HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Passover Key
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:02:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:124/7022 - MAXUS World H, Dallas TX


    Reply to Bruce Tiffany:
bb>From: btiffany@pbs.org
bb>Date: 29 Sep 92 18:16:06 GMT

bb>MBI has correspondence courses -- you might try writing or calling for
bb>information.  Maybe you can get a course on tape.
bb>
bb>You should also read:  REVELATION -- THE PASSOVER KEY.

    Thanks for that lead....will do.  I have read "Revelation - The
Passover Key," but probably should go back and study it since my
interest has shifted somewhat more in that direction.
    I have noticed that almost everyone who discusses the prophetic
aspect of the Feasts generally tie the Fall harvest to the "rapture" of
the Church.  But I keep wondering, if the Spring harvest feast did not
involve such a thing, why should the Fall necessarily?  (Just throwing
this out in case you have thoughts on that....)
    And thanks also for your post on Yom Kippur...gives me lots to work
with.  I'm trying to collect as much material on the Feasts as I can to
develop a compilation for an interested friend....one who has only
recently discovered his mother is Jewish and is wondering what this
means to him.  He is major hungry for information. <grin>
    Thanks again.  Donna


--  
Donna D'Iorio - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: My Heritage
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:01:38 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0


>And you have your head in the sand.  It is done always.  On gentiles and 
>jews.  So now we have the actual case.  Gentiles get circumcized because 
>they were taught it keeps women from getting cervical cancer. Certainly 

 TN=>Women don't get cervical cancer because their sons are 
 TN=>circumcised?  I'm a
 TN=>Gentile and I've never heard this.  In fact, the only reason I've 
 TN=>ever heard of
 TN=>for circumcision is that given in the Old Testament when God 
 TN=>establishes it as
 TN=>a symbol of His covenant with Abraham.  But that's just one 
 TN=>Gentile's point of
 TN=>view.

Welll welcome to medical science 101.  (grin).  That was the exact 
scenario.  Seems that Medical journals have stated, that wives of 
uncircumcized individuals have a record of having more cervical cancers 
than those wives who have mates who were circumcized...  Check with your 
doctor for details... 


--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Jesus as Messiah, but not as God
Organization: University of Turku
	<LJMORLY.92Sep30102750@polaris.utu.fi>
	<1992Oct1.031226.1302@serval.net.wsu.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:31:30

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.

Here are some Rabbinic views on Ha-Shem (originally posted by Bill Carlson):

BC>ZOHAR[TO DEUT. 6:4]: Hear O Israel:HaShem our G-d,HaShem is One. Why is
BC>there  a need  of mentioning the Name of G-d three times in this verse?
BC>The  First  HaShem is the Father above.The Second is the Stem of Jesse,
BC>the Messiah Who is to come from the family of Jesse through  David. And
BC>the Third One is the Way which is below  [meaning the  Holy Spirit  Who
BC>shows us the way] and These Three are One.
BC>.
BC>[Midrash Echa (1:51):]...What is the Name of King Messiah?    To this
BC>answered Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: HaShem is His Name, for it is written:
BC>'This is the Name whereby He shall be called: HaShemZidkenu'.  {NOTE:
BC>HaShem/YHVH is His Name?  ...yet none only created may take His Name!}
BC>.
BC>[See also,  Midrash Rabbah 999:8),  (Ps. 45:6),  (Prov.30:4), (Ps.2:7),
BC>(Sukkah [52a]), (Zohar [part III, fol.307, Amsterdam edition]) (Ps.2:12
BC>Lesser's trans.)...{ect...... also,  verses in Tanach may be one or two
BC>verses differance depending upon your translation}.

- Laura
--
Rabbinic Judaism is a relationship with Rabbis,
Messianic Judaism is a relationship with the Messiah Yeshua.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Noah's arc
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:06:41 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

I think I may have read a post on this in the past, but does anyone have 
some information they could e-mail me on Jim Erwin finding Noah's arc?

Link Hudson.
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Clean And Unclean
Date: 25 Sep 92 03:57:19 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


           -=> Quoting Robert A. Levene <=-

 RAL> From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
 RAL> Date: 24 Sep 92 15:50:32 GMT
 RAL> Organization: Johns Hopkins University
 RAL> Message-ID: <9209241549.AA24121@aplpy.jhuapl.edu>
 RAL> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
 
 RAL> Furthermore, I've not found any Jewish sources that say that the
 RAL> only means of atonement is via blood.

