HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Mj Vs. Hc, Or Different Terminology
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:09:30 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0

To: Tom Albrecht
It really doesn't matter Tom, for one thing when we answer you, you just 
ignore the answers and act like we did not answer you.  The  below was 
answerd a long time back.  Why not read or make sure you are getting a good 
enough feed so that you can see all the answers..

 TA=>Bill stated that MJs and J4J (observant vs. non-observant, 
 TA=>really) disagree
 TA=>on this matter of the degree of observance.  My question was 
 TA=>simply; do MJs
 TA=>view those Jews who are non-observant as being in sin based on 
 TA=>the MJ
 TA=>understanding of the ongoing validity of the old covenant 
 TA=>separation laws?

Of course not...observance and form has nothing to do with spiritual 
blindness or sin or being lost.  you can observe to your hearts content and 
still be lost.  you can go to church every sunday Tom, and not even remember 
what the homily was when you leave, or you can do a lot of things during a 
service.  Does that make you saved or lost. 

I dare say not.  The only thing that either saves you or prounounces 
judgment upon you is whether or not you have received G-d's atoning 
sacrifice for you.  Are you covered in the blood of Yeshua, are your sins 
forgiven?  Has the Almighty placed His Holy Spirit within you and were you 
washed by the Word of Salvation and born again...(Rom 10:9-13)

 TA=>comes to the conclusion that dietary laws and Levitical festival 
 TA=>laws are
 TA=>no loner binding or directly applicable under the new covenant as 
 TA=>religious
 TA=>rites, do (observant) MJs believe that person is, objectively 
 TA=>speaking, in
 TA=>sin?

Again you are mixing apples and oranges... Nope we just say he is living far 
below his privilages and blessings in Yeshua...and in the future will only 
be able to say: "i come from a jewish background"....  

Has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.  Why are you tempting G-d in 
the first place to attempt to make these issues of salvation.  We certainly 
don't...

 TA=>Or, are their two sets of laws in this case; one for the 
 TA=>observant Jew and
 TA=>one for the non-observant Jew?

There is only one set of laws Tom.  However, in Messiah we know that we all 
have transgressed the laws of G-d and we have broken the covenant, so hence 
we all whether we are observant or not, have to be forgiven of our sins, as 
you well know.  To whom much is given much is required, to whom little is 
given little is required... That is why we are not to judge one another in 
regards to meat, drink or a holy day.  However that sword cuts two ways.  I 
should not judge you for what you don't do, and you shouldn't judge me for 
what i do..


--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Gentile Christianity Is False?
Date: 25 Sep 92 15:44:18 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0


To: Bill Carlson


 BC=>    Pre-Adamic Creationalism.  I did NOT say that any MJ 
 BC=>Congregation
 BC=>    "preaches" it, I said there might be some MJ's that hold to 
 BC=>it
 BC=>    however.  But, I think he is confusing the term with 
 BC=>"Day-Age"
 BC=>    Theory, which is little more than a dressed-up Evolution, and
 BC=>    there probally are hardly any, (if any),  MJ's that would 
 BC=>agree
 BC=>    with any form of Evolution.

Hummm, That there was a creation before Adam and this creation is a matter 
aluded to in Ezek 28, one where Lucifer ruled principalities and powers.
That that world was destroyed, and a new creation which involved the making 
of man a little lower than the angels, another reference to the prior 
creation, which was inhabited and ruled by angels.  However, there are no 
specific scriptural teachings just small references that give us a little 
glimpse before Eden.  However, this is not a doctrine nor is it taught 
within MJ circles that i know of.  I have been aware of this for many years 
and have done the research that i am convinced that Lucifer did in fact rule 
a pre creation... But its not important for one to either believe or 
reject... (grin).

As to Thiestic evolution, you are right, we would not in any way uphold that 
theory.  We are believers in the G-d of Creation, and that entails believing 
that He created heaven and earth and all that is within in 6 days and rested 
on the seventh...  Some would make the first day eons, and then commence 
with other 24 hr days commencing with man, however, G-d's word is plain.  He 
created all in 6 days, 6 24 hr periods, and rested on the 7th and hallowed 
it, and we who are believers in the G-d of creation, keep the Sabbath as a 
testimony to His Greatness.. 

