Dennis Prager on "Messianics" (2 of 2)
Robert A. Levene
response.
IMPORTANT NOTE: In his letter, Mr. Pierce refers to a movement called
"Christian Reconstructionism." According to news reader Tom Albrecht, Pierce
misrepresented this movement. Readers interested in Albrecht's defense of
CR should post an inquiry to soc.religion.Christian where the topic is
appropriate.
********************
(Posting number two of two -- the reply and debate)
The following debate is Copyright 1990 Dennis Prager, and is
posted here with his permission.
Those who are interested in a subscription or a sample issue of his
journal from which this came can call his office at (213)558-3958, or write
to him at
ULTIMATE ISSUES
6020 Washington Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
Disclaimer: I have no connection with _Ultimate Issues_ or Dennis Prager
except as a subscriber (and as a fellow Jew, of course.)
****** Text of debate follows ******
Reprinted from _Ultimate Issues_, Jan-Mar 1990, Volume 6, Number 1
"Jews for Jesus" -- A Debate
Reply by Bob Pierce, rebuttal by Dennis Prager
From Bob Pierce:
I am writing in response to "Is There such a Thing as a 'Jew for Jesus?'"
(ULTIMATE ISSUES Vol. 5, No. 4).
The reason I devour your newsletter from cover to cover the moment it
arrives is threefold: honest, clarity and depth -- the three elements
lacking in your diatribe against "Jews for Jesus." For one who has stated:
"We have nothing to fear from Jews for Jesus, our biggest fear should be
Jews for Nothing," you certainly seem to be rather passionately exercised
over this "small" group of Jewish believers in Jesus. What's going on,
Dennis?
First of all, I am acquainted with this group and your claim that "they do
not acknowledge that they are Christians," is patently false.
Secondly, you persist in categorizing all Jews who embrace Jesus as being
under the rubric of "Jews for Jesus." You know well that most Jewish
believers refer to themselves as "Messianic Jews." Do you seriously believe
that you can score bigger polemical points by invoking the "smoke screen" of
Moishe Rosen's group, "Jews for Jesus," every time you desire to lash out at
your Jewish brothers (at least, ethnic Jewish brothers)?
Who is a Christian? The term denotes one who is a "follower of Christ."
Messianic Jews are "followers of Messiah" who desire to maintain their
identity as Jews -- insofar as it is congruent with what they perceive to be
biblical Judaism. I realize that therein lies the distinction between
biblical Judaism and rabbinical Judaism. These Messianic Jews are not
Jewish in the rabbinical sense -- but who is? How closely does the Judaism
of 1990 resemble the Judaism of the first century, especially in light of
the Conservative and Reform movements of the late nineteenth century?
As a more modern case in point, how closely aligned with Halakha is
Reconstructionist Judaism? Yet the Reconstructionist Jew is still
considered a Jew by the majority of those who comprise the Jewish community,
including yourself. You have had a Reconstructionist rabbi on your radio
show a number of times -- yet no protest, no harangues. Why?
You have often characterized the serious Jew as one who is deeply
committed to the "Jewish trinity," i.e., God, Torah, and Israel. I submit
that, on the whole, Messianic Jews are far more aligned with these three
Jewish vectors than the majority of those Jews whom you deem fellow Jews.
Along these lines, it is an on-going enigma to me why so many contemporary
Jewish parents would prefer their offspring to believe in nothing or in
Werner Erhard [E.S.T.] than in Jesus. There is no greater Jew-loving and
Israel-loving community than the Messianic community -- in spite of the
rabbis' and Dennis Prager's allegations of deceit. Why sit _shiva_ [the
seven days of Jewish Mourning] if your child embraces Messianic Judaism (or
Christianity) when the basic tenets of the latter promote doing good
(mitzvot), and, in general, aids in repairing the world under God's rule?
With respect to your often cited "Jews for Muhammad" example, your analogy
breaks down if, indeed, Jesus is the Messiah. If he is the Messiah, then a
Jew who accepts him as such does not "convert" to another religion, but
rather "returns" to the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If Jesus is not
the Jewish Messiah, then your analogy ("Jews for Muhammad") would be an
accurate one.
As a gentile believer in Jesus, I have found my association with Messianic
Jews to be highly enriching as it has kept me in touch with the Jewish roots
of my faith as well as enhanced my love for the Jew (and not just as a
"target for evangelism"). As a result of my belief in Jesus as Messiah, I
have been grafted into these Jewish blessings. How dare I say to the Jew:
"Come, cease being Jewish, and partake of these 'gentile blessings' with me."
In closing, consider the following: There is an insidious movement that is
catching on in various Protestant fundamentalist circles known as "Christian
Reconstructionism." It has been thoroughly outlined and warned of in Hal
Lindsey's latest book: "The Road to Holocaust." The movement is virulently
antisemitic. Have you thought of a possible scenario wherein the Messianic
Jewish community could serve as an ally to the larger Jewish community in
fighting this cancer among its gentile counterparts? Why do you persist in
your attempts to drive a wedge not only between the larger Jewish community
and Messianic Jews, but between Messianic Jews and the larger gentile
Christian body as well? As you often abjure your listeners -- "sometimes we
need to think through the issues a second time."
- Bob Pierce,
Beverly Hills, CA
******** Dennis Prager's response: ********
Dear Mr. Pierce
I will try to repond to each of your points:
1. You write that my claim that "Jews for Jesus" (or, as you prefer,
"Messianic Jews") do not acknowledge that they are Christians "is patently
false." This is not a fully honest charge. Of course, if a person --
especially you, a Christian -- were to ask a "Messianic Jew," "Are you a
Christian?" he will answer yes. But my point was not that they deny that
they are Christians; it was that they do not call themselves Christians.
They go under the heading, "Jews" ("Jews for Jesus," "Messianic Jews,"
etc.). Check the yellow pages -- are their houses of worship listed under
churches or synagogues?
2. Concerning my constant use of the term "Jews for Jesus," I would have
written the identical article if the subject was always referred to as
"Messianic Jews." I chose "Jews for Jesus" because they are the best known
of such groups. But everything I wrote applies equally to any Jew who
believes in Jesus as his Lord and Messiah, and yet continues to go under the
label "Jew."
3. What is all this about "biblical Judaism?" There is no more such a
thing as biblical Judaism than there is biblical Catholicism. Protestant
Christians, who believe that all religion is contained in the Bible, and
never develops further, hold a belief that is unique among the world's
religions. Needless to say, I completely respect your right to hold such a
belief, but you ought not to define my religion by your unique understanding
of religion.
In any case, there was never a purely "biblical Judaism" -- even in
biblical times. I am unfamiliar with any scholar, Jew or gentile, who
argues that all Jewish beliefs and practices during the biblical age can be
found in the Bible.
The Hebrew Bible is the Jews' constitution, but it is no more the totality
of Judaism than the U.S. constitution is the totality of American law.
Moreover, _on purely biblical grounds_, putting aside all post-biblical
Jewish developments, Jews never found reason to believe in Jesus as the
prophesied Messiah of their Bible, let alone as God. Indeed, by your own
criterion of "biblical Judaism," Jewish rejection of the notion of
"Messianic Jews" ought to be obvious. Jesus lived well before rabbinic law
was compiled in the Talmud, at a time when, according the you, the Jews were
still primarily "biblical" in their Judaism. Yet, virtually none of these
pre-Talmudic Jews embraced the claims of Christianity. The reason is
precisely because they lived and knew their biblical Judaism. The only
reason for the existence of "Messianic Jews" today and almost none in the
time of Jesus, is that at the time of Jesus, most Jews knew the Bible, while
in America in the late twentieth century vast number of Jews know nothing
about Judaism or the Bible -- and these are the ones who become "Messianic
Jews." I wonder if there are ten "Messianic Jews" in the world who
graduated a Jewish high school.
4. Regarding Reconstructionist rabbis, I agree that their theology, when
strictly following Mordecai Kaplan, is tantamount to atheism. An in fact, I
have given "protest" and "harangue" in this regard. But it is one thing to
drop a component of Judaism (in their case, God and chosenness), and quite
another to embrace the distinctive non-Jewish belief of another religion.
If a Catholic were to deny one of the Catholic Church's sacraments, he would
still be a Catholic, though an errant one. Thus, the most vociferous
anti-abortion Catholics have never denied that pro-choice Catholics remain
Catholic. But if a Catholic were to embrace Muhammad as his greatest
prophet, and hold the Quran as his Bible, Catholics would call this person a
Muslim even if he went to Mass and still felt Catholic.
I suspect that you fight passionately against Mormons calling themselves
Christians -- even though they are considerably closer theologically to you
than "Jews for Jesus" are to Jews.
5. I do not agree with Jewish parents who sit _shiva_ for a child who
becomes a "Jew for Jesus" or anything else. But I can explain it. Jews do
not regard children (or parents) as solely biological. Thus, Jewish law
allows for disobeying a parent when the parent demands something that goes
against Judaism's core values. And one is commanded to regard one's teacher
of Judaism as if the person were a parent. In addition, Jews are far more
than a religion, something Christians, understandably, generally find
impossible to understand. We are a people -- one with 3,500 years of
unbroken transmittal. When your child enters another religion, you feel
that all those generations of Jews have ended with you. There is indeed a
sort of death involved.
6. Yes, it is true that among Messianic Jews, there are more than a few
who act as great advocates of the Jewish people among Christians who are not
positively disposed to Jesus' own people. I acknowledge that fact and thank
them. But should I, on the grounds of good tactics, lie about a basic tenet
of my faith?
Moreover, "Jews for Jesus" specifically are not so positively predisposed
and probably cause more Christian-Jewish tension than goodwill. They help to
reinforce the antisemitically inclined Christian belief that there are good
Jews -- those who believe in Jesus -- and perfidious Jews -- those who
reject Christian claims about Jesus.
7. You write: "With respect to your 'Jews for Muhammad' example, your
analogy breaks down if Jesus is the Messiah. If he is the Messiah, then a
Jew who accepts him does not 'convert' to another religion. [But] if Jesus
is not the Jewish Messiah, then your analogy would be an accurate one."
This honest admission undermines your whole argument. By acknowledging
that if Jesus is not the Messiah, my argument is valid, you are admitting
that my argument is valid to every one who does not believe in Christianity,
and wrong only to a Christian. But an argument that is right or wrong only
to a certain faith group is not an argument. It is, by definition, a
statement of faith.
So, I beg of you and fellow Christians who argue on behalf of Messianic
Jews" to admit this: according to logic, reason and the objective
definitions of Christianity and Judaism, there is indeed no such thing as a
"Jew for Jesus" -- a Jew for Jesus becomes precisely what a Muslim,
Buddhist or atheist for Jesus becomes: a Christian; and only Christians can
believe otherwise.
Please do not appeal to reason when you are really appealing to faith.
