HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Mj Vs. Hc, Or Different Terminology
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:15:17 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

>#3309

Subject: Re: Mj Vs. Hc, Or Different Terminology
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Date: 25 Sep 92 02:00:45 GMT

>>  KM> Again, is the UMJC at odds with Jews for Jesus on this issue?
>>      Observance?  Yes and no.  Some Jews for Jesus are Observant,
>>      some aren't.  Those who aren't would keep good-friday/easter
>>      rather than Passover-Pesach/Omer-Rasheet.  And that we simply
>>      flat out do not agree with, (for one example).

>Is it sin?

Is it a sin to eat 2 pieces of cake, a hot fudge sundae, and 3 candy bars?

-- Bruce Tiffany
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Jesus as Messiah, but not as God
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:27:50

In article <1992Sep30.000244.12290@serval.net.wsu.edu> wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:
> Okay, so I'm being sarcastic.  But what you have stated is exactly the
> truth!  Jesus Christ was absolutely totally human. Period.

And the Son of God. Period.

>     But read the entire book and take good notice how the doctrine of
>     Christ's deity is entirely lacking.  Actually, the doctrine appears
>     nowhere in scripture.  I refer you to Acts because it is an easier
>     book to read, and because I know of no more than one even falsly
>     aledge reference to Christ's diety.

shtuyot. How do you deal with Is. 9:5 (9:6), Ps. 110, Ps. 2, Prov. 8, 
Micah 5:1 (5:2?), Zech 12:10, for the beginning ?

> Wayne VanWeerthuizen | wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu | Christian, X-trinitarian
> 205 Scott Hall       | (509) 335-1835 (voice)      | Physics ugrad, 21yrs old
> Pullman, WA  99163   |    <<< Thank You Cards For Sale, $10.00 each >>>

- Laura
--
Rabbinic Judaism is a relationship with Rabbis,
Messianic Judaism is a relationship with the Messiah Yeshua.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Jewish Interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27??
Organization: VTT
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:41:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.164021.21111@walter.bellcore.com> dwayne@blinker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Dwayne Muller) writes:
>Is there anyone who may be able to explain to me what the Conservative
>and Orthodox interpretations are of Daniel 9:24-27.
>
>I have been meeting to study the Bible with a Conservative Jew once a
>week.  We are about to look at Daniel 9.  I would like an idea what to
>expect from him.
>
\\\\\\\
There is a Scroll Art series, a modern publication of traditional commentaries,
in several books, which you can buy at many good Jewish bookstores.
From: Peggy.Baker@f0.n2012.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Maimonides on the Trinity  - (was( old) Question For Rob Levene)
Date: 1 Oct 92 07:44:16 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:2012/0

What you're saying is very enlightening. Thank you very much. You are a big help to me and probably others that you don't know about.


--  
Peggy Baker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Peggy.Baker@f0.n2012.z8.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Gifts
Organization: VTT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:55:46 GMT

I want to correct a typo for once (among many others over the years; after
all, even the first edition of the New Jerusalem Bible (English trans.)
actually refers to "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph (?!)" ;-) It has
sometimes bothered me that I haven't corrected some other typos which have
made for considerable misunderstanding sometimes, even in this newsgroup.

In article <1992Sep30.084711.8771@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood) writes:
[...

>
>[By the way, there was a story of early Christianity which likens
>Jesus to Joseph, who was given over by his jealous brothers to the
>Gentiles, among whom he became the most powerful influential leader,
>so that he was able to save not only the Gentiles but eventually his
>own brothers, with whom he was reconciled. This was providential of
>God, as we read in the conclusion of Exodus. (And even in his service,
                                     ^^^^^^^^^
>Joseph asked to have his bones returned to to his own people. I am sure
>that Jesus would have "his words" (remnant "bones" I suppose) returned
>to his own people as well.]
>
\\\\\\\\\\\\

Of course, upon reading me posting afterwards, I knew saw my mistake-
of course, I mean to refer here to the conclusion of Genesis - not Exodus,
as I wrote above.

The passage is Genesis, chapter 50, the very conclusion of the book:
Joseph answers the cries of his brothers," Even though you intended to
do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve numerous
people, as he is doing today. So have no fear' I myself will provide for
you and your little ones." In this way, he reassured them, speaking kindly
to them.

So Joseph remained in Egypt, he and his father's household ...

Then before his death Jospeh said to his brothers, "I am about to die;
but God will surely come to you, and bring you up out of this land to
teh land that he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. So Joseph
made the Israelites swear, saying, "When God comes to you, you shall
carry up my bones from here." (NRSV)

And later we read that Joseph's "bones" were brought back to the land
of Israel.






Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Out of context Zohar passage clarified
Organization: VTT
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:40:32 GMT

In article <9210051246.AA11189@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
>A friend of mine wishes to submit the following:
>
>----- BEGIN
>
>Carlson's citation of the Zohar (if indeed Carlson is its author) is a
>gross mistranslation.  At best it shows a complete lack of
>understanding of the passage's plain meaning, intention, and context.
>The plain meaning is changed to the point of fabrication.  The context
>is absolutely ignored -- the context being the manifestation of the
>Unity into creation ...
[...omitted ...]

\\\\\\\\\\\\

While I'm not enthusiastic about the Zohar, and while I agree that the
commentary does not refer to the Trinity per se, the passage cited by
Carlson is well-known among scholars, and no doubt a theological 
embarrassment to Orthodox Jews. And the response offered above to BC's
citation is phoney enough.
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Lifdot & L'chaper (was: Re: Paradise
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:24:02 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu

            -=> Quoting Robert A. Levene to Bill Carlson in: <=-
 RAL> Message-ID: <9209170732.AA05875@aplpy.jhuapl.edu>

 BC>  ...  There are plenty of Rabbinic quotes
 BC>     that state that Messiah will have the Divine Nature of HaShem.
 BC>     Do you know anyone, EVER, besides HaShem who is given the Name
 BC>     of HaShem?
 RAL> 
 RAL> *I* have it.  "Refoel" ==> "G-d has healed."
 RAL> Others include Daniel, Nathaniel, Samuel, Elchanan, Eliezer,
 RAL> Michael...  
 >>
 RAL> "Yehuda," from which "Jew" is derived, has the tetragrammaton in
 RAL> it.

      There you go again!  That is NOT what I meant, and you know it!
      "El" is NOT the Name of HaShem, in the context I was using it.
      Y-H-V-H is.  No one is ever given the full Tetragrammaton in
      Name besides HaShem.  Y'hudah is not the full Tetragrammaton by
      itself, which you fully know, not even the same root. - Yet we
      see HaMashiach called by the full Name of HaShem!  This is one
      point I'd like to see you answer before we move on.  If NO ONE is
      HaShem but HaShem, [or in other words, to change the Sh'ma as the
      Rambam suggested to: HaShem "yachid"], and so that no created
      being can EVER be called by the full Name of HaShem, why do we
      find the Angel of the L-RD & HaMashiach called by His full Name!
      Will you answer this?  Or will you come up with something else to
      side-track the point?

... 012 And El*him said: Let Us make man in Our image, after Our... 210        
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Gentile Christianityi
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:04:02 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:124/7022 - MAXUS World H, Dallas TX


    In response to Tom Albrecht:
TA>From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
TA>Date: 1 Oct 92 22:39:36 GMT

TA>1)  Constantine was not a church official.  He was not ordained to any
TA>    ecclesiastical office.  Consequently, his statements, while politica
TA>    interesting, are not all that useful theologically.

    That's easy for you to say sitting here in 1992, Tom!  Doubt you
would have muttered such nonsense had you been one of those summoned to
Nicea by Constantine.  A few hundred years of persecution against
Christians, in comes the Emperor Constantine who halts that persecution
and begins to exalt the Church....when Constantine CONVENED the Council
of Nicea, do you *really* believe his statements were held as
"interesting...not all that useful theologically?" ....Riiight.

    Said V. Kesich ("Empire-Church Relations and the Third Temptation,
"Studia Patristica, Vol. IV, Berlin, 1961, Pp.468-469) of Constantine's
"Vatican" Press Secretary, Eusebius:

    "In his political philosophy, clearly articulated in Vita
Constantini (Life of Constantine) and in Oratio de Laudibus Constantini
(Oration in Praise of Constantine), THE EMPEROR WAS THE IMAGE OF GOD AND
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ALMIGHTY.  THE EMPEROR ACTED AS THE
INTERPRETER OF THE LOGOS. HE IMITATED THE PHILANTHROPHY OF THE SON OF
GOD.  In gathering all the bishops with the emperor Constantine on the
day of his tricennalia [30th anniversary of his reign], Eusebuis saw the
image of the Messianic banquet.
    "For Eusebuis, there was no longer a precise and definate
distinction between the Church and the Empire. They appeared to merge
into each other. The structure of the Emperor's earthly government,
declares Eusebius, is according to the pattern of the divine original."

    I doubt old Eusebius was the only brown-nose in attendance at
Constantine's little theological get-together. <grin>

TA>2)The early church reacted mostly against the rabbinic tradtions that
TA>  were developing within apostate Judaism.  Those rabbinic Jews were

    I don't think so.  Think they reacted to persecution...they jumped
at the chance to become 'the Official Religion of the Constantine
Empire...official sponsers of the Sunday-day-off and fertility goddess
holiday that you Roman pagan masses know and love!'