--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: 2 Passover/Easter
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:25:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:124/7022 - MAXUS World H, Dallas TX


    2nd in Response to Harvey Smith:

HS>The Easter or Resurrection type services that i have
HS>attended are not non scriptural either Donna, in that the
HS>contatas, and the sermons re enact the
HS> last passover, and the death of Messiah and His resurrection as found i
HS> New covenant.
HS>
HS>However, no changes have been made by scripture, but scripture does give
HS>Gospel and the gentiles to freedom to express these things
HS>within their own culture as we are fighting for that same
HS>right within ours.  Acts 15
HS>
HS>However, once in place the majority always wants to impose
HS>their way on the minority within any movement, and that is
HS>what is wrong.  So we over react and then we make
HS>statements that only involve MJ's and it is taken out of
HS>context, to mean that we should no longer involve ourselves
HS>in the scriptural methodology for Jews but come along and
HS>do it non jewish style for "unity".  When the scripture is
HS>plain:

    Didn't I say I have nothing against the Easter/Resurrection
services?  What bothers me is not Gentiles exercising freedom in
expression of these things, what bothers me is their ignorance of the
feasts.  (Although the original separation from all Jewish context is
bothersome to me....and perhaps there would not be such a chasm between
the ways Jewish and Gentile believers observe these things IF there had
not been the "Replacement" concept in the first place.)

    You seem to be saying that you see the feasts as only involving
Jews.  Even though there is no SCRIPTURAL basis for the rejection of the
appointed feasts of the L-rd.  My perspective is that if there
had not been an effort to wipe out all Jewish aspects of Christianity
then MJs would not be fighting now for the "right" to observe these
things in a Jewish context; Christianity wouldn't seem like such a
alien, idolatrous religion in the eyes of Jews; and Gentiles would see
the continuity that exists throughout the scripture and between the
faiths.
    Yes, this is split milk, but it is not too late to learn. Perhaps
the observances would not change at all, but the important thing is that
a great deal of the arrogance that is the fruit of ignorance would be
done away with.

    My point is not that Gentile Christianity must change its
observance, but that it should cease to be ignorant of the biblical
Passover...and how it CAN relate to the biblical Passover without ANY
danger of undermining what Yeshua has done.
    Last but not least, there ARE types and shadows to be seen in the
Feasts....and I fully believe of the Fall feasts, those are prophetic--
to be fulfilled.

--  
Donna D'Iorio - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Jesus as Messiah, but not as God
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:33:43 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

What are the theological problems with belief in Jesus as Messiah,
but not as a diety?

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean and unclean
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:01:24 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0

> >Wrong again Tom.  I would hope you would do some research before you make
> >such comments.  There are Charismatic Denominations.  ...

 TA=>My original comment was that there is no "Charismatic" 
 TA=>denomination simplar
 TA=>to a Presbyterian or Baptist denomination.  There are 
 TA=>denominations that
 TA=>are charismatic in nature, just as there are denominations that 
 TA=>are
 TA=>pentecostal in nature.  But here is no "First Charismatic Church 
 TA=>of
 TA=>Philadelphia", for example.  Is there?

 TA=>"Bishop" Earl Paulk?  I hear he's making it big time with some of 
 TA=>the MJs
 TA=>Bruce hangs out with.  Are the "Bishop" Paulk and "apostolic 
 TA=>pastor" Juster
 TA=>still keeping company, Bruce?

Mj's relate to many different groups as i said before Tom.  Most of us 
however see Earl Paulk as a deceiver, and not to be trusted, as once we have 
taught him some things about anti semitism, he seems to levitate back to 
that scene, much the same way as i perceived you have done in the past.
 


--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean and Unclean
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:49:29 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

#3298
Subject: Re: Clean and Unclean
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Date: 24 Sep 92 15:50:32 GMT

>Furthermore, I've not found any Jewish sources that say that the only
>means of atonement is via blood.

Torah is a Jewish source, and that's what it says.

>  They all say that the blood is a
>necessary component of animal sacrifices.  Hebrews 9 says that
>blood is needed for all atonement, but that's part of the Christian
>scriptures, not Jewish scriptures.

Step back a moment and see how silly this really is.  I mean, was there
some danger of there not being blood shed when an animal was sacrificed?
Would Adonai really tell the kohanim to be sure not to leave out the blood
when sacrificing?  Ludicrous!

But He would say blood is necessary for atonement, which is why the sacrifice
of the animal is necessary.

"Be sure only to sacrifice animals that have blood in them, because when
sacrificing animals blood is a necessary component of the sacrifice!"

<sidesplitting laughter!>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
		Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried;
     /\		... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was
____/__\____	crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being
\  / || \  /	fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.  All of us
 \/--++--\/	like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own
 /\  ||  /\	way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on
/  \ || /  \	Him. ... By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will
----\--/----	justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.
     \/							-- Isaiah 53
		Bruce Tiffany
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: Sun, 4 Oct 92 20:16:50 GMT

In article <LJMORLY.92Oct4133130@polaris.utu.fi> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
>Wayne, your translation is a fake. (I checked the given verses with the
>original.) Something I'd like to comment on: the correct verb in Prov.
>8:22 is 'possessed', not 'created'. If God wouldn't have had the Wisdom,
>he couldn't have created anything.
>
??? My "translation is a fake" ????   Huh?