To further show how pointless this argument is, let's continue it and
imagine if non-Christians used the Christian argument on behalf of "Jews for
Jesus." If Jesus is not the Messiah, then Christians are wrong and
non-Christians should call Christians, "Gentiles for Errors." And perhaps
we should start calling the large number of Christians who convert to
Judaism, "Christians Returned to their Roots." But we do not think in this
way. We honor Christians by calling you by your own faith statment, not by
our view of your faith. Nor do we mock Christianity by giving Christians
who become Jews a name that implies that they have become better
Christians. We call them by the name of their new faith -- Jews.
Finally, you write that if Jesus is the Messiah, Jews who believe in him
are fulfilling Judaism.
If that were the case -- i.e., if the definition of fulfilled Judaism is
faith in Jesus -- then all people who believe in Jesus, no matter what
ethnic group they were born into, should be called Jews, or at least,
"fulfilled Jews." Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you
should call yourself and all other believers in Jesus, "Jews," or at the
very least, "Gentile Jews." The term Christian seems superfluous and
meaningless since Christians are nothing more than fulfilled Jews. To be
really honest, then, please call yourself either "fulfilled Jew" or
"fulfilled gentile Jew" or "Jew" (the most logical choice, since Judaism is
unconcerned with the ethnic background of its believers, and because you
claim to be a follower of biblical Judaism).
And call us Jews "un-Jewish Jews" or "Unfulfilled Jewish Ethnics." Isn't
this, in any case, what in your heart you really believe?
Such are the consequences of belief that the only fulfilled Jews are those
who believe in Christianity.
Mr. Pierce, I have indeed thought a second time. I have come a long way
in my theological life regarding Christianity. My Christian friends are
helping me to see Christianity as a divine revelation to gentiles. Now, I
ask you to think a second time, and let your Jewish friends help you to see
the same thing -- that Christianity is a revelation to Gentiles.
-- Dennis Prager
**** End of re-printed debate ****
btif...@pbs.org
From: lev...@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 23:30:34 -0400
> The deceit lies in the fact that these Jews who come to believe in Jesus
>as their God, Savior and Messiah do not acknowledge that they have become
>Christians. A Christian is defined as one who believes in Jesus Christ. A
>Jew who comes to believe in Jesus Christ is therefore a Christian. It is
>the denial of this that is deceitful and that arouses such enmity among Jews.
Is Prager this ignorant, or is he just lying?
> "Jews for Jesus" are probably the only people in the world who take on the
>beliefs of another religion yet deny that they have converted to that
>religion.
This is a blatant lie, Rob.
>Subject: Dennis Prager on "Messianics" (2 of 2)
> In closing, consider the following: There is an insidious movement that is
>catching on in various Protestant fundamentalist circles known as "Christian
>Reconstructionism." It has been thoroughly outlined and warned of in Hal
>Lindsey's latest book: "The Road to Holocaust." The movement is virulently
>antisemitic. Have you thought of a possible scenario wherein the Messianic
>Jewish community could serve as an ally to the larger Jewish community in
>fighting this cancer among its gentile counterparts?
This is, in fact, happening, as prominent Reconstructionist leaders and
their followers have changed their mind concerning Israel and the Jews as
a result of our interaction with them.
> Why do you persist in
>your attempts to drive a wedge not only between the larger Jewish community
>and Messianic Jews, but between Messianic Jews and the larger gentile
>Christian body as well? As you often abjure your listeners -- "sometimes we
>need to think through the issues a second time."
>
> - Bob Pierce,
> ******** Dennis Prager's response: ********
> Moreover, _on purely biblical grounds_, putting aside all post-biblical
>Jewish developments, Jews never found reason to believe in Jesus as the
>prophesied Messiah of their Bible, let alone as God. Indeed, by your own
>criterion of "biblical Judaism," Jewish rejection of the notion of
>"Messianic Jews" ought to be obvious. Jesus lived well before rabbinic law
>was compiled in the Talmud, at a time when, according the you, the Jews were
>still primarily "biblical" in their Judaism. Yet, virtually none of these
>pre-Talmudic Jews embraced the claims of Christianity. The reason is
>precisely because they lived and knew their biblical Judaism. The only
>reason for the existence of "Messianic Jews" today and almost none in the
>time of Jesus, is that at the time of Jesus, most Jews knew the Bible, while
>in America in the late twentieth century vast number of Jews know nothing
>about Judaism or the Bible -- and these are the ones who become "Messianic
>Jews." I wonder if there are ten "Messianic Jews" in the world who
>graduated a Jewish high school.
It is to laugh. I think Prager must know that tens of thousands of Jews in
Jerusalem alone accepted Yeshua as the Messiah, and if he'd like to meet some
MJ's who are Yeshiva graduates, I can introduce him to plenty of them (some
of whom were rabbis).
> Mr. Pierce, I have indeed thought a second time. I have come a long way
>in my theological life regarding Christianity. My Christian friends are
>helping me to see Christianity as a divine revelation to gentiles. Now, I
>ask you to think a second time, and let your Jewish friends help you to see
>the same thing -- that Christianity is a revelation to Gentiles.
Shot himself in the foot. If it is a revelation to the Gentiles, then Jesus
really is the Messiah, and Prager is wrong.
And so he is.
Lotsa rhetoric here, but DP utterly fails to show that followers of Yeshua
aren't Jewish. He expects us to accept his premise that Christianity is
a "different religion", and goes from there, attempting to excuse the fact
that Rabbinic Judaism is not real Judaism by alleging that religions evolve.
Absolute truth doesn't evolve. It is constant.
I, for one, am not advocating adherence to any religion, be it Rabbinic
Judaism or Churchianity. What DP needs just like the rest of us is to
repent and be reconciled to HaShem in Yeshua haMashiach. Forget religion,
for crying out loud! It's the chief method of preventing men from coming
to HaShem.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
/\ I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power
____/__\____ of God for salvation to every one who believes, to the
\ / || \ / Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the
\/--++--\/ righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith;
/\ || /\ as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live
/ \ || / \ by faith."
----\--/---- -- Romans 1:16-17
\/ -- Bruce Tiffany
Scott Linn
Greetings,
The first quotation is from Mr. Pierce in Mr. Levene's
original post. The second quotation is from Mr. Tiffany.
> > In closing, consider the following: There is an insidious movement that is
> >catching on in various Protestant fundamentalist circles known as "Christian
> >Reconstructionism." It has been thoroughly outlined and warned of in Hal
> >Lindsey's latest book: "The Road to Holocaust." The movement is virulently
> >antisemitic. Have you thought of a possible scenario wherein the Messianic
> >Jewish community could serve as an ally to the larger Jewish community in
> >fighting this cancer among its gentile counterparts?
>
> This is, in fact, happening, as prominent Reconstructionist leaders and
> their followers have changed their mind concerning Israel and the Jews as
> a result of our interaction with them.
Okay, I'll bite. Could you list some of those leaders and which
of their beliefs (which indeed Mr. Pierce and Mr. Lindsey grossly
distort) have changed as a result of your interaction.
Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Mundum, | The slave mind hates freedom,
| but it merely resents slavery.
Scott Linn |
s...@ccd.harris.com | R. J. Rushdoony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Streltsov
>Subject: Dennis Prager on "Messianics" (1 of 2)
>From: lev...@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
>Date: Thu, 14 May 92 23:30:34 -0400
>> I wonder if there are ten "Messianic Jews" in the world who
>>graduated a Jewish high school.
>
>It is to laugh. I think Prager must know that tens of thousands of Jews in
>Jerusalem alone accepted Yeshua as the Messiah, and if he'd like to meet some
>MJ's who are Yeshiva graduates, I can introduce him to plenty of them (some
>of whom were rabbis).
>
Trying to learn more about MJ's I would appreciate an apportunity
to talk to some knowledgeble person.
I would like to speak to some MJ, who is (or was) a rabbi, or at
least graduated from a good yeshiva (Lakewood, Or Sameach are
acceptable).
There are at least 300,000 jews around Boston,MA or more
- so it has to be about 30,000 MJ's. If only 1 percent
(not a lot,yes?!) of them finished yeshivot there is a group of
300 at least, so it should not be a problem to find one or two,
who can be reached.
If you don't want to put it on the net, e-mail to me, I'll post
anonymous results in 2-3 weeks.
Please, include name of the person and congregation he lead while
serving as a rabbi, or yeshiva he graduated from.
(I guess I'll get messages, go to congreagtion so-and-so and ask
them, but I think it's easier to you as insider(s) get their names)
suggestion 2 : maybe for benefit of other readers, you can post
about 10 names of the rabbis in diff-t places : usa,israel,russia,etc...
in the format :
name, address or phone, yeshiva .
Thank you in advance,
I will summarize answers in 2 weeks.
Simon Streltsov ! Disclaimer :
PhD Student, ! I can not speak for the
Dept. of Manufacturing Engineering ! Engineering Dept, because
Boston University ! I claim to be a mathematician..
Simon Streltsov
>
>... The second quotation is from Mr. Tiffany.
>> This is, in fact, happening, as prominent Reconstructionist leaders and
>> their followers have changed their mind concerning Israel and the Jews as
>> a result of our interaction with them.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. Could you list some of those leaders and which
>of their beliefs (which indeed Mr. Pierce and Mr. Lindsey grossly
>distort) have changed as a result of your interaction.
>
> Thank you.
>
Ou, I guess we have similar questions :}
Simon Streltsov ! Disclaimer :
PhD Student, ! I can not speak for the
Dept. of Manufacturing Engineering ! Engineering Dept, because
Boston University ! I claim to be a mathematician..
Mark Malson
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> The first quotation is from Mr. Pierce in Mr. Levene's
> original post. The second quotation is from Mr. Tiffany.
>
> > > In closing, consider the following: There is an insidious movement that is
> > >catching on in various Protestant fundamentalist circles known as "Christian
> > >Reconstructionism." It has been thoroughly outlined and warned of in Hal
> > >Lindsey's latest book: "The Road to Holocaust." The movement is virulently
> > >antisemitic. Have you thought of a possible scenario wherein the Messianic
> > >Jewish community could serve as an ally to the larger Jewish community in
> > >fighting this cancer among its gentile counterparts?
> >
> > This is, in fact, happening, as prominent Reconstructionist leaders and
> > their followers have changed their mind concerning Israel and the Jews as
> > a result of our interaction with them.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. Could you list some of those leaders and which
> of their beliefs (which indeed Mr. Pierce and Mr. Lindsey grossly
> distort) have changed as a result of your interaction.
>
I'll bite too. Which Reconstructionists are anti-Semitic? But more importantly, what
do you consider anti-Semitism to be? And how does the Reconstructionists' anti-Semitism
manifest itself?
Hal Lindsey's a idiot. I thought everyone knew that.
- Mark Malson
Tom Albrecht
have heard me spout off on this subject before. First, I want to thank Mr.
