HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.messianic,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Isaiah 7:14   (Re: Flames, Don Disappointed)
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:07:29 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

>In article <1992Jul15.155507.11209@tronsbox.xei.com> moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:
>Arnold writes:
>
>>The Hebrew word used for "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 can be translated as 
>>young girl.  Greek has a more exact translation, parthenos, which means
>>nothing but virgin.  An aside point on Isaiah 7:14, it is correctly
>>translated as virgin, because of its context, "the Lord Himself will give
>>you a sign: Behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son....."
>>Now its not much of a sign if a young girl will bear a son.
>
>This, of course, is the Christian perspective used to bolster their
>beliefs.  From the Jewish perspective, the term used ("almah") never
>means virgin; it always means "young girl."  And the sign was not in
>the bearing of the child.

Actually, many conservative evangelical Christian theologians also
recognize that the word 'almah' in Isaiah 7:14 means only "young girl".
In fact, this was specifically pointed out by Henry Alford in his
4-volume "New Testament for English Readers", which, though first
published over 100 years ago, is still widely respected by many
conservative Christian theologians.  Very few serious conservative
Christian theologians give any weight to the LXX translation.

But then how does Isaiah 7:14 apply to Jesus Christ the Messiah?
This is done through what in theology called 'typological fulfillment',
in which an event or an immediate fulfillment serves as the TYPE
of the future, greater fulfillment.  This is especially true with
the messianic prophecies, for, according to the ancient rabbinical
writings, the history of Israel would be repeated in the person of
Messiah, only in a greater and more spiritual way.  It is precisely
with this in mind that Matthew applied the exodus of Israel out of
Egypy ("out of Egypt I called my Son") to the personal history of
Jesus.  To really understand the 'typological fulfillment' and the
role it played in the way NT quoted OT passages, we have to know
the ancient Hebrews' view of 'time' and 'history'.  It is well-known
to the historians that ancient Hebrews viewed 'time' and 'history'
in a cyclical manner, in sharp contrast to the 'linear model' of
'time' and 'history' of the ancient Greeks.  Thus, the historical
patterns were to be repeated, from the ancient Hebrew prospective,
in the history of Israel, and summed up in the person of Messiah.
It is with this prospective in mind that Matthew could associate
three historical events -- the slaughter of the innocents, the carrying
away of young children to Babylon, and the wailing of Rachel --
in one thread.  And it is with this prospective that Matthew applied
Isaiah 7:14 to the virgin birth of Jesus.

I cross-post this to soc.culture.jewish, not to seek converts, but
to seek their wisdom and inputs.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Looking for the Self (was Re: absolute truth)
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:51:44 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Marc Wachowitz writes:

>Len Moskowitz <moskowit@panix.com> continues the dialogue about a possibly
>nonexistant:
> ...
>So if "you" (grmf, always those language problems :-) may sometimes be aware
>of all as one, that may be interpreted as having "forgotten" it before - much
>like one can "forget" unliked memories and - sometimes - access them later
>(the persona/shadow split). Still it wasn't really separate.

True.  The question then becomes: are we ever aware of all as one.
For most of us, the answer is: "no, never."  Tales of one-ness mostly
have the quality of fantasies or dreams -- we don't have first hand
experience of it.

>Btw, a good book about those "splits" is "No Boundary" by Ken Wilber; he
>argues that the various therapies, from ordinary psychology over psyche/soma
>until "spritual" practice, just address different kinds of "pseudo-separations"
>of the spectrum of consciousness, thus healing the whole.
>Though someone remarked that the whole doesn't need healing.
>Don't know.

Do you have any personal experience that leads you to conclude that
Wilber might be right?  Has Wilber related any experiences of this
sort?

>: If we were one, would I ever be unaware of Marc?
>Where is this "I" and "Marc"? :-)

I'm here.  You are there.  Or can you say for sure that this is not
so.  I would like to but can't.

>But according to that model the ego is somewhat like your arm "thinking" it
>had a self-identity and would decide/act independently from "you". Something
>like that does indeed exis: there's a nice book by Oliver Sacks, the title is
>is something like "The day when my leg went away", don't remember it exactly
>(huh, repressed memories??? :-)

Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik relates a similar story.

The model is just a model until we confirm it for ourselves.