Give a single example of any mistranslation in the texts I quoted.

With one exception, (Duet 6:4) They are all from either the NRSV, NIV
or Charles Briggs book, "Messianic Prophecy".  Duet 6:4 can and should 
be translated, "Yahveh is our God, only Yahveh."


-- 
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: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Gentile Christianity Is False?
Date: 25 Sep 92 03:12:15 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


 -=> Quoting Harvey Smith to Ken Mann <=-

 KM=>Persecution is good for "forcing" a dependency on Scripture!
 
 KM=>However, I contend that a MJ congregation which preaches a 
 KM=>RE-creation
 KM=>(as Bill Carlson contends), does not preach the truth.

 HS> I don't understand RE-Creation.... Please explain

    Pre-Adamic Creationalism.  I did NOT say that any MJ Congregation
    "preaches" it, I said there might be some MJ's that hold to it
    however.  But, I think he is confusing the term with "Day-Age"
    Theory, which is little more than a dressed-up Evolution, and
    there probally are hardly any, (if any),  MJ's that would agree
    with any form of Evolution.

Shalom


... 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: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Jesus as Messiah, but not as God
Organization: VTT
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:39:56 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

\\\\\\\
As far as I know, no Christians have believed that Jesus is a diety
different from God. On the other hand, even some modern ones (churches)
reject the belief that he is God. Also, it is known from historical
evidence some ancient Jewish Christians (or some Messianic Jews)
also rejected this belief.

There are some problems:
(i) fundemental disagreement with others and traditions;
(ii) need to explain some (few) apparent NT references identifying
Christ as God;
(iii) need to explain some (several) apparent NT references attributing
some divine aspect to Christ;
(iv) need to explain that Christ is alive with God, and glorified with
God, after his death and resurrection;
(v) need to explain ancient Jewish, pre-Christian tradition about the
pre-existence of the Messiah;
(vi) need to explain the expectation that Christ would come again;
(vii) may call into question the "objective truth" of most of the Bible,
a difference between events and persons and what was said about them
(for whatever reasons).

(There are also problems for traditional Christians, requiring explanation
of some kind:
(i) Jesus explicitly distinguishes between himself and God, a few times.
(ii) Differences between John's Gospel, theothers (Synoptic) Gospels,
and the tradition of Paul (who actually wrote first of all). They characterize
Christ and his relationship to God in different ways.

[I might remark concerning the inerrancy of the Gospels, that an apparent
factual error of scripture is attributed to Jesus himself in one story.
But there is a bigger problem - are we to disavow what sayings are 
attributed to Jesus if we have doubts about them. How fallible can the
Messiah be? How fallible can be the Gospels? Or the rest of the Bible?
To be sure I am not saying that it is historically or theologicaly
perfect. But how do we know what is what? We can't in general. We have to
be guided by traditions as well as our own religious experiences, and
other knowledge. 

Personally, I am very sure that God does not judge us according
to our theological beliefs or other knowledge. Paul says that it is
charitable love that matters. That is what Jesus said too, in the story of
the Last Judgment, in which he identified himself with those who are
suffering.

What alternative is there? Most churches prefer to to call Jesus the
Son of God, who uniquely reveals God to us and who saves us. And they
avoid controversial speculations about the mysterious relation of Christ
and God. They affirm that Christ is a divine "person" of God, like the
Spirit of God which is referred to in the Old Testament.

D.H.
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Gentile Christianity is false?
Date: 25 Sep 92 04:56:40 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0


 TA=>Are you saying that Jewishness is defined just by doing certain 
 TA=>things, so
 TA=>that if a Jewish convert to Christianity gives up Jewish customs 
 TA=>(be they
 TA=>orthodox, convervative, reform), they're no longer to be 
 TA=>considered Jewish?

Nope, i am saying what will his grandchildren be????
 


--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Loud & Long
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:01:10 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: 28 Sep 92 23:50:47 GMT

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

    Haha.  Your comebacks lately have begun to remind me of the PLO.
They too ignore reality & speak under the premise that eventually all
they are saying will be accepted as fact *IF* they just repeat their
claims loud enough and long enough!
    You may be fooling some people, Tom, and even yourself, but the
above justifications are absolutely baseless claims. Apparently you have
gone stone cold blind to any scriptural or historical evidence that does
not support the position you champion....because it is a matter of
record here that such evidence is repeatedly presented to you.