Levene for his note of caution regarding the posted remarks of Bob Pierce
on Christian Reconstruction. Mr. Pierce, for whatever reason, has
distorted the image of Reconstructionism when he wrote:
> In closing, consider the following: There is an insidious movement that is
>catching on in various Protestant fundamentalist circles known as "Christian
>Reconstructionism." It has been thoroughly outlined and warned of in Hal
>Lindsey's latest book: "The Road to Holocaust." The movement is virulently
>antisemitic. Have you thought of a possible scenario wherein the Messianic
>Jewish community could serve as an ally to the larger Jewish community in
>fighting this cancer among its gentile counterparts?
]
In article <1992May19.1...@pbs.org> btif...@pbs.org writes:
>This is, in fact, happening, as prominent Reconstructionist leaders and
>their followers have changed their mind concerning Israel and the Jews as
>a result of our interaction with them.
I'm sure Mr. Tiffany can document this statement, as he seems to be giving
Reconstructionists another of those backhanded compliments. As Rev. Steve
Schlissel, a Jewish Christian, has pointed out in an article I posted some
time ago, Christian Reconstructionism is not "virulently antisemitic" by
definition or in practice. There is absolutely nothing in CR theology that
would lead one to such a conclusion. That some Reconstructionists MAY be
anti-Semitic is not the point. I'm sure one could find "MJs" who are
anti-Semitic as well, in their own way. :-)
So, having said that (again), let me say that I have no clue as to what
point Mr. Tiffany was trying to make. (Unless he's finally figured out
that Christian Reconstructionists are not the enemies of the Jews or
Israel. Of course I told him that long ago.)
If not, perhaps he can rattle off the names of some former "virulently
anti-Semitic, prominent Reconstructionist leaders" who have "changed their
mind concerning Israel and the Jews." He should also tell us precisely how
these folks have "changed their minds." What did they say (or do) before
vs. what they say now. Frankly, I'm not aware of any "prominent
Reconstructionist leaders" who needed to change their minds regarding
Israel or the Jews. But my knowledge is limited, I don't know them all,
althought the number is not that large.
I appreciated Mr. Browns's article on "Unequal Weights and Measures" that
Mr. Tiffany posted. I hope Mr. Tiffany will, in the future, use the
principles of analysis which Mr. Brown urged on his fellow MJs for dealing
honestly with the texts of the RJs when critiquing the Reconstruction
movement. Speaking of the writings of the RJs, he wrote:
We must be fair to the text, seeking to understand it through the eyes of
its transmitters and/or interpreters. We must seek to be scientific and
honest; then, we can freely contrast its differences, critique its
misinterpretations, and even cut down its errors -- in fairness and with a
spirit of love.
Charity and honesty ... how can anyone ask for anything more?
--
Tom Albrecht
David Weinstein
#Jerusalem alone accepted Yeshua as the Messiah,
Does anyone have a good source for how many Jews converted to Christianity in
the first century CE? So far Daniel Segard as mentioned remembering that
it was 1/3 of the Jews in Israel, and Bruce Tiffany has claimed tens of
thousands in Jerusalem. Does anyone have a source?
#and if he'd like to meet some
#MJ's who are Yeshiva graduates, I can introduce him to plenty of them (some
#of whom were rabbis).
Irrelevant. I know a Chasid turned pagan. There are some circumstancial
sources which indicate polytheistic practices amongst Jews which predate
Christianity. Does this mean that a Chasid turned pagan is a "Completed
Jew"?
[Hint: No.]
--Dave
--
Dave Weinstein
Internet: dwei...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Mark Malson
In article <1992May19.1...@pbs.org> btif...@pbs.org writes:
>This is, in fact, happening, as prominent Reconstructionist leaders and
>their followers have changed their mind concerning Israel and the Jews as
>a result of our interaction with them.
I just had to respond to this one directly.
All the Reconstructionists I've read are thoroughly Reformed (Luther's Reformation),
thoroughly Calvinist. One of the foundational tenets of the Reformation was, "sola
scriptura". Scripture only. Now I ask you, if ANY sect (putting the Reconstruction
crowd aside for a moment) claimed, and indeed tried, to base their system of beliefs
on scripture and scripture alone, how is it that another sect could convince them to
change their views? Is this a sect of prophets? Do they speak for God? It surely
couldn't have been something as simple as a small point of interpretation. Intimidation
perhaps?
The reason I follow up is to insist that you provide documentation for this
statement. I believe that it is totally false and, at best, a result of your
wishful thinking. Yes, Jews (and possibly MJs) have had political clout in America's
dealings with Israel, but then so do Jane Fonda and Whoopi Goldberg. I doubt that
this clout spills over into religious sects, except perhaps into the more liberal ones
who don't know (nor care) what they believe.
Actually, I did read a former reconstructionist's changed position on the nation of
Israel. His name is James Jordan. I have an eloquent paper of his that I could
post to this newsgroup...
- Mark Malson
Mark Malson
[ This is a repost of my earlier posting, which had some lines that
were a wee bit too long. -MM]
btif...@pbs.org
Subject:Re: Dennis Prager on "Messianics"
Date: 20 May 92 14:30:40 GMT
>>> I wonder if there are ten "Messianic Jews" in the world who
>>>graduated a Jewish high school.
>>
>>It is to laugh. I think Prager must know that tens of thousands of Jews in
>>Jerusalem alone accepted Yeshua as the Messiah, and if he'd like to meet some
>>MJ's who are Yeshiva graduates, I can introduce him to plenty of them (some
>>of whom were rabbis).
>>
>Trying to learn more about MJ's I would appreciate an apportunity
>to talk to some knowledgeble person.
Dripping with insincerity.
>I would like to speak to some MJ, who is (or was) a rabbi, or at
>least graduated from a good yeshiva (Lakewood, Or Sameach are
>acceptable).
I'll just bet you would.
> There are at least 300,000 jews around Boston,MA or more
> - so it has to be about 30,000 MJ's.
How did you come up with this figure?
>If you don't want to put it on the net, e-mail to me, I'll post
>anonymous results in 2-3 weeks.
>Please, include name of the person and congregation he lead while
>serving as a rabbi, or yeshiva he graduated from.
>suggestion 2 : maybe for benefit of other readers, you can post
>about 10 names of the rabbis in diff-t places : usa,israel,russia,etc...
>in the format :
>name, address or phone, yeshiva .
Do you think I was born yesterday? I wouldn't give you guys my own address
and phone number, much less the private addresses and phone numbers of others!
Just to make sure I'm not overreacting, I asked Dan Juster about this while
at Shavuot '92 last weekend, and he concurred that although there are MJ's
who are yeshiva graduates, and a few who were rabbis, I should not publish
their names and addresses, especially to their enemies.
Nice try, but it won't work!
From: s...@ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn)
Subject:Re: Dennis Prager on "Messianics"
Date: 20 May 92 11:47:43 GMT
> Okay, I'll bite. Could you list some of those leaders and which
>of their beliefs (which indeed Mr. Pierce and Mr. Lindsey grossly
>distort) have changed as a result of your interaction.
Now this is different. The same, but different :-). You, like Simon, do
not believe I'm telling the truth. But I also know that giving you some
names will not result in any adverse repercussions against those named.
You really can't do anything anyway; but you wouldn't if you could.
Some names which come to mind are Earl Paulk, Dennis Peacock, Bob Weiner,
and to some extent Don Mears. There's some fairly big guy in your movement
in Indiana, whose name I can't remember (you probably would know) who also
has changed his views. I'm not saying these people have joined the Messianic
Jewish flow. The extent to which their views have changed through interaction
with us varies from person to person. There are many, many others in the
movement besides those I've mentioned who have changed their views on Israel
and the Jews as a direct result of our interaction with them, and the amazing
thing is they are profusely thanking us for helping them see how Israel fits
in the picture. It was often with reluctance that they excluded Israel from
their theology. More specifically, they now understand how Messianic Judaism
fits in, and what its role is to be as a sort of bridge between Gentile
believers and Israel.
If you haven't heard about this, I'm not surprised. This only began about a
year and a half ago. There is continuing dialog. Unfortunately, we have
come under fire from our own ranks, even within the UMJC, for interacting
with these people. I guess fellow MJ's are worried that we're compromising
Messianic Judaism, or Gentilizing it. Such is definitely not the case,
although we certainly have also gained and learned a few things from this
interaction. There's a lot you people are *right* about, after all! (It
just doesn't come out much on alt.messianic ...)
I remember when Earl Paulk first invited Keith Intrater and Dan Juster down
to Atlanta in September 1991. When they walked in, feeling rather humble
in the presence of such a prominent Christian leader, Paulk jumped up and
said: "God has shown me I've been wrong about some things, and you are
going to correct me." Now how could we refuse to work with a man like
that? How could we say, "Some Messianic Jews might not understand why
we're talking to you"? Very good things have come of this, and the dialog
continues. More things are opening up, not only among Reconstructionists.
Keith will be teaching four Sundays in a row at the National Church of God
in July, and in August will be at the Church on the Rock in Dallas. After
the problems they had, they decided to set a new course in integrity and
covenant relationships, and have been using Keith's book COVENANT
RELATIONSHIPS as a guide. Keith will also be one of the main speakers at
the largest gathering of Spirit-filled believers in Korea (with Paul Yongi
Cho) in August, right after Dallas. No one is more amazed at this than
Keith himself, who can't get over how God uses "nobodies" like him in
such big ways.
Bob Weiner has really gotten close to us over several years. In fact, this
past weekend he led the separate youth retreat (two of my teenage daughters
participated) at Shavuot '92. We are working closely with him. The work
God has given him to do in the former Soviet Union is thrilling!
BTW, Keith has promised me a manuscript of what he'll be teaching on at
National, called THE FIVE STREAMS. If I can get it on diskette, perhaps I
can share it with you. I think you would find it exciting!
I can't go into detail on alt.messianic, but the doors God has been opening
and the things He has been putting together are so awesome, we are all
dumbfounded, and feeling quite humble about it all.
From: sim...@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Subject:Re: Dennis Prager on "Messianics"
Date: 20 May 92 14:34:52 GMT
>Ou, I guess we have similar questions :}
Yes, neither of you is willing to believe that someone who holds your views
could modify them and come to see things a different way. Too proud?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
/\
____/__\____ There is a way which seems right to a man,
\ / || \ / but its end is the way of death.
\/--++--\/ -- Proverbs 14:12 & 16:25
/\ || /\
/ \ || / \ He who gives attention to the Word shall find good,
----\--/---- and blessed is he who trusts in the Lord.
\/ -- Proverbs 16:20
-- Bruce Tiffany
Scott Linn
In article <1992May27.0...@pbs.org>, btif...@pbs.org writes:
>
> From: s...@ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn)
> Subject:Re: Dennis Prager on "Messianics"
> Date: Wed, 20 May 92 07:47:43 EDT
>
> > Okay, I'll bite. Could you list some of those leaders and which
> >of their beliefs (which indeed Mr. Pierce and Mr. Lindsey grossly
> >distort) have changed as a result of your interaction.