      RABBINIC: LUCHOTH HABBERITH (242a):  He (the Messiah) will give
      Himself and His life over unto death, and His blood will atone
      for His people.  ZEBAHIM (6a):  Surely atonement can only be made
      with the blood, as it says, 'For it is the blood that maketh
      atonement by reason of the life' -[Leviticus 17:11].  [See also
      Yoma (5a); and Hebrews 9:22].   [Ex.24:8; Jer.31:31; Matt.20:28]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 RAL> ...I'VE NOT FOUND ANY JEWISH SOURCES THAT SAY THAT THE ONLY MEANS
 RAL> OF ATONEMENT IS VIA BLOOD.

 ZEB.6A> SURELY ATONEMENT CAN ONLY BE MADE WITH THE BLOOD...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

            NOTE: Sounds like "Jewish sources" to me!

... 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
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Mj Vs. Hc, Or Different Terminology
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:37:22 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

btiffany@pbs.org writes:
>
>>>  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?

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, Bruce. :-)

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

Or, let me put it another way, if a Jewish Christian reads the Bible and
comes to the conclusion that dietary laws and Levitical festival laws are
no loner binding or directly applicable under the new covenant as religious
rites, do (observant) MJs believe that person is, objectively speaking, in
sin?

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

--                       The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
Tom Albrecht             until I make thy enemies thy footstool.
                         The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of
                         Zion: rule thou in the midst of thy enemies.
                         Thy people [shall be] willing in the day of thy power,
                         in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the
                         morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. (Ps. 110:1-3)
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Lifdot & L'chaper (was: Re: Paradise
Date: 30 Sep 1992 23:37:56 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


>      itself, which you fully know, not even the same root.

The names (Refoel, Tzidkiyahu, etc.) all express concepts
concerning G-d, whose name appears in the name.  Yehudah
is somewhat different, since it has the tetragrammaton in it, but
doesn't form a clause based on it.

>  - 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. 

The tetragrammaton is not G-d's full name, it's a name.  Besides,
as you'll see, the messiah is not called Hashem.


>  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!
...

You're incorrectly parsing the phrase by adding a spurious
comma.  The statement "Hashem Tzidkeinu" expresses a concept,
"God is righteous to us" and this concept forms the
description.  It does not read "Hashem, Tzidkeinu" which
is a proper name followed by a clause describing the name.

For comparison, see the very end of Ezekiel, where it describes
Jerusalem, saying "v'sheim ha-ir miyom Hashem shamah" (and from that
day shall the city be named 'Hashem is there') That expresses an
aspect of Jerusalem, but it does *not* say "v'sheim ha-ir miyom
'Hashem,' shamah) which would be parsed "...be named 'Hashem'; he is
there)

A third example is the binding of Isaac, Gen 22:14, where a place is
named "Hashem shall see."  Incidentally, I find it remarkable that
people would compare this section to Jesus.  Jesus was killed,
Isaac was not.  That's a substantial difference in outcome.

Rob

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: UMJC (was Re: Gentile Christianity is false?)
Date: 5 Oct 1992 22:25:03 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

strom@Watson.Ibm.Com writes:

...
> Many Messianics on this newsgroup have countered
> that Messianic "Judaism" is an ancient tradition
> going back to the time of the original Jewish
> disciples of Jesus. 
...

I don't think they trace themselves to the original
disciples of Jesus, or else they'd be calling themselves
"Evyonim" (Ebionites), who fled Jeruslem in poverty to Syria.

However, they could make a pretty good case for 
re-establishing the system of Pauline Christianity,
i.e. I Cor. 9:20.

R
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: My Heritage
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:27:33 GMT

In article <140380.2AC9A6F6@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:

>Welll welcome to medical science 101.  (grin).  That was the exact 
>scenario.  Seems that Medical journals have stated, that wives of 
>uncircumcized individuals have a record of having more cervical cancers 
>than those wives who have mates who were circumcized...  Check with your 
>doctor for details... 
>

Except there are some questions regarding the validity of this study.  It
has been suggested that the majority of circumcized males were Jewish
and had fewer different partners than the uncircumcized individuals in
the sample. 

