From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Messianic Judaism 4 Of 4 (etc.)
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:06:04 EDT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

#2914

Subject: Re: Messianic Judaism 4 Of 4
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:36:34 GMT

>Again, and in case I haven't made myself clear in the past, if Jewish
>believers in Messiah wish to retain there cultural heritage by way of
>distinctive practices, that's absolutely OK by me.  It is not my intention
>to get any Jew to convert to "Gentilism."

How is this compatible with your statement that

TA>(They [MJ's, in celebrating the biblical feasts]
TA>are in a sense guilty of the sin of Nadab and Abihu worshipping God with
TA>"strange fire.")

?  (To which I replied:)

BT>*Please* explain how celebrating these feasts is equivalent to offering
BT>up strange fire.  PLEASE!  I can hardly wait to hear this!!!

>But let's not suggest that you can attach religious superiority to such
>cultural practices.

Did anyone suggest that?

And while we're here and having such a good time, perhaps you could explain
for the folks who have more recently joined alt.messianic how the Jews are
the "synagogue of Satan", and that circumcision is a mark of damnation?  (These
statements were made by David Chilton; I did not keep his trash on line, so
you'll have to dredge it up again yourself, since you hold his views in high
esteem and claimed you agree with them.)

Subject:Re: The heavenly Jerusalem
Date: 3 Mar 92 09:17:16 EST

On March 3 I again asked you to "tell me how Old Jerusalem relates to
Babylon; and be sure to tell me how Isaiah 1:10, 1:18, 1:21, 1:26, and
1:27, and Ezekiel 16:15, 16:32, 16:60, and 16:62-63 fit in."

I am *most* interested in hearing from you on this, as I think it is a
central issue in respect to our very different ways of approaching
scripture.

***************************** begin *****************************************

Subject:Re: Coming in clouds: Part 2
Date: 17 Mar 92 12:30:49 EST

?>>With all this in mind, why can't the destruction of the temple be in the
?>>same age that extends up to the very second coming of Christ?

TA>Because, 1) it violates the interpretive principle of apocalyptic biblical
TA>literature ...

This is a curious reason.  It sounds to me like you mean "it violates the
postmillennialist principle of interpretation".

Maybe you'd better explain this "interpretive principle of apocalyptic
biblical literature".

************************** end quote ******************************

I never heard a peep out of you on this.  I've been waiting for some
substantive response to Dan Juster's three principles of interpretation
of scripture.  I've never heard of an "interpretive principle of
apocalyptic biblical literature".  I'm very interested in finding out just
what the definition is, who defined it (or developed it), and how it is
applied.  Merely saying something can't be so because it violates this
principle, as if this principle were well known and accepted by all
concerned, is no kind of answer.  Or maybe I'm the only one who's never
heard of it.  In either case, please enlighten me!

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

     /\
____/__\____		Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth and
\  / || \  /		the life; no one comes to the Father, but
 \/--++--\/		through Me."
 /\  ||  /\
/  \ || /  \					-- John 14:6
----\--/----
     \/			-- Bruce Tiffany