>
> Now this is different. The same, but different :-). You, like Simon, do
> not believe I'm telling the truth.
Please don't impute motives to me. I implied nothing against your
credibility. I was just interested. It struck me as unlikely as it has
proven to be.
> But I also know that giving you some
> names will not result in any adverse repercussions against those named.
> You really can't do anything anyway; but you wouldn't if you could.
Thank you . . . I guess.
>
> Some names which come to mind are Earl Paulk, Dennis Peacock, Bob Weiner,
> and to some extent Don Mears. There's some fairly big guy in your movement
> in Indiana, whose name I can't remember (you probably would know) who also
> has changed his views.
At the end of WWII the Germans tried to surrender to Gen. Montgomery.
He had all of the German high officers that came to him lined up in
a field surrounded by the English troops. Montgomery calmly walked
past each German General. As each one was introduced he replied,
"Never heard of him!" And, I say to you, "Never heard of them!"
Actually, that's only partially true. I have heard of Earl Paulk. He
was on Bill Moyer's PBS (you should have access to this) special on
Reconstruction. Paulk said that he was not a Reconstructionist and
I no of no one other than you who claims that he is. I am very
sincere in telling you that I have read most everything that claims
to be CR, I have been to the conferences, I have met or talked with
all of the leaders and I have never heard the other guys that you
mentioned get mentioned. Whereever you have gotten this information,
it appears to me to be mistaken.
[deletia]
>
> BTW, Keith has promised me a manuscript of what he'll be teaching on at
> National, called THE FIVE STREAMS. If I can get it on diskette, perhaps I
> can share it with you. I think you would find it exciting!
>
I'll take you up on the deal.
BTW, thank you for replying to my request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christianity even when watered
Contra Mundum, | down is hot enough to boil all
| modern society to rags.
Scott Linn |
s...@ccd.harris.com | G. K. Chesterton
----------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50
with who Earl Paulk is, there is an article on him in the current issue
of Christianity Today. Paulk does not label himself as a Christian
Reconstructionist, but rather a "Restorationist (I think that's the
term he uses)" so Scott and Tom may not consider him to be in "their
camp". Read the article and make up your own minds where he stands.
Bill Hamilton
Tom Albrecht
>
>Some names which come to mind are Earl Paulk, Dennis Peacock, Bob Weiner,
I'm not sure who these other guys are, but I've heard of Paulk. Earl Paulk
is the "archbishop" of Atlanta. He runs a large charismatic church, and
his theology, especially regarding the person of Jesus Christ, has been
questioned in the past as to its orthodoxy. He is neither reformed nor
Calvinistic in his theology, therefore, he is not a Reconstructionist.
Bruce, like his friend Hal Lindsey, is confusing Christian Reconstruction
with another movement known as Kingdom (or Dominion) Theology.
Allow me to offer a quote to help Bro. Bruce come to grips with the truth
in this situation. Perhaps it will help him avoid making erroneous
statements about the subject in the future. Note the date on this article
is from 1988. I believe the relationship between CR and KT has lessened
over the years.
The Christian Research Journal is published by the Christian Research
Institute, founded by Walter Martin.
--------------------------------------------
Since there seems to have been some confusion in this forum over the matter
of Kingdom Theology vis-a-vis Christian Reconstructionism, I thought I'd
share the following perspective. (This investigation came about after
someone referenced Earl Paulk in the context of "dominion theology". I was
not aware of who Earl Paulk was at that time and, consequently, I was
somewhat confused. Apparently this is largely a matter of guilt by
association.)
<BEGIN QUOTE>
Reconstructionism and Kingdom Theology
There are at least two major movements in contemporary American
Christianity known by the general name of "dominion theology." Kingdom
Theology (KT) is one of these; the other is better known as
Reconstructionism. The latter movement, which arose within Reformed or
Calvinistic Christianity, teaches the doctrine known as theonomy, according
to which modern nations are responsible to God to enforce the civil
sanctions of the Mosaic Law. Reconstructionists also generally teach
postmillennialism, the view that the church will transform the world
through evangelism, leading to a long age of earthly peace and prosperity
before Christ returns. Thus, the theological roots of Reconstructionism
are not to be found in the Latter Rain (LR) movement; indeed, not in
Pentecostalism at all.
The attitude of Reconstructionists towards KT are varied somewhat.
Some Reconstructionists are working directly with KT teachers in pursuit of
"dominion," particularly in cooperative efforts to gain influence in the
political realm. Their political agendas appear to be similar. Indeed, it
seems likely that the KT movement gained its emphasis on taking dominion in
the political sphere from Reconstructionists, possibly through the
wide-ranging seminars and conferences of Maranatha Campus Ministries, which
often brought together Reconstructionists and LR Pentecostals.
Most Reconstructionists, though, appear to resist being linked in any
direct way with KT. It is unfortunate that almost every critique of KT has
treated KT and Reconstructionists as two strands of the same teaching.
While there is some overlap of terminology, ideas, and activities, the two
movements are largely distinct.
from _The Gospel According to Paulk: A Critique of
"Kingdom Theology"_ in The Christian Research Journal,
Winter/Spring 1988.
<END QUOTE>
--
Tom Albrecht
Mark Malson
> Now this is different. The same, but different :-). You, like Simon, do
> not believe I'm telling the truth.
I think I can verify that you are not telling the truth. You may simply be
mistaken or misinformed and not intending to distort anything. In any case,
I hope you would be so kind as to review my comments below and answer a
couple of questions.
> But I also know that giving you some
> names will not result in any adverse repercussions against those named.
> You really can't do anything anyway; but you wouldn't if you could.
What kind of a comment is that?
In article <1992May27.1...@ccd.harris.com>, s...@controls.ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>
>
> In article <1992May27.0...@pbs.org>, btif...@pbs.org writes:
> >
> > Some names which come to mind are Earl Paulk, Dennis Peacock, Bob Weiner,
> > and to some extent Don Mears. There's some fairly big guy in your movement
> > in Indiana, whose name I can't remember (you probably would know) who also
> > has changed his views.
>
> ... And, I say to you, "Never heard of them!"
[These names were offered by Mr. Tiffany as "prominent reconstructionists"]
I did a quick search of the publications by those who *I* would consider to be
prominent reconstructionists. Not that the NUMBER of publications by someone
is a perfectly accurate gauge of his prominence, but I thought it would be
interesting. Here's what I found (after deleting duplicates and material that
appeared to be irrelevant to Reconstructionism):
Gary North - 17 publications, most recent 1991
David Chilton - 2 " " " 1987
R. J. Rushdoony - 12 " " " 1986
Greg Bahnsen - 4 " " " 1991
Gary DeMar - 5 " " " 1991
James Jordan - 7 " " " 1990
George Grant - 8 " " " 1991
Now, from Mr. Tiffany's list:
Earl Paulk - 9 publications, most recent 1988
Dennis Peacock - NONE
Bob Weiner - 1 " " " 1988
Don Mears - NONE
(Note: these searches can be performed by anyone by telnetting to
dra.com - the menu system will lead you through the searches. Be
sure to use a VT100 emulation.)
So we found one who (by this arbitrary standard) could be considered
"prominent" from Mr. Tiffany's list. And he doesn't claim to have
ever been a "reconstructionist". The other three are CERTAINLY not
prominent. In fact, if you consider Mr. Peacock and Mr. Mears
"prominent", then I would guess that Mr. Albrecht and Mr. Linn
would qualify as well. :-)
> There are many, many others in the
> movement besides those I've mentioned who have changed their views on Israel
> and the Jews as a direct result of our interaction with them
How many?
> I remember when Earl Paulk first invited Keith Intrater and Dan Juster down
> to Atlanta in September 1991. When they walked in, feeling rather humble
> in the presence of such a prominent Christian leader, Paulk jumped up and
> said: "God has shown me I've been wrong about some things, and you are
> going to correct me."
Please forgive my inferences if they are incorrect... This sounds
like something that a more Charismatic person would say. The
Reconstructionists I have read seem to have virtually no leanings
toward the Charismatic side of things. Are you indeed confusing
"Reconstruction" with "Kingdom Theology" that Mr. Albrecht wrote
about? It really sounds that way to me, especially after reading this.
> Yes, neither of you is willing to believe that someone who holds your views
> could modify them and come to see things a different way. Too proud?
I know of very few people who became Reconstructionists who had not
experienced a cataclysmic reorganization of their belief system.
Speaking for myself, I most certainly do not have a problem changing
my beliefs in order to square with the Word of God. I have done it many
times and I am sure I will do it many more times, on MAJOR issues. In
fact, it was that initial reorganization that made me realize that I
HAVE to be willing to admit I'm wrong and God's right.
So here's a serious question. How have the men you mentioned adjusted
their views, and on what principles of Scripture did they base their
paradigm adjustments? And what has changed in their dealings with
Israel and Jews?
And a sub-question: If their initial position on the Jews was: "Jews
are non-Christians who have no status in the Kingdom of God until they
put their faith in Christ", is this considered anti-Semitic?
- Mark
Paul Hudson Jr
>> I remember when Earl Paulk first invited Keith Intrater and Dan Juster down
>> to Atlanta in September 1991. When they walked in, feeling rather humble
>> in the presence of such a prominent Christian leader, Paulk jumped up and
>> said: "God has shown me I've been wrong about some things, and you are
>> going to correct me."
>
>Please forgive my inferences if they are incorrect... This sounds
>like something that a more Charismatic person would say.
Earl Paulk comes on TV here in Georgia. He is a Charismatic.
Link Hudson.
btif...@pbs.org
>>Some names which come to mind are Earl Paulk, Dennis Peacock, Bob Weiner,
>>and to some extent Don Mears. ...
>
> I'm not sure who these other guys are, but I've heard of Paulk. ...
> He is neither reformed nor
> Calvinistic in his theology, therefore, he is not a Reconstructionist.
> Allow me to offer a quote to help Bro. Bruce come to grips with the truth
> in this situation.
Thanks; I'll read it tonight on the train.
You guys are getting way off the subject. I have no intention of discussing
the differences between various flows within Christianity on alt.messianic.
If Paulk isn't strictly a reconstructionist, fine. My point was that
people -- regardless of whether they are Kingdom, Covenant, Reconstructionist,
or what have you -- whose theology had led them, often reluctantly, to see
no place for Israel and the Jews, and Messianic Judaism, now see a place
for them all, and are glad to see it. These people all tend to be or have
been postmillennialists or amillennialists.
Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently. They don't
believe any rabbis or yeshiva grads believe in Yeshua haMashiach. The
thought that any would makes them most uncomfortable. You don't believe any
Reconstructionists could come to view Israel and Messianic Judaism
differently than you. I'm not interested in arguing about this. It really
doesn't mean anything. If no yeshiva grads -- if no Jews at all -- accepted
Yeshua as their Messiah, it wouldn't make Him any less their and the world's
Messiah, and if you don't see how Israel fits in, it doesn't change what
God is doing one bit, either.
I'd rather stick to the themes -- i.e., what is true -- than argue about
who may or may not believe it.
btif...@pbs.org
From: t...@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject:Re: Dennis Prager on "Messianics"
Date: 28 May 92 17:14:32 GMT
>Bruce, like his friend Hal Lindsey, is confusing Christian Reconstruction
>with another movement known as Kingdom (or Dominion) Theology.
Why do you associate me with Hal Lindsay?
Scott Linn
In article <1992May29.1...@pbs.org>, btif...@pbs.org writes:
Since you responded to only one of the several posters that
corrected the errors and irregularities of your post, I guess
this will be my best opportunity to continue the discussion.
The plural "You guys" gives me my in. :-> (Actually, I'm a
Y'all.)
I
>
> You guys are getting way off the subject. I have no intention of discussing
> the differences between various flows within Christianity on alt.messianic.
> If Paulk isn't strictly a reconstructionist, fine. My point was that
> people -- regardless of whether they are Kingdom, Covenant, Reconstructionist,
> or what have you -- whose theology had led them, often reluctantly, to see
> no place for Israel and the Jews, and Messianic Judaism, now see a place
> for them all, and are glad to see it. These people all tend to be or have
> been postmillennialists or amillennialists.
That is not what you said. Your original post stated,
"This is, in fact, happening, as prominent Reconstructionist
leaders and their followers have changed their mind concerning
Israel and the Jews as a result of our interaction with them."
Now, Mr. Levene posted his original article with a nice little
disclaimer that the letter he was quoting might not acurately
reflect Christian Reconstruction: and that was fine. You, on
the other hand, decided to pick a fight. You got whipped because
you didn't do your homework.
>
> Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
> of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently. They don't
> believe any rabbis or yeshiva grads believe in Yeshua haMashiach. The
> thought that any would makes them most uncomfortable. You don't believe any
> Reconstructionists could come to view Israel and Messianic Judaism
> differently than you.
I am a firm believer that it is the CHRISTIAN duty for every
believer to continually test his beliefs against the Word of God
and to change them as he comes to know that they are in error.
You do not know me or the paths that I have taken in the Faith.
Do not have the audacity to equate me with the Pharisees! That
statement is evil to the core.
> I'm not interested in arguing about this. It really
> doesn't mean anything. If no yeshiva grads -- if no Jews at all -- accepted
> Yeshua as their Messiah, it wouldn't make Him any less their and the world's
> Messiah, and if you don't see how Israel fits in, it doesn't change what
> God is doing one bit, either.
Nor do your errors change the fact that the Church is growing
and succeeding in her call to bring the world to Christ.
>
> I'd rather stick to the themes -- i.e., what is true -- than argue about
> who may or may not believe it.
>
Your demonstrated ignorance of Reconstruction indicates that you
have no way of analyzing whether or not it is true. You are
the one who linked it with people who (at least in Paulk's
case - I know nothing of the others) are most probably
antithetical. You certainly get annoyed when linked to
dispensationialism (although, I think you quack louder on
the dispie duck test than I would compared to Kingdom Now
types :-) ).
Tom Albrecht
>
>Why do you associate me with Hal Lindsay?
Because you both like to make unsubstantiated comments about a subject, in
this case Christian Reconstruction, without doing your homework.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "friend." :-)
BTW, did you find the information I provided from CRI helpful? Are your
Messianic friends Juster and Intrater into the "signs and wonders"
movement of Earl Paulk?
--
Tom Albrecht
Mark Malson
> the differences between various flows within Christianity on alt.messianic.
But MJ IS a flow within Christianity! Isn't it? This group, as I
understand it is basically to discuss issues relevant to MJ. I
would think that the discussion of people's alleged conversion to
acknowledge the relevance of the MJ movement altogether is
relevant to this newsgroup.
> If Paulk isn't strictly a reconstructionist, fine. My point was that
> people -- regardless of whether they are Kingdom, Covenant, Reconstructionist,
> or what have you
No, you specifically stated "prominent Reconstructionists".
> These people all tend to be or have
> been postmillennialists or amillennialists.
I admit I don't have the homework done to dispute this point, but
isn't the vast majority of the mainstream Christian Church
Dispensationalist if they admit any eschatology at all?
> Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
> of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently.
Oh, I get it. When Bruce is stubborn, he's being "strong in the Faith".
When Tom is being stubborn, he's being a Pharisee. When there is no
substance left to debate with, attack the person. Great style.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> /\ I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power
> ____/__\____ of God for salvation to every one who believes, to the
> \ / || \ / Jew first and also to the Greek.
Yes, the Messiah came to the Jew first. They persecuted, rejected
him, and eventually murdered him. The Nation of Israel was wiped
off the face of the earth in AD70 out of judgement for their
continual unfaithfulness to their God. Out of their sin and
unfaithfulness (sin which is common to all men) came the means
by which all men can be saved, Jew and Gentile. What a merciful
and forgiving God we have who can forgive ones who persecuted
and crucified His only Son! With a God like this, what more do
we need?
- Mark
btif...@pbs.org
From: mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson)
Subject:Re: Dennis Prager on "Messianics"
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 17:30:20 GMT
>> But I also know that giving you some
>> names will not result in any adverse repercussions against those named.
>> You really can't do anything anyway; but you wouldn't if you could.
>
>What kind of a comment is that?
You obviously aren't aware of the tactics of certain zealous RJ's. (I
probably should've added a smiley.)
>So we found one who (by this arbitrary standard) could be considered
>"prominent" from Mr. Tiffany's list.
Rob Levene doesn't like to be called "Robbie"; it's not formal enough.
I don't like to be called "Mr. Tiffany"; it's too formal. My father is
Mr. Tiffany. Or maybe his father. I'm Bruce. Maybe I'm weird -- in fact,
I'm sure a good case could be made for that -- but to me it's almost
insulting to be called "Mr. Tiffany" by *anybody*. I say "almost", because
it isn't quite possible to make me feel insulted. :-)
> And he doesn't claim to have
>ever been a "reconstructionist". The other three are CERTAINLY not
>prominent. In fact, if you consider Mr. Peacock and Mr. Mears
>"prominent", then I would guess that Mr. Albrecht and Mr. Linn
>would qualify as well. :-)
I'm surprised you haven't heard of Dennis Peacock.
In any case, thanks for the clarification. If I've been mistaken in
associating Earl Paulk with Reconstructionism, I'm sorry. Let me tell you,
though, that he appears to be generally associated with it by many people.
>> There are many, many others in the
>> movement besides those I've mentioned who have changed their views on Israel
>> and the Jews as a direct result of our interaction with them
>
>How many?
Several hundred so far, if not thousands. We're not talking leadership now,
of course.
>> I remember when Earl Paulk first invited Keith Intrater and Dan Juster down
>> to Atlanta in September 1991. When they walked in, feeling rather humble
>> in the presence of such a prominent Christian leader, Paulk jumped up and
>> said: "God has shown me I've been wrong about some things, and you are
>> going to correct me."
>
>Please forgive my inferences if they are incorrect... This sounds
>like something that a more Charismatic person would say. The
>Reconstructionists I have read seem to have virtually no leanings
>toward the Charismatic side of things. Are you indeed confusing
>"Reconstruction" with "Kingdom Theology" that Mr. Albrecht wrote
>about? It really sounds that way to me, especially after reading this.
I'm a bit surprised that you make a distinction here. I don't see what being
a Reconstructionist has to do with being charismatic or not. Maybe you're
implying Reconstructionists don't hear from God, and since Earl Paulk did,
he's not a Reconstructionist ... ? :-) I suppose you could be right about
that ... :-) Anyway, I don't think it matters. I my point, once again,
was not specifically restricted to Reconstructionists, but had to do with
people in general who see no place for Israel in their theology.
>So here's a serious question. How have the men you mentioned adjusted
>their views, and on what principles of Scripture did they base their
>paradigm adjustments? And what has changed in their dealings with
>Israel and Jews?
I'm not one of the ones who's been talking to them. I've never met any of
them except Bob Weiner myself. I cannot tell you this. I know that the
extent of change varies from person to person. Dialog continues.
>And a sub-question: If their initial position on the Jews was: "Jews
>are non-Christians who have no status in the Kingdom of God until they
>put their faith in Christ", is this considered anti-Semitic?
Why do you raise the issue of antisemitism? I didn't.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
/\ And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal
____/__\____ life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son
\ / || \ / has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does
\/--++--\/ not have the life.
/\ || /\ -- 1 John 5:11-12
/ \ || / \
----\--/---- -- Bruce Tiffany
\/
P.S. If I give you that Earl Paulk is not a Reconstructionist, will you folks
quit calling me a dispensationalist and associating me with Hal Lindsay? I'm
sure I have much bigger differences with Hal Lindsay than you all have with
Earl Paulk.
Tom Albrecht
it is simply an attempt by Bruce to justify his previous inaccurate
statements. (I bet Bruce didn't think one off-handed comment would
generate so much activity ... or maybe he did.) He made one comment that
indicates his persistent ignorance on the subject:
In article <1992Jun2.1...@pbs.org> btif...@pbs.org writes:
>
>I'm a bit surprised that you make a distinction here. I don't see what being
>a Reconstructionist has to do with being charismatic or not. ...
Well, actually it has a lot to do with it, but you wouldn't know that since
you are absolutely clueless as to what Christian Reconstruction is all about.
> Maybe you're
>implying Reconstructionists don't hear from God, and since Earl Paulk did,
>he's not a Reconstructionist ... ? :-) I suppose you could be right about
>that ... :-) Anyway, I don't think it matters. I my point, once again,
>was not specifically restricted to Reconstructionists, but had to do with
>people in general who see no place for Israel in their theology.
Please note Bruce's continued identification of Reconstructionism with
"people who see no place for Israel in their theology." Such a nebulous
designation is almost meaningless, but in spite of the quotes I have
provided from real "prominent Reconstructionists" like Steve Schlissel,
Bruce continues to make this silly association which I suppose is meant to
denigrate some of us in the eyes of others.
Apparently the best he can do is drag up mildly heretical charismatics like
"archbishop" Earl Paulk - a man whose own understanding of matters like the
biblical teaching on Israel, the sign gifts, the person and work of Jesus
Christ, and a host of other theological issues is seriously deficient - to
smear Reconstuctionists.
I'm still confused as to why Bruce would relate this story of Earl Paulk
and some of the leaders from the MJ movement. Was it simply to show that
folks' views can change with time? Hey, I have no problem with that. I
used to be a dispensationalist. :-) Was it just to drop names? Big deal.