TA>3)While there may be some pagan influences in the early church (just a
TA>  their was pagan influence in ancient Israel under folks like Ahab),
TA>  original intent of Easter was not pagan, at least as far as the earl
TA>  elders and bishops were concerned..........

    Oh, not again....if someone else wants to take you through the
documentation again--FEEL FREE FOLKS.
    Donna D;Iorio

--  
Donna D'Iorio - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Gentile Christianity
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:46:49 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

X-NEWS: pbs alt.messianic: 3337

Subject: Gentile Christianity
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Date: 25 Sep 92 15:58:22 GMT

>And, the passover celebration or seder, is still in order for it is a
>memorial feast of the Great deliverance from Egypt, in which all Jews were
>in the loins of their fathers in bondage with them.  Hence the celebration
>goes on commerating the great deeds of G-d Almighty to our people... So it
>is not just type and shadows, but actually commeration like the 4th of July.
> 
>Why do we celebrate the 4th of July in the USA?  A remembrance of our
>deliverance and independence... Same for passover...

But Harvey, don't you realize the Fourth of July is not for New Covenant
Americans?  Just as Jesus "fulfilled" the Passover, and the "shadows" were
replaced and done away with after a 40-year transitional phase to AD 70 when
God judged and destroyed old Israel (and the Old Covenant system with it),
gaining victory over His and our enemies and the enemies of the gospel, the
Jews, at Jerusalem; so it is with the Fourth of July.  After a 7-year period
of transition from the old colonial system of law (which was merely a tutor),
Father George gained the victory over his and our enemies and the enemies
of liberty, the British, at Yorktown in 1783, thus fulfilling the Fourth
of July, i.e. the Declaration of Independence.  Now we no longer need to
celebrate the Declaration of Independence, because liberty has come, and
the "shadow" -- the Declaration -- has passed away, having been replaced
by the New Covenant Constitution.  We are no longer to live under a yoke
of bondage to the Declaration or to be slaves to colonialism.  In fact,
those who insist on taking us back into bondage by celebrating the Fourth
are doomed, as they are in a sense offering up strange fireworks to God ...

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

     /\			Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
____/__\____		Lest you also be like him.
\  / || \  /		Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
 \/--++--\/		Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
 /\  ||  /\
/  \ || /  \					-- Proverbs 26:4-5
----\--/----
     \/			-- Bruce Tiffany
From: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Gentile Christianityi
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:04:04 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:124/7022 - MAXUS World H, Dallas TX


    In response to Bruce Tiffany:
bb>From: btiffany@pbs.org
bb>Date: 2 Oct 92 12:46:49 GMT

bb>of July, i.e. the Declaration of Independence.  Now we no longer need to
bb>celebrate the Declaration of Independence, because liberty has come, and
bb>the "shadow" -- the Declaration -- has passed away, having been replaced
bb>by the New Covenant Constitution.  We are no longer to live under a yoke

    Thanks for the laugh, Bruce....you have a crisp wit.

--  
Donna D'Iorio - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Genesis
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:05:08 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <140280.2AC1A1AF@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio) writes:

>    For what its worth, Pickett, I don't believe a literal 24-hour day
> is what Gen 1 is communicating to us....and I do believe that the
>account is inerrant, G-d breathed/inspired.  You might be interested in
>astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross' "Fingerprint of God" that deals with this
>in-depth.  He is a believer whose weekly TBN program airs Wed/11 PM
>central time.
>    Genesis 1-2 communicates a great deal more information than is
>commonly thought.  Go back to the original Hebrew, and no word is
>insignificant.  Watch for things like speaking "Light" into existence on
>Day One, yet creation of the sun, moon, stars not until Day Four....that
>alone will create a few questions about a literal 24-hour Creation day!
>    Happy Word studies...<grin>
>    Donna D'Iorio

I heard Ross on TBN.  What he said was very interesting.  THe problem I had
with it was that IMHO, "and there was morning and there was evening, the"
whatever (first through sixth) "day" was not properly explained.  These
verses too seem to support literal day/night days (though you cannot prove
that they were 24 hours.  Maybe the earth moved more slowly and the morning 
and evening each lasted for millenia.)   Does the Hebrew allow for a non-
literal morning and evening in these verses?

Mail me.
Link Hudson.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Re: Jesus as Messiah, but not as God
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 14:40:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.165815.21349@bony1.bony.com> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.000244.12290@serval.net.wsu.edu> wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:
>
>>- The "Orthodox" have really misread many passages: John 1.1, John 8:58
>> Phil 2:6, Isa 9:6, ect...   All these have simple understandable meanings
>> right in line with their context, but these are not what are being taught.