TA>> I could care less about playing king-of-the-
TA>> theological-mountain with him.
TA>
TA>Afraid of losing ... or winning? :-)

     Neither....afraid of losing a love for the truth
                as you seem to have.

    BTW, I'm not boycotting you. If you post anything worth responding
to I will, but I will not let you just consume my time with your empty
accusations.
    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: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: 7 Laws for Gentiles
Date: 30 Sep 1992 11:28:57 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


> RAL> There are *two* ways to G-d:
> RAL> 
> RAL> 1.  For non-Jews - the seven Noachide laws
> RAL> 2.  For Jews - Judaism 

Bill Carlson writes:

>     Oh really?  So nu, - of the seven Mitzvot of the b'nai-Noachim,
>     which are you exempt from?!

Those two ways are compatible, in that the seven laws for 
Gentiles are also part of Judaism.  Gentiles are exempt from 
the specifics of Judaism.

Someone (Laura?) claimed that these two are really one way -
following G-d's law.  That's a fair way to look at it.

Rob

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Missionizing to 2-year-olds
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 19:58:24 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Sep24.152910.17930@pbs.org>, btiffany@pbs.org writes:
|> From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
|> Subject: Re: Missionizing to 2-year-olds
|> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 15:05:16 GMT
|> 
|> >You and I have been on this newsgroup for a long time.
|> 
|> I suppose.
|> 
|> >Haven't you figured out yet that I have never made a single
|> >posting on the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah?
|> 
|> You say that, and then doggone if you don't turn right around in the very
|> next sentence and say! :
|> 
|> >The Christians believe he was; the Jews believe he wasn't.
|> 
|> You have just posted on the question of whether Jesus is the Messiah.  And
|> that is what we have been doing right along.

No.  I've just posted on the question of what different religions
believe.

|> 
|> You make the false statement that "Jews believe He wasn't [the Messiah]".
|> You insure that the debate continues.  Why can you not just admit to what
|> is so plainly true, that Jews *do* believe Yeshua is the Messiah?  True,
|> not all Jews, not even most Jews (yet).  But Jews do believe it (including
|> Orthodox Jews).
|> 

I haven't denied that some Jews have adopted that belief.  On the
contrary, I've posted more than you probably care to hear about how my
wife's brother and sister, who are both Jewish, came to believe
Jesus was the messiah.  But when they did, they also changed
a whole lot of other beliefs:
(a) about the importance of mitzvot
(b) about whether a man can be God
(c) about whether your faith or your deeds "save" you
(d) about hell and the afterlife
(e) about whether the "New Testament" is a holy book
...
In short, they didn't just become Jews-who-believe-Jesus-was-Messiah.
They became Christians.  I've never met a Jew who believed Jesus
was the Messiah but who rejected the New Testament, rejected
the Pauline view of faith, rejected the divinity of Jesus, and
otherwise behaved religiously like a Jew.

And that's what I'm debating here.  That there are two very
different religions --- Judaism and Christianity, and
that Messianic "Judaism" is Christianity under another label.
The Orthodox Christians here agree with me.  So do
many of the Messianics:  even Harvey Smith essentially
stated that people coming to his congregations knew
that they were becoming Christians.

|> >But it's a matter of faith which definition
|> >you live by.  *You can't debate faith over the net!*
|> 
|> What do you have faith in, and why?
|> 
That if I improve the world, do justice, show mercy,
and act with kindness and charity, and teach my
children the same, I shall die with a clear conscience.

Why?  That's how I am.

Do you think you *can* debate this over the net???
-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean and Unclean
Date: 30 Sep 1992 20:43:28 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


RL>> This doesn't say "atonement in general is only through blood."
>> It says that blood is a necessary part of properly performed
>> animal sacrifices.  

Laura Manninen writes:

> AND WHERE DO YOU GET THAT ?

Context.  Verse after verse on how to perform sacrifices.

RL> In a discussion of fountain, ball-point, and quill pens you can say
>> "There is no writing without the Ink."  But that doesn't prevent you
>> from writing with a graphite pencil, since the specific context is "pens"
>> not "writing" in general.

LM> THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT IS *ATONEMENT* AND *THERE IS NO ATONEMENT WITHOUT
> THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD*. 

Then why is there page after page of extremely technical discussion on how to 
perform sacrifices?

> I simply don't understand where do you get all
> those "pens" and "oars" etc.

Language barrier, perhaps.

[rest deleted]

R

Newsgroups: alt.messianic