Our view of God and the world is properly understood by looking at the
Scriptures, not by who we associate with. (Bruce, let me give you a word
of warning. From what I've read of Paulk's theology in general, I wouldn't
be so quick to use him as a legitimizing figure for the MJ movement.) Or
was it to inflate the place of MJs in the kingdom by trying to have us
believe that God tapped the "archbishop" of Atlanta on the shoulder and
said, "Go talk to these MJ fellows, they got it right?" You flatter
yourself if that's your opinion.
BTW, did Juster or Intrater characterize Paulk as a "prominent
Reconstructionist" or did that designation originate with you?
--
Tom Albrecht
Kenneth J. Hendrickson
>I admit I don't have the homework done to dispute this point, but
>isn't the vast majority of the mainstream Christian Church
>Dispensationalist if they admit any eschatology at all?
Only in the English speaking world, and even there, largely only in
America and Canada.
--
"Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible." --RC Sproul
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 k...@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
btif...@pbs.org
>> You guys are getting way off the subject. I have no intention of discussing
>> the differences between various flows within Christianity on alt.messianic.
>> If Paulk isn't strictly a reconstructionist, fine. My point was that
>> people -- regardless of whether they are Kingdom, Covenant, Reconstructionist,
>> or what have you -- whose theology had led them, often reluctantly, to see
>> no place for Israel and the Jews, and Messianic Judaism, now see a place
>> for them all, and are glad to see it. These people all tend to be or have
>> been postmillennialists or amillennialists.
>
> That is not what you said. Your original post stated,
> "This is, in fact, happening, as prominent Reconstructionist
> leaders and their followers have changed their mind concerning
> Israel and the Jews as a result of our interaction with them."
You are correct in saying that is not what I *said*. I could have been more
clear. However, I was correct in clarifying what my *point* was. So far,
so good. But then you go on to say:
> You ... decided to pick a fight. You got whipped because
> you didn't do your homework.
This accusation is unfounded. Even if I continued to maintain that it was
Reconstructionists who had changed their tune on Israel (and I don't doubt that
some have, though I do not know for sure), how in the world could this be
construed as picking a fight? It appears to me that you people -- you
Reconstructionists as represented by the sampling I see here on alt.messianic --
are *very* defensive. Maybe I'm unintentionally touching a nerve here.
>> Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
>> of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently. They don't
>> believe any rabbis or yeshiva grads believe in Yeshua haMashiach. The
>> thought that any would makes them most uncomfortable. You don't believe any
>> Reconstructionists could come to view Israel and Messianic Judaism
>> differently than you.
>
> I am a firm believer that it is the CHRISTIAN duty for every
> believer to continually test his beliefs against the Word of God
> and to change them as he comes to know that they are in error.
> You do not know me or the paths that I have taken in the Faith.
> Do not have the audacity to equate me with the Pharisees! That
> statement is evil to the core.
You are overreacting. It is not evil. I am glad to hear you claim the Word
of God as your ultimate test. However, it appears from your reaction that
my statement is true. No, I'm *not* saying you're a Pharisee, or comparing
you to them in *other* aspects. But I couldn't help but notice the similarity
in this one aspect, that you are quick to challenge anyone who implies that
someone of your persuasion could have changed his views on Israel.
As it turns out, at least if your definitions are correct, I may have been
confusing y'all (you said you're a y'all) with some others who hold to a very
similar view of Israel. Sorry. But there are many people who hold views
almost identical to yours on Israel who have been changing their views. That
is my point. If you don't like that, I can't help it.
I repeat:
>> Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
>> of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently.
Note that this does not say you are a modern Pharisee. It says perhaps you are
reluctant to believe that anyone of your persuasion could ever come to see
things differently. It also says that this is a characteristic of the modern
Pharisees, so if the "perhaps" turns out to be true, then indeed you do share
this characteristic with them. I'm beginning to think you do. I find this
curious.
>> I'm not interested in arguing about this. It really
>> doesn't mean anything. If no yeshiva grads -- if no Jews at all -- accepted
>> Yeshua as their Messiah, it wouldn't make Him any less their and the world's
>> Messiah, and if you don't see how Israel fits in, it doesn't change what
>> God is doing one bit, either.
>
> Nor do your errors change the fact that the Church is growing
> and succeeding in her call to bring the world to Christ.
My errors don't muck up the Kingdom of God too badly, I'll admit. Nor do
your erroneous views of Israel.
>> I'd rather stick to the themes -- i.e., what is true -- than argue about
>> who may or may not believe it.
>
> Your demonstrated ignorance of Reconstruction indicates that you
> have no way of analyzing whether or not it is true.
If we take only what Tom Albrecht has posted here over the past several months
as representative of the Reconstructionists view of Israel we have
overwhelming evidence that it is in error. My error was apparently in thinking
certain people were Reconstructionists, when they may in fact be some slightly
different shade, which is inconsequential from where I stand. But I'll do
you the courtesy of not including you in their group, since you object.
> You certainly get annoyed when linked to
> dispensationialism (although, I think you quack louder on
> the dispie duck test than I would compared to Kingdom Now
> types :-) ).
Fine, then. Just call me a Late Great Planet Earth Dispensationalist. Add
this to your errors. At least I admit when I'm wrong. You are exceedingly
zealous to point out that you are not part of the same group as Paulk, and
I accept that; but you're less willing to let me tell you what I do and do
not believe.
-- Bruce Tiffany
Mark Malson
>
> #2415
>
> From: mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson)
> Subject:Re: Dennis Prager on "Messianics"
> Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 17:30:20 GMT
>
> >> But I also know that giving you some
> >> names will not result in any adverse repercussions against those named.
> >> You really can't do anything anyway; but you wouldn't if you could.
> >
> >What kind of a comment is that?
>
> You obviously aren't aware of the tactics of certain zealous RJ's. (I
> probably should've added a smiley.)
Obviously not. I've heard of tactics such as that being used AGAINST
Jews, but not BY them.
> >So we found one who (by this arbitrary standard) could be considered
> >"prominent" from Mr. Tiffany's list.
>
> Rob Levene doesn't like to be called "Robbie"; it's not formal enough.
> I don't like to be called "Mr. Tiffany"; it's too formal. My father is
> Mr. Tiffany. Or maybe his father. I'm Bruce. Maybe I'm weird -- in fact,
> I'm sure a good case could be made for that -- but to me it's almost
> insulting to be called "Mr. Tiffany" by *anybody*. I say "almost", because
> it isn't quite possible to make me feel insulted. :-)
I will call you Bruce if you wish. Where I come from, the Mr. <your name
here> is normally used toward someone you don't know very well, not to
insult them.
> I'm surprised you haven't heard of Dennis Peacock.
Actually, it sounds a little familiar, but I have come in contact
with many people of that surname and can't remember what context
it was in.
> I'm a bit surprised that you make a distinction here. I don't see what being
> a Reconstructionist has to do with being charismatic or not.
I know of few Reconstructionists who are Charismatic, and few
Charismatics who are Reconstructionists. NORMALLY (not always),
Charismatics tend to be Dispensational, a position diametrically
opposite to Reconstructionism. I'm quite sure it has to do with
the ways one interprets Scripture.
> Maybe you're
> implying Reconstructionists don't hear from God, and since Earl Paulk did,
> he's not a Reconstructionist ... ? :-)
I hear from God every time I open up a Bible, and so does Earl Paulk.
Does Earl Paulk hear voices? I've met some people who hear voices who
claim to be Charismatic who I've considered to be crazy. (half a :-)
> my point, once again,
> was not specifically restricted to Reconstructionists, but had to do with
> people in general who see no place for Israel in their theology.
I understand.
> Why do you raise the issue of antisemitism? I didn't.
It must have been the discussion of Hal Lindsey by another poster who
linked Reconstructionism to anti-Semitism. Seems to be a fairly common
attack against them, and I must have incorrectly thought that you
shared that sentiment. Sorry for the error.
> P.S. If I give you that Earl Paulk is not a Reconstructionist, will you folks
> quit calling me a dispensationalist and associating me with Hal Lindsay? I'm
> sure I have much bigger differences with Hal Lindsay than you all have with
> Earl Paulk.
"Dispensationalism" is a much broader term than "Reconstructionism", and
perhaps much less well defined. I suppose it would be fair to try to formulate
a definition of "Dispensationalism", since there are fairly good
definitions of "Reconstructionism". Anybody have a good definition they
care to put forth?
- Mark
Scott Linn
In article <1992Jun3.0...@pbs.org>, btif...@pbs.org writes:
> Scott Linn writes:
>
>
> > You ... decided to pick a fight. You got whipped because
> > you didn't do your homework.
>
> This accusation is unfounded.
Nonsense, as I stated in the part you deleted, I had no
problem with the negative comments about CR in Mr. Levene's
original post. He offered a very clear disclaimer saying that
he was not trying to make a point. You, on the other hand,
decided to make an issue out of it.
> >> Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
> >> of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently. . . .
> >> You don't believe any
> >> Reconstructionists could come to view Israel and Messianic Judaism
> >> differently than you.
> >
> > I am a firm believer that it is the CHRISTIAN duty for every
> > believer to continually test his beliefs against the Word of God
> > and to change them as he comes to know that they are in error.
> > You do not know me or the paths that I have taken in the Faith.
> > Do not have the audacity to equate me with the Pharisees! That
> > statement is evil to the core.
>
> You are overreacting. It is not evil. I am glad to hear you claim the Word
> of God as your ultimate test. However, it appears from your reaction that
> my statement is true. No, I'm *not* saying you're a Pharisee, or comparing
> you to them in *other* aspects. But I couldn't help but notice the similarity
> in this one aspect, that you are quick to challenge anyone who implies that
> someone of your persuasion could have changed his views on Israel.
You are correct, you did not "equate," but you did compare. I doubt
therefore that I am overreacting. Jesus Christ had no more damning
phrase to use against the rulers of Israel than to call them "scribes,
PHARISEES, hypocrits." To compare a Christian brother with that
term is odious. You should be ashamed of yourself. We may
disagree on the role of Israel, but I have never treated your
postion in such a low manner.
> As it turns out, at least if your definitions are correct, I may have been
> confusing y'all (you said you're a y'all) with some others who hold to a very
> similar view of Israel. Sorry. But there are many people who hold views
> almost identical to yours on Israel who have been changing their views. That
> is my point. If you don't like that, I can't help it.
>
> I repeat:
>
> >> Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
> >> of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently.
>
> Note that this does not say you are a modern Pharisee. It says perhaps you are
> reluctant to believe that anyone of your persuasion could ever come to see
> things differently. It also says that this is a characteristic of the modern
> Pharisees, so if the "perhaps" turns out to be true, then indeed you do share
> this characteristic with them. I'm beginning to think you do. I find this
> curious.