>This sounds like typical stuff espoused by The Way International.  Are
>you a follower of their teachings?
>

It doesn't matter who says it, as long as it is right.  I am not tied to
any demonination whatsoever.  I have read some of Wierwille's stuff, and
do agree with most (but not all) of it.  I have also read stuff from the
Christadelphians, the Church of God of the Faith of Abraham, and some
19th century Unitarians (back when they actually knew the Bible.)

I was raised in the Assemblies of God, but have on my own come to the
point of realizing they are wrong.      

-- 
Wayne VanWeerthuizen | wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu | Christian, X-trinitarian
205 Scott Hall       | (509) 335-1835 (voice)      | Physics ugrad, 21yrs old
Pullman, WA  99163   |    <<< Thank You Cards For Sale, $10.00 each >>>
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Gentile Christianityi
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:50:47 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio) writes:

>     Thank you for pointing this out, Tord.  I have been much less
> interested to discuss anything with Tom since reading here that Harvey
> and Bill have been talking to him for years.  This indicates to me that
> Tom is here for "sport"--some theological sparring.  ...

No, I'm not here for sport.  I'm here to make a case for orthodox (aka
biblical) Christianity.  I find it offensive that MJs make sport of
"gentile Christianity" without direct reference to the word of God.  I find
it annoying that MJs hide behind a mask of legal purity (obedience to the
old covenant laws) without any discussions of how those laws have been
modified under the new covenant (see Ken Mann's questions).  I find some of
the convenient distortions of the Bible from MJ theology curious and worth
exploring.  If you want to talk about the Bible, we can do that.  If you
want to rely on Harvey and Bill and Bruce instead of finding out for
yourself what I believe about the scritptures, you can do that too.

>             To him Israel is just a doctrine; to me it is a living,
> breathing people.  ...

Au contraire.  If you want to talk about biblical Israel, we can talk about
that.  If you want to talk about the MJ/dispensational/fundamentalist
Christian concept of Israel, or the modern state of Israel, we can talk
about that, and how they differ from the biblical concept of Israel.

>                    I could care less about playing king-of-the-
> theological-mountain with him.

Afraid of losing ... or winning? :-)


--
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Re: Jesus as Messiah, but not as God
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 00:02:44 GMT

In article <rabjab.179.0@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>What are the theological problems with belief in Jesus as Messiah,
>but not as a diety?
>
>Jeff Bytof
>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu


The problems would be insurmountable!

- One would have to actually read the bible, instead of just taking
  verses out of context and adding them together.
- On would have to actually read the context regarding what these verses
  really mean.
- I don't think one could be an amillenialist.  (At least I don't know
  of any amillenialists who deny the diety of Christ, yet concider him
  the messiah.)

Okay, so I'm being sarcastic.  But what you have stated is exactly the
truth!  Jesus Christ was absolutely totally human. Period.

I won't get into a full argument here, but here are some important points.

- The "Orthodox" have really misread many passages: John 1.1, John 8:58
 Phil 2:6, Isa 9:6, ect...   All these have simple understandable meanings
 right in line with their context, but these are not what are being taught.

- Some (not all yes, but still quite a few) Trinitarians claim that the
  acknowledgement of Jesus's deity is essential for salvation.  Yet to
  find out what the gospel really is, why not read about the early church
  and what they taught.  I.E. Read ALL the SERMONS in acts.  They never
  even mention the [supposed] diety of Christ, none the less consider it
  important!  

  But read carefully, you'll find that the book of Acts not only fails to
  mention the deity of Christ.  It also DENIES the possibility.

  Some good places to start reading:
    Acts 10:36-38
     very important: What is the difference between saying 
                       "God was with him"
                    and "He was God" ???  Which does the text say?

    Acts 10:38-43 (Notice all the contrasts between Jesus and God.)
    (and if Peter meant 'The Father', why didn't he just say so?  Using
    the term 'God' of the Father makes it seem really clear that Jesus
    is NOT.  Hmmm. Maybe the ONLY God IS the Father?)
               cf. John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, 1 Tim 2:5

    Acts 17:2-3,31 (Read verse 31 carefully)
    
    But read the entire book and take good notice how the doctrine of
    Christ's deity is entirely lacking.  Actually, the doctrine appears
    nowhere in scripture.  I refer you to Acts because it is an easier
    book to read, and because I know of no more than one even falsly
    aledge reference to Christ's diety.


                               
-- 
Wayne VanWeerthuizen | wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu | Christian, X-trinitarian
205 Scott Hall       | (509) 335-1835 (voice)      | Physics ugrad, 21yrs old
Pullman, WA  99163   |    <<< Thank You Cards For Sale, $10.00 each >>>