>Is this meant as allusion to "I AM THAT I AM", the "Tao" or ... ? :-)

How would "I" know? :^}

>"No however exceptional action/experience exceeds exceeds eating rice."
>  -- Dogen Zenji
>
>Nice meal :-)

Thank you.  It's a fine day.  Quite ordinary.

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Reply-To: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:12:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.182915.22178@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
|> In article <cass8806.108@elan.glassboro.edu> 
|>   cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
|> >In article <62609@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
|> >
|> >>Dear Everybody: I don't have time to say much. A person by the name 
|> >>of Kumar in Germany has been sending me E-mail and my E-mail has not
|> >>been getting back to him so I sent him a telepathic message. He wrote 
|> >>me yesterday that he was aware of me sending him a telepathic message
|> >>and that I had woken him up and had also appeared in his dreams. This 
|> >>has happened to me and other people before. On sunday and monday nights
|> >>I did a little warm up astral projection.  Remember tonight at 1100 PM
|> >>it the time we'll do the experiment.
|> >>John Winston.
|> >
|> >that's AMAZING! Kumar has been appearing in MY dreams too! though in the 
|> >guise of a shoe salesman trying to sell filet mignon to sandinista rebels 
|> >with inflamed salvatory glands!!
|> >
|> >what could this mean?
|> 
|> I think it means you need to lay off the medication for a few weeks.
|> 
|> (BTW - John Winston has been appearing in my dreams too.  He is usually 
|> wearing leather and has a Golden retreiver and about 10 containers of
|> whipped cream with him.  Scares the shit out of me).
|> 
|> C Frog


I had a dream that grey empaths dressed in black had taken over New
Jersey.....


Mike

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:55:29 -0400 
From: Questor Lau <ql04+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: HIGHER SELF

I think it is interesting that while I hear a lot of people mentioning
merging with the Higher Self or a Higher Purpose, or more Enlightened
beings... I never hear anything like re-experiencing what it means to be
in ego or to see the world only through the physical body and for a
while forget that we are searching for this something "Higher...." 

When was the last time you sat and felt the wind as just a whoosh; when
you splashed water on your face and felt it as cold as wet, instead of
as cleansing and washing your body; when did you last look at a person
not to see their inside as beautiful but looked at just their outside
and truly admired it, not envied it, just admired...

There is much to be learned from looking back at past habits in light of
the present point of view. You no longer have those same constraints and
hang-ups you did then. You can be more critical and objective yet
forgiving for not understanding then what you know now. You can release
those past blockages -- whatever they be that hold you back, and you can
learn better what it means to be living in the present to help decide
the future.


Just some thoughts... 
-Q
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:18:06 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <sbuckley.711748601@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>  if you are correct in you understanding of rock and car, it is logically
>inconsistent to say god may exist, yet not be a being.  can you show
>me how it isn't illogical?

  I can't show you anything. 

  All I'm saying is that God, if such a thing exists, need not be a being
any more than a car or a rock are a being. 



	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi


	David Hatcher







Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:17:35 GMT

moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:


> Have you had any personal experiences that you might relate that led
> you to conclude (or in a weaker sense, believe) that there isn't an
> independent existence?
> 
> Personally, I'm not so sure.

Well there is obivously a sense in which we experience ourselves as
independent entities. There is also available to humans the capacity to
connect so profoundly with other persons, and with God, that we know we are
all 'part of the same stuff'.

I have known the dissolution of ego-boundaries and the loss of the sense of
independent existence, the awareness of existence as shared, that my life
and experiences and those of another are intimately and completely
intertwined and inseparable.

Which leads me to conclude that independent existence is one perspetive from
which we can experience things, but not the only one available.

My hunch - or belief if you will - is that the idea of independence is quite
useful for certain things. I likewise believe that one can step out of it if
one chooses and that when one does, everything looks quite a lot different.
I am also aware that it is difficult to do this and it is difficult to
operate (or live) with another when the ego boundaries are very permeable.

I would not recommend that anyone undertake the exercise lightly.

=doug


----------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: uunet.ca!uuisis.isis.org!doug                Voice: 613-722-4724
DNS:  doug@uuisis.isis.org, doug@uuisis.UUCP, doug@isishq.fidonet.org
                      SKAN Communications Inc
      POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: caina@merrimack.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:44:55 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA

In article <62609@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
> Dear Everybody: I don't have time to say much. A person by the name 
> of Kumar in Germany has been sending me E-mail and my E-mail has not
> been getting back to him so I sent him a telepathic message. He wrote 
> me yesterday that he was aware of me sending him a telepathic message
> and that I had woken him up and had also appeared in his dreams. This 
> has happened to me and other people before. On sunday and monday nights
> I did a little warm up astral projection.  Remember tonight at 1100 PM
> it the time we'll do the experiment.
> John Winston.