I have asked you before not to impute motives to me. I was
generally interested in those Reconstructionist leaders who might
have changed. Their input would be very valuable in these
discussions. You were unable to produce what you claimed to
have available. Don't try to turn the issue back on me. You
couldn't deliver the goods.
> >> I'm not interested in arguing about this. It really
> >> doesn't mean anything. If no yeshiva grads -- if no Jews at all -- accepted
> >> Yeshua as their Messiah, it wouldn't make Him any less their and the world's
> >> Messiah, and if you don't see how Israel fits in, it doesn't change what
> >> God is doing one bit, either.
> >
> > Nor do your errors change the fact that the Church is growing
> > and succeeding in her call to bring the world to Christ.
>
> My errors don't muck up the Kingdom of God too badly, I'll admit. Nor do
> your erroneous views of Israel.
>
Thanks be to God that he watches over both of us. I mean that
sincerely: no hidden barbs, no smileys.
> > You certainly get annoyed when linked to
> > dispensationialism (although, I think you quack louder on
> > the dispie duck test than I would compared to Kingdom Now
> > types :-) ).
>
> Fine, then. Just call me a Late Great Planet Earth Dispensationalist. Add
> this to your errors. At least I admit when I'm wrong. You are exceedingly
> zealous to point out that you are not part of the same group as Paulk, and
> I accept that; but you're less willing to let me tell you what I do and do
> not believe.
>
To quote you at this point (barb attached):
"As it turns out, at least if your definitions are correct,
I may have been confusing y[ou] with some others who hold to a very
similar view of Israel. Sorry. But there are many people who hold
views almost identical to yours on Israel who have been changing
their views. That is my point. If you don't like that, I can't help
it."
I have NEVER called you a dispensationalist, even in the above.
I will take you at your word that you are not. I cannot hide the
fact that I am unable to distinguish your position from theirs. But,
you certainly have no duty to try to defend yourself against
a dispie appearance. I, on the other hand, will try to
distinguish myself from those that you have linked me to. I have
no desire to leave you in ignorance of the truth of my position.
btif...@pbs.org
> BTW, did you find the information I provided from CRI helpful?
Yes, I did. Thanks.
> Are your Messianic friends Juster and Intrater into the "signs and wonders"
> movement of Earl Paulk?
No. The only contact that I know of has been in the context of dialog
concerning Israel and Messianic Judaism.
-- Bruce Tiffany
btif...@pbs.org
>>
>> You guys are getting way off the subject. I have no intention of discussing
>> the differences between various flows within Christianity on alt.messianic.
>
> But MJ IS a flow within Christianity! Isn't it?
Well, that's debatable. But I'm not about to debate it.
I'm was talking about the differences between Reconstructionism and Kingdom
Theology, et-cetera. This flap is about you people wanting to differentiate
between yourselves and whatever group Earl Paulk fits into. Fine -- you're
not the same bunch. But I'm not going to discuss those differences. It's
enough to point out that there are some differences, and I accept that and
stand corrected. No problem.
>> These people all tend to be or have
>> been postmillennialists or amillennialists.
>
> I admit I don't have the homework done to dispute this point, but
> isn't the vast majority of the mainstream Christian Church
> Dispensationalist if they admit any eschatology at all?
No. Perhaps most of the church in America is dispensationalist, but not
the Kingdom/Covenant/Dominion people, to name a few. However, it appears
to be a tendency on the part of Reconstructionists to regard all others as
being dispensationalists. It's not I who hasn't done his homework!
>> Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
>> of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently.
>
> Oh, I get it. When Bruce is stubborn, he's being "strong in the Faith".
Was I stubborn in admitting I was wrong about this? There's no pleasing you
guys. I really have the impression you *look* for fights.
-- BT
Mark Malson
>
> Mark Malson writes:
> >>
> >> You guys are getting way off the subject. I have no intention of discussing
> >> the differences between various flows within Christianity on alt.messianic.
> >
> > But MJ IS a flow within Christianity! Isn't it?
>
> Well, that's debatable. But I'm not about to debate it.
If it's not a flow within Christianity, then what is it? A flow
OUTSIDE of Christianity? The ONLY form of Christianity?
>
> I'm was talking about the differences between Reconstructionism and Kingdom
> Theology, et-cetera. This flap is about you people wanting to differentiate
> between yourselves and whatever group Earl Paulk fits into. Fine -- you're
> not the same bunch. But I'm not going to discuss those differences. It's
> enough to point out that there are some differences, and I accept that and
> stand corrected. No problem.
>
> >> These people all tend to be or have
> >> been postmillennialists or amillennialists.
> >
> > I admit I don't have the homework done to dispute this point, but
> > isn't the vast majority of the mainstream Christian Church
> > Dispensationalist if they admit any eschatology at all?
>
> No. Perhaps most of the church in America is dispensationalist,
That's really what I meant...forgot to mention America there...
> but not
> the Kingdom/Covenant/Dominion people, to name a few.
That's where I really admit not doing my homework. It just seems
to me that a postmillennial viewpoint carries with it so much
(good :-) baggage that certain aspects of 20th-century American
Christianity (i.e., Charismaticism) need to be re-evaluated, if
not totally dropped, by anyone who becomes a postmillennialist.
> However, it appears
> to be a tendency on the part of Reconstructionists to regard all others as
> being dispensationalists. It's not I who hasn't done his homework!
The reason for that is that it's a good generalization MUCH better
than half the time. In America. Sorry if it's not always true, but
that's the price anyone pays for acquiring knowledge and trying to
apply it. Sometimes people who look and sound and walk like ducks
aren't actually ducks. Or just don't want to be CALLED ducks. :->
> >> Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
> >> of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently.
> >
> > Oh, I get it. When Bruce is stubborn, he's being "strong in the Faith".
>
> Was I stubborn in admitting I was wrong about this?
I think so. Perhaps it was because I don't know you well enough
to understand exactly what you mean every time you say it. When
I admit I'm wrong, I try to make it crystal clear that that's what
I'm doing. No defenses or explanations - just an admission.
> There's no pleasing you
> guys. I really have the impression you *look* for fights.
Debate keeps my mind sharp. I'm sorry you regard it "fighting",
as I have no ill feelings toward you or anyone else on this
newsgroup. I enjoy it very much, and I hope to learn as well
as inform...
>
> -- BT
>
- Mark
William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50
can postmillenialists be charismatic, etc., it would be nice to have
some working definitions. There's currently a post on soc.religion.christian
which deals with the differences between postmil and amil views:
Article 9608 (42 more) in soc.religion.christian (moderated):
From: REX...@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Millennialism
The author of that post has promised to discuss premillenialism and
dispensationalism tomorrow. Maybe it would be worthwhile to look at
those posts.
It seems to be easier today to find a Christian (or an MJ) who claims
not to be a dispensationalist than to find one who can tell you what
a dispensationalist is, and why he isn't one. Calvinists seem to label
premils as dispensationalists, but the church I was saved in was emphatically
premil and just as emphatically nondispensationalist, although few if
any in that church could tell me what a dispensationalist believes, how
they differed, and why.
I for one have heard enough of the "I'm not a dispensationalist but he/she
is," stuff that I've decided to do something about my lack of education
in this area. I've ordered, "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth," by John
Gerstner, which critiques dispensationalism from a reformed point of view.
When I've read it I'll post some notes on it either here or on soc.religion.
christian.
Bill Hamilton
Daniel Segard
in Acts 21 existed.
> They persecuted, rejected
> him, and eventually murdered him.
many as being somewhat racist. As such your use of such poor phrasing
will likely get you lumped in with those who shout "Christ killer" at the
Jews.
Perhaps what you meant to say was that "some" Jews rejected him, and
that even a lesser minority of Jews actively precipitated the actions
leading up to his death. *HOWEVER* for you to claim that the Jews
murdered Jesus is blasphemy.
> The Nation of Israel was wiped off the face of the
> earth in AD70 out of judgement for their continual
> unfaithfulness to their God.
world was known as "the Nation of Israel" in the 1st century? I was under
the impression that Israel had split into Judea and Israel many centuries
previous to that, and that the northern kingdom, which was Israel was
conquered and never restored, thus leaving only the southern kingdom of
Judea.
Tom Albrecht
>
> > They persecuted, rejected
> > him, and eventually murdered him.
>
> Your use of such a blanket term as "they" will likely come across to
Only by those who overwork words like "anti-Semitic."
I would take it as "they who put him to death." Nothing more ... nothing
less. Of course there is federal responsibility outlined throughout the NT
regarding the guilt of Israel in the matter (cf. Matthew 23:31,35; 27:25).
Denial won't make it go away.
> Perhaps what you meant to say was that "some" Jews rejected him, and
>that even a lesser minority of Jews actively precipitated the actions
>leading up to his death. *HOWEVER* for you to claim that the Jews
>murdered Jesus is blasphemy.
^^^^^^^^^
blasphemy (n) - 1 a) the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of
reverence for God b) the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2)
irreverence towards something considered sacred or inviolable.
How, precisely, does this word "blasphemy" fit in here? Who had Jesus put
to death by a premeditated action? Who stoned Stephen in Acts 7? I see
nothing inaccurate in what Mr. Malson said.
But what saith the Scriptures?
Therefore let all the HOUSE OF ISRAEL know assuredly, that God hath made
the same Jesus, WHOM YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED, both Lord and Christ.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto
Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:36-38)
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the
people, and elders of Israel,
If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by
what means he is made whole;
BE IT KNOWN UNTO YOU ALL, AND TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, THAT BY THE
NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED, whom God raised from
the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is
become the head of the corner. (Acts 4:8-11)
The apostle Peter clearly laid the guilt of the death of Messiah at the
feet of the house (nation?) of Israel. All you have to do, Mr. Segard, is
to take off your rose-colored glasses when you read the Bible.
--
Tom Albrecht
Mark Malson
>
> > They persecuted, rejected
> > him, and eventually murdered him.
>
> Your use of such a blanket term as "they" will likely come across to
> many as being somewhat racist. As such your use of such poor phrasing
> will likely get you lumped in with those who shout "Christ killer" at the
> Jews.
That sort of lumping is exactly the same sort of lumping you are
suggesting that I am doing. In fact, I am not one of those who
bears a grudge against the Jewish people for crucifying my Lord.
That act had to be performed, as the execution of God's eternal,
perfect plan. The Jews (with much help from the Romans) were the
ones who did it. Why do you call me anti-Semitic (by insinuation)
when I state a matter of historical fact? This is precisely why I
used the phrase, to make this point.
> Perhaps what you meant to say was that "some" Jews rejected him,
> and that even a lesser minority of Jews actively precipitated the actions
> leading up to his death.
This is true. He was sent to the Jews, AS A PEOPLE, and they, AS A
PEOPLE, rejected him. He was, in another sense, sent for each
individual Jew, but not each and every individual Jew rejected
him.