The theory is that cervical cancer is caused by some virus
(I don't recall which one) and that men who have larger numbers of
different partners are more likely to expose this virus to more women,
hence increasing the likelyhood of causing them to be infected and
develop cervical cancer.

Whether the men are "cut" or not appears to have no bearing on their
ability to infect women.  It is a question of them becoming a carrier
and then infecting women.


Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Lifdot & L'chaper (was: Re: Paradise
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 4 Oct 92 11:12:14

In article <9210010437.AA20515@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:

Bill Carlson wrote:
> >  - 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. 

> The tetragrammaton is not G-d's full name, it's a name.

Some people think this is the case, but IMHO -- from a linguistic point
of view -- that seems unlikely. Anyway, that question is beside the 
point, since no one beside Hashem is to use that name.

> Besides, as you'll see, the messiah is not called Hashem.

Isn't he ?

> >  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!
> ...

> You're incorrectly parsing the phrase by adding a spurious
> comma.  The statement "Hashem Tzidkeinu" expresses a concept,
> "God is righteous to us" and this concept forms the
> description.  It does not read "Hashem, Tzidkeinu" which
> is a proper name followed by a clause describing the name.

The name in itself, as a clause, means 'God is our righteousness' (not
'God is righteous to us', although that's true as well; ever thought
what it means ?). That is, we are not righteous in ourselves but in Him.
But the name is given in a context 'v'ze shmo asher yikre'u Hashem
Tzidkeinu' - 'and this is the name by which he will be called: Hashem 
Tzidkeinu'. I see no reason to claim there *could* *not* be a comma 
in between, just as is in Is. 9:5 (9:6), 'vayikra shmo Pele Yoetz El
Gibbor Avi Ad Sar Shalom'. See also Micah 4:7, Is. 24:23, Ob. v. 21,
Ex. 23:20-23, Ex. 3:2-6.
 
> For comparison, see the very end of Ezekiel, where it describes
> Jerusalem, saying "v'sheim ha-ir miyom Hashem shamah" (and from that
> day shall the city be named 'Hashem is there') That expresses an
> aspect of Jerusalem, but it does *not* say "v'sheim ha-ir miyom
> 'Hashem,' shamah) which would be parsed "...be named 'Hashem'; he is
> there)

> A third example is the binding of Isaac, Gen 22:14, where a place is
> named "Hashem shall see."

A place can't be Hashem.

>  Incidentally, I find it remarkable that
> people would compare this section to Jesus.  Jesus was killed,
> Isaac was not.  That's a substantial difference in outcome.

If Itzchak would have been killed, I wouldn't need to think about how
to reply to your postings. :-) God provided a ram as a substitute, which
also points to the substitutionary sacrifice of Yeshua.

> Rob

- Laura
--
Rabbinic Judaism is a relationship with Rabbis,
Messianic Judaism is a relationship with the Messiah Yeshua.
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: (old) Question For Rob Levene
Date: 4 Oct 1992 10:11:18 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


>>> Bill Carlson:
>>>     Now?  What about tractate "Toldot Yeshu".  It obviously was
>>>     written with an ax to grind.

>> Lighten up, Bill.  Ever hear of satire?  This may well be the
>> oldest known example of Jewish literary humor.

Bruce Tiffany:
> I find making HaShem the butt of satire to be *HIGHLY* offensive.

Think of "Toldot Yeshu' in context: an oppressed people coping with
medieval Church persecution by making an internal satire of their
oppressor's faith.  Since those who persecuted Jews obviously weren't
True Christians (right?), then "Toldot Yeshu" couldn't be making fun
of Christianity, and there's no cause for concern.

R
From: Peggy.Baker@f0.n2012.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Intrater
Date: 1 Oct 92 07:22:56 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:2012/0

Thank you very much. That was very enlightening. I appreciate that. I'm not Jewish so I really thank you for educating me. I would like to know something about the engagement and rapture before the tribulation by hearing about the Jewish traditions of marriage, engagement foreshadowing of the real thing.