   Now this is good...From now on when I call someone and the line is busy...
I'll send them a telepathic message.  Why do I get the feeling you believe
 you've  talked to Elvis in your local K-mart?  

Now kids...Pay attention, By smoking some weird foreign substance, you too
can post weird messages.

Alex
*****************************************************************************
Stand your ground, Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have
a war...let it begin here!
                        Captain Parker
                        April 19, 1775
                        Battle of Lexington
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.messianic,soc.culture.jewish
From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:52:44 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <33150@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.175927.641@tc.fluke.COM> nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>>It is independent of whether there is existence or not.  I start of
>>on the premise, "if there is existence", and follow up, then God must
>>be a being.
>>
>>As for myself, I cannot deny my own existence.  On that basis,  I must
>>exist.  If I exist, I must be a being (in a state of existence). 
>
>  Using your argument than, I cannot deny the existence of that huge 
>rock in my backyard, it has always been in my way. So than, it must 
>exist.  Than as you say, if it exists, it must be a being (in a state 
>of existence). The car that I drive to work in than must also be a 
>"being". I cannot deny it's existence because I use it everyday.
>
>  Do I have this correct?

No.  It doesn't quite work that way.  The rock might be a product of
your imagination, and in this sense it is impossible to know if it
is or isn't.

Even if you were a product of your own imagination, you still exist.
There is no way to deny your own existence.....thus you exist
absolutely.
>
>  What I'm really trying to say here is that just because God may exist, 
>that does not mean that God is a "being".
>

Then, (no flame intended), you must hold that God exists and he is not
a being, or in a state of non-existence.  You must hold that God exists
and doesn't exist.  They seem pretty mutually exclusive to me. 
Can you support your reasoning to show how two contradictory statements
can be affirmed? 
>
>	David Hatcher


-- 
_______________________
-Arnold Nordeng           
 nordenga@tc.fluke.COM

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill 
 Him a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
 and God.  But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense 
 about His being a great human teacher.  He has not left that 
 open to us.  He did not intend to."
                                        -C.S. Lewis.
From: ianr@muppet.bt.co.uk (Ian Robertson )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Indepen
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:28:16 GMT
Reply-To: ianr@muppet.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom


	Begging your pardons but WHY is it

GLOBAL - only AMERICANS make any reference to it ??
INDEPENDENCE - from what ?? . 

	LOVE & LIGHT
	Ian


	weird:- fortune destiny; the fates, the three goddesses of destiny;
		an event destined to happen; an omen; mysterious saying; 
		someone with supernatural skill or knowlege; having the power
		to control the destiny of men; troublesome mystrious harmfull;
		weird strange uncanny; ordain by fate; assign a specific fate or
		fortune to; warn ominously !!!.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive 
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:47:20 GMT

|> Glenn "if they come, they better bring beer!" Tinseth
A LOT of beer!  (And maybe some pizza.)  :-)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:12:53 GMT

John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
: Dear Doug: It sounds like you have a clear alert mind and your not
: afraid to stand out from the other people and say what you think.
: John Winston.

Brilliant.  Sounds like one of those statements you hear from
astrologers with which at least 95% of the population will agree.

(I'm not implying that the statement is false in Doug's case.)

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I am a jelly donut.  I
Rosemount Inc.                                |am a jelly donut.
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Enlightenment (was Re: about absolute truth; Krishnamurti)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:29:13 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

Marc Wachowitz writes:

>: Why would one strive to achieve this state?
>Don't know why one would strive for this or that, or about reasons.
>One just does what one does, clearly.
>
>(the answer isn't meant to be silly, either)

Too bad Gerald's not around.  I think that he would've enjoyed this
exchange, as I did.

>P.S. I'm not trying to convince anybody of this or that, and don't find much
>worth in arguing whether this teacher or that teacher is right or wrong.
>Contents of teachings can be useful to some extent, but then what matters is
>actual life, not speculations about it, yes?

