Hebrew, is that they tend
to retroject incomplete or inaccurate notions back on the classical
material.
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Organization: University of Turku
	<1jpcf1INNiui@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
	<LJMORLY.93Jan23122603@polaris.utu.fi>
	<1993Jan25.170511.12692@udel.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:07:02

In article <1993Jan25.170511.12692@udel.edu> carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.93Jan23122603@polaris.utu.fi> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:

> ]] A good point, Laura, but not necessarily. In the first place, you
> ]] are assuming that the nifal represents the passive voice.
> ]
> ]Well, here it does. 'Lehivaled' means 'to be born'. 

> Support? (Proof by assertion doesn't work; we can go back and forth
> forever where you say "It means this", and we say "It means that".
> Provide some support, or some reference, or a citation that we can
> verify to prove your point.

See Luach Pealim Hashalem.

> ]] hardly a passive voice construction! Because the nifal is 
> ]] much more flexible than your response would indicate, we would
> ]] have to look at your citation a bit more closely to see how
> ]] it might best be translated.
> ]
> ]I did already. And since others have also translated lamed-vav-lamed-dalet
> ]as 'to give birth', there shouldn't be any problems with that.

> Again, support. 

Bill Carlson provided a Rabbinic translation, but unfortunately I didn't
save it. Ask him.

> ]<grin] Thanks for your effort <grin]. Funny thing... I just read it 
> ]through and saw the meaning... As did a friend of mine who has lived
> ]in Israel for 20 years... 

> And again, how about some support?  (Living in Israel doesn't make
> anyone an expert on Biblical hebrew!)

Look, I've asked you folks to give a translation for this sentence for enough
many times already, but all you do is come up with statements like the above.
Once more:

"Veyesh potrin sheze haot shealmah haita ve'eina reuyah levaled."

I've also explained how I come to the translation of mine (which you were
kind enough to delete...).
 
> 	<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: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah and the controversy
Date: 27 Jan 1993 08:27:21 -0600
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <142118.2B65EEEB@paranet.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.


It would be more precise to reword as:


1)  Almah means "young woman" and does not imply virginity.

There were many non-virgin young women in Biblical times - they were married.

R

-- 
--
Robert A. Levene     Internet: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
  "/  //  / /"         Bitnet:   RXL1@APLVM