--  
Peggy Baker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Peggy.Baker@f0.n2012.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Jesus As Messiah, But Not As God
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:37:04 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: mjcaud01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu

 Mj> Date: 3 Oct 92 05:37:31 GMT
 Mj> Organization: University of Louisville
 Mj> Message-ID: <1992Oct3.013731.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
 Mj> Newsgroups: alt.messianic

 Mj> In fact many messianic jews do not believe in the trinity and do
 Mj> not believe that Yeshua` is God, but still believe that Yeshua` is
 Mj> the Moshiach.

    Or better... There are 'some' who are Ebionite Jews, who identify
    with a Messianic label who claim this.  Messianic Judaism; as
    defined by the mainstream who practice it - requires a belief that
    HaMashiach is literally the Davar of El*him, - and thus Divine.  We
    discussed this in depth via E-mail some time back, I though we'd
    reached an understanding on the issue?!

... 012 Sh'ma Yisrael: HaShem - El*hienu - HaShem ECHAD! ... 210    
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean and unclean
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:50:22 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <N96TRB3w165w@topcat> topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>> From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
>
>> >Wrong again Tom.  I would hope you would do some research before you make
>> >such comments.  There are Charismatic Denominations.  ...
>
>Thanks, Bruce, I missed this message from Harvey (bad news feed).
>
>My original comment was that there is no "Charismatic" denomination simplar
>to a Presbyterian or Baptist denomination.  There are denominations that
>are charismatic in nature, just as there are denominations that are
>pentecostal in nature.  But here is no "First Charismatic Church of
>Philadelphia", for example.  Is there?

I don't think there is any denomonation that is titled "Charismatic."
If you wanted to argue the point, you could say that there are Charismatic
denomonations.  For example, the Vinyard churches (which I have heard described
as a denomonation that tries not to be a denomonation.)  These are
an association of Charismatic churches which are overseen up by John Wimber 
(or were the last I read.)  I don't think they call themselves a denomonation.
But neither does the Assemblies of God ( "the Assemblies of God is not a
denomonation.  It is a movement." as some of them say.)  

I think that Craig Smith's Calvary Chapel churches could also be called a
demononation.

I don't think that there are any demonations called "Charismatic."  But
there are Charismatic churches with the same label that are under some
type of common authority structure.  So, I would say yes, there are Charismatic
denomonations.

Link Hudson.
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: "kibology"
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:04:22 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: bthurman

Have any of the regulars who post here read the following in the
alt.religion.kibology list:
The "god" of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF
>          RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS, with a leader named "Yahweh", who
>          was the commander of a UFO SPACECRAFT ("pillar of fire",
>          "pillar of cloud", etc.), and a GENETICIST who CLONED Adam
>          and Eve FROM HIMSELF and put them on this planet which was
>          ALREADY INHABITED at that time.  And the "first born sons" of
>          the Israelites became ROAST DINNER for the "JehovahS".
???
Do the posters (=posting persons) over there invite Kibo into their hearts, or
what?
Would such humor be anti- or pro-PC?
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Judaizers in Colossians
Organization: VTT
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:38:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.153020.17931@pbs.org> btiffany@pbs.org writes:
[replying to someone else ...]

>> 
>>i will post the rebuttal soon, but Judaism had nothing to do with astrology,
>>signs, new moons etc, which were accurate descriptions of the religions of
>>Babylon...
>
>You're just wasting your time, Harvey.  I explained all this in great detail
>to Tom a couple of years ago, at which point he claimed he'd never heard this
>before (of course not in a church that equates celebration of the Biblical
>feasts with "offering up strange fire to God"!), but he has heard it more
>than once since then. 
\\\\\\\\

Just a comment, for your information: I recall that Maimonides said that
the reason that the Temple was destroyed, as allowed by God, was because
the priesthood of the time was so spiritually corrupt that it was pre-
occuppied with astrology. To be sure an ancient Babylonian and pagan
cult. Apparently there are also a few other evidences of astrological
interest in ancient Judaism.

Anyway, I think Paul and Collosians is warning against dangerously
misleading, esoteric or 'gnostic' notions, which might corrupt faith
in Gospel of Christ. He is not warning against the Judaism of Jesus.

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Jesus as Messiah, but not as God
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:58:15 GMT

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.
>
>- 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
>

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