Why don't you go sell water by the riverside!  Ha!

-- 
---

Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Faith vs. periodic reality-checks.
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:13:33 EST

In article <1992Jul24.214141.1914@tc.fluke.COM>, nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.113606.8516@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul17.205120.2288@tc.fluke.COM>, nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>>but i think you'd agree - what christianity is basically about is
>>blind faith.
> I would *not* agree that it is based on *blind* faith.  Its faith based on
> based on a historical narrative.  It is a faith that is based on that which
> has taken up time and space and has made a greater impact than any figure
> in history.
Nope.  Sorry, there is one source that purports that history is the case.  As
far as impact, how about Mohammed, Buddha, in pure numbers?
> 
> For what is so "blind", more books have been written about the one person
> than any other person in history, analyzing everything upside down and
> sideways.  This same person gets more discussion in this newsgroup alone,
> the posts are still rolling in.  And many have died for the sake of His
> name.
The primary reason the discussion often turns that way is due to intrusion. 
Such as American Indians, Incas, Aztecs, others?
> 
> Whether or not this person was who he claimed to be does not change the 
> above facts.
What facts?
> 
GXKambic
standard disclaimer
From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Subject: Re: absolute truth tests
Keywords: Re: absolute truth tests
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:32:57 GMT

In article <33855@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.193500.939@tc.fluke.COM> nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>
>>And these folk want to be enlightened?  I have concluded rational 
>>thinking is an impediment to newage enlightenment.
>
>  If you don't dig it, than it is just as well that you do not join it.
>But, that does not make it wrong, nor does it make you right.

And is this an absolute? :-P  Why do you bother discussing right or
wrongs....its only relative.

>
>	David Hatcher


-- 
_______________________
-Arnold Nordeng           
 nordenga@tc.fluke.COM

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill 
 Him a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
 and God.  But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense 
 about His being a great human teacher.  He has not left that 
 open to us.  He did not intend to."
                                        -C.S. Lewis.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Re: absolute truth tests
Keywords: Re: absolute truth tests
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:37:43 GMT

Hi Arnold- 

You said 

  (Norman Kraft) writes:
  >
  >Wrong. I take it that you are not familiar with dialetic both/and 
  >philosophical structures? The above statements are not conclusive that
  >God has no meaning, but rather that God has *all* meaning. 
  >

  Wrong?  Now Norm, coming from the sea of relativity,  and both/and
  philosophical systems, how can you say this? ;-)
  Reality must be non-contradictory.  It is so interesting how you come
  out of your relativistic to make an absolutist statement such as "wrong."
  Aren't I right as much as I am wrong? ;-)  You are untrue to what
  you believe.


I (Wm Tucker) say:

Good catch. Look out! you're starting to understand. Given a point, that point
is your reference point. Establish a point anywhere. A leaf falls from a tree
into a lake. The ripples moving away from the point of impact (the perspective
of effect of leaf), the leaf getting wet in the water (how the leaf is affected
by reality), the leaf falling from the tree - the sun shining - a cloud passes 
by - a bird sings - a child is born....(the leaf falling from the tree).


Wm T.

.standared disclaimer
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3583 alt.alien.visitors:4932 sci.skeptic:13390
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: John's Astral Convoy (Was: Re: The Prime Directive)
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:40:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <63081@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>Dear Clock Watchers:
>The take off time for the Astral Convoy will be 1100 PM Milpitas, Calif.
>daylight savings time.  I feel pretty good physically for the shape I'm in
>but Astrally and Spiritally I feel that I cans leap tall buildings with 
>a single bound. Loosen up everybody. Try not to be so serious. The 
>more serious you are the more it is going to hold you back. I'll throw
>in a little extra tonight (wednesday), I'll ask the space people to appear
>to anyone that would like to see them. They don't have to do it but it
>would be an added thing.
>John Winston

Frankly, this is not an article, this is an ad, an invitation to a
religious meeting (of sorts). I don't see it belonging to sci.skeptic
any more than, say, comp.sys.mac.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: sallyb@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Sally Bowley)
Subject: Re: sun bear
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:12:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.024355.19307@qiclab.scn.rain.com> sallyb@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Sally Bowley) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.190137.11727@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rjp1@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (be here now) writes:


bob - your mail of yesterday got zapped into the abyss of my system
and i'm trying to retrieve it. will reply when i figure it out...
sal
>