Anyone who holds a grudge against the Jews of today for that act,
in my opinion, has an improper understanding of why Christ came
and died for us.
> *HOWEVER* for you to claim that the Jews
> murdered Jesus is blasphemy.
Hardly. A denial of historical truth is just plain silly. And it is
most certainly *NOT* blasphemy by any stretch of the imagination.
A more accurate term might have been "executed Jesus" since that
was what they said they were doing.
> > The Nation of Israel was wiped off the face of the
> > earth in AD70 out of judgement for their continual
> > unfaithfulness to their God.
>
> Really? Can you provide some documentation that that area of the
> world was known as "the Nation of Israel" in the 1st century? I was under
> the impression that Israel had split into Judea and Israel many centuries
> previous to that, and that the northern kingdom, which was Israel was
> conquered and never restored, thus leaving only the southern kingdom of
> Judea.
Oops. The Temple of Jerusalem was wiped off the face of the earth.
My term was too broad - sorry. The temple still does not exist
today. Doesn't a Moslem temple sit on that site now?
The point I wanted to make was that the temple was central to all
of Judaism. It was the place where the Lord met His people for
sacrifices, by which their sins were paid for and forgiveness
was given. I maintain that in the destruction of the Temple, the
Lord ceased to deal with the Jewish people in that way (the "Old"
way) and required them to enter the New Covenant. Without the
blood of sacrifice, there is no forgiveness of sins. The only
acceptable sacrifice now is the one God made for us on the cross.
The destruction of the temple was the final chapter in the Old
Covenant. Those who did not enter the New Covenant were, at that
point, rejected ultimately.
- Mark
David J Stucki
In article <1992Jun5.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dse...@isis.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
>
> > They persecuted, rejected
> > him, and eventually murdered him.
>
> Your use of such a blanket term as "they" will likely come across to
> many as being somewhat racist. As such your use of such poor phrasing
> will likely get you lumped in with those who shout "Christ killer" at the
> Jews.
That sort of lumping is exactly the same sort of lumping you are
suggesting that I am doing. In fact, I am not one of those who
bears a grudge against the Jewish people for crucifying my Lord.
That act had to be performed, as the execution of God's eternal,
perfect plan. The Jews (with much help from the Romans) were the
ones who did it. Why do you call me anti-Semitic (by insinuation)
when I state a matter of historical fact? This is precisely why I
used the phrase, to make this point.
Because your statement is more general than historical fact. To say
that the Jews put Jesus to death is much the same as saying that the
Americans put Abraham Lincoln to death. Just because the people involved
in Lincoln's assasination were Americans doesn't mean that every American
participated in the act. To say that the Jews murdered Jesus implies
the responsibility of more than were actually involved.
> *HOWEVER* for you to claim that the Jews
> murdered Jesus is blasphemy.
Hardly. A denial of historical truth is just plain silly. And it is
most certainly *NOT* blasphemy by any stretch of the imagination.
A more accurate term might have been "executed Jesus" since that
was what they said they were doing.
Again, it is at least a distortion and over-generalization, which
typically produces even more animosity and misunderstanding.
> > The Nation of Israel was wiped off the face of the
> > earth in AD70 out of judgement for their continual
> > unfaithfulness to their God.
Oops. The Temple of Jerusalem was wiped off the face of the earth.
My term was too broad - sorry. The temple still does not exist
today. Doesn't a Moslem temple sit on that site now?
The point I wanted to make was that the temple was central to all
of Judaism. It was the place where the Lord met His people for
sacrifices, by which their sins were paid for and forgiveness
was given. I maintain that in the destruction of the Temple, the
Lord ceased to deal with the Jewish people in that way (the "Old"
way) and required them to enter the New Covenant. Without the
blood of sacrifice, there is no forgiveness of sins. The only
acceptable sacrifice now is the one God made for us on the cross.
The destruction of the temple was the final chapter in the Old
Covenant. Those who did not enter the New Covenant were, at that
point, rejected ultimately.
How do you reconcile this interpretation with the prophecy for a third
temple to come?
dave...
David J Stucki /\ ~~ /\ ~~ /\ ~~ /\ ~~ c/o Dept. Computer and
537 Harley Dr. #6 / \ / \ / \ / \ / Information Science
Columbus, OH 43202 \/ \ / \ / \ / 2036 Neil Ave.
stu...@cis.ohio-state.edu ~ \/ ~~ \/ ~~ \/ Columbus, OH 43210
There is no place in science for ideas,
there is no place in epistemology for knowledge,
and there is no place in semantics for meanings. -- W.V. Quine
Daniel Segard
t...@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <1992Jun5.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>dse...@isis.cs.du.edu (D aniel Segard) writes:
>
>>
>> > They persecuted, rejected
>> > him, and eventually murdered him.
>>
>> Your use of such a blanket term as "they" will likely come across to
>
> Only by those who overwork words like "anti-Semitic."
> I would take it as "they who put him to death."
> Nothing more ... nothing less.
to the Jew first. They persecuted, rejected him, and eventually murdered
him."
So it is your claim that Jesus only came to the Jews of the subset
of "they who put him to death". That is an interesting claim for you to
make. I certainly took it to refer to all Jews. Funny how you had to
edit the first part of the quote out.
>> *HOWEVER* for you to claim that the Jews
>>murdered Jesus is blasphemy.
> blasphemy (n) - 1 a) the act of insulting or showing contempt
> or lack of reverence for God b) the act of claiming the
> attributes of deity 2) irreverence towards something
> considered sacred or inviolable.
>
> How, precisely, does this word "blasphemy" fit in here? Who
> had Jesus put to death by a premeditated action?
Messiah a liar. Mr Malson here claimed that "the Jews murdered" Yeshua.
To murder someone, requires that you "take their life".
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my
life -- only to take it up again. *NO ONE TAKES IT
FROM ME*, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have
authority to lay it down and autority to take it up
again. This command I received from my Father."
John 10:17-18
Now obviouly someone isn't telling the truth here. Either Mr Malson
is correct that Yeshua is wrong that no one could take His life from him
and that the Jews actually did murder Yeshua. Or Yeshua is correct that
the Father *commanded* the death of Yeshua and that Yeshua laid down His
life on his own. At this point I would prefer to believe Yeshua. You are
free to differ on that point.
btif...@pbs.org
>> Maybe you're
>>implying Reconstructionists don't hear from God, and since Earl Paulk did,
>>he's not a Reconstructionist ... ? :-) I suppose you could be right about
>>that ... :-) Anyway, I don't think it matters. I my point, once again,
>>was not specifically restricted to Reconstructionists, but had to do with
>>people in general who see no place for Israel in their theology.
>
> Please note Bruce's continued identification of Reconstructionism with
> "people who see no place for Israel in their theology." Such a nebulous
> designation is almost meaningless, but in spite of the quotes I have
> provided from real "prominent Reconstructionists" like Steve Schlissel,
> Bruce continues to make this silly association which I suppose is meant to
> denigrate some of us in the eyes of others.
I include you in that statement. Your views on Israel have been made quite
clear on alt.messianic. You see no place for Israel any more (instead, you
redefine it). Long time readers of AM are familiar enough with your
theological doubletalk to see through your denials, understanding that you
redefine all the terms. You claim one thing, but display another.
> Apparently the best he can do is drag up mildly heretical charismatics like
> "archbishop" Earl Paulk - a man whose own understanding of matters like the
> biblical teaching on Israel, the sign gifts, the person and work of Jesus
> Christ, and a host of other theological issues is seriously deficient - to
> smear Reconstructionists.
I was not attempting to smear Reconstructionists. They need no help. This
criticisim of Paulk, coming from you, would tend to indicate that Paulk is
probably close to correct on the issues you cited. However, I am not sure
what he teaches on these things, so I won't say it is so. In any case,
your estimation of someone's theology as "seriously deficient" is at the
very least worth nothing, and at most an actual recommendation for what they
believe. This I say after reading your postings for a long time now.
> I'm still confused as to why Bruce would relate this story of Earl Paulk
> and some of the leaders from the MJ movement. Was it simply to show that
> folks' views can change with time? Hey, I have no problem with that.
Why can't you believe there was no ulterior motive? I was simply pointing
out that we are engaged in dialog with people who saw no place for Israel in
their theology -- something they shared with you (denials will be forthcoming,
I know; but don't forget, we've been reading your stuff for a long time now) --
have changed that view as a result of that dialog.
>I used to be a dispensationalist. :-)
Gasp!! A skeleton in your closet! :-)
> Was it just to drop names? Big deal.
HA! It was in response to a question. When I made the statement about the
dialog, I included no names.
> Our view of God and the world is properly understood by looking at the
> Scriptures, not by who we associate with. (Bruce, let me give you a word
> of warning. From what I've read of Paulk's theology in general, I wouldn't
> be so quick to use him as a legitimizing figure for the MJ movement.)
What you or Paulk or Cho or Billy Graham believe has nothing to do with
"ligitimizing" the MJ movement. Messianic Judaism is *not* struggling for
recognition.
> Or was it to inflate the place of MJs in the kingdom by trying to have us
> believe that God tapped the "archbishop" of Atlanta on the shoulder and
> said, "Go talk to these MJ fellows, they got it right?" You flatter
> yourself if that's your opinion.
If you want to be great in God's kingdom, you must be the servant of all.
You really, really don't know us at all.
> BTW, did Juster or Intrater characterize Paulk as a "prominent
> Reconstructionist" or did that designation originate with you?
With me. You can blame me for all errors in that regard. I accept it.
-- BT
btif...@pbs.org
> I will call you Bruce if you wish. Where I come from, the Mr. <your name
> here> is normally used toward someone you don't know very well, not to
> insult them.
I know that. But I just never was one to get into formality.
>> I'm a bit surprised that you make a distinction here. I don't see what being
>> a Reconstructionist has to do with being charismatic or not.
>
> I know of few Reconstructionists who are Charismatic, and few
> Charismatics who are Reconstructionists. NORMALLY (not always),
> Charismatics tend to be Dispensational, a position diametrically
> opposite to Reconstructionism. I'm quite sure it has to do with
> the ways one interprets Scripture.
Yes, but as I suspected, there are charismatic Reconstructionists. Again, I
say I don't see what one has to do with the other. Although Reconstructionists
tend *not* to be charismatic, I see no reason why they couldn't be. There is
no instrinsic contradiction that I am aware of. So if Paulk is charismatic,
it does not mean he is not a Reconstructionist, and if he is not a
Reconstructionist, it is not because he is charismatic.
Whew!! I'm glad we got that straightened out ... :-)
BTW, perhaps you were unaware, but since about 1984 (when David Chilton spoke
at Bob Tilton's church in Dallas) -- really before that, but that's when it
really starting to explode -- there has been a *big* postmillennialist (as
well as a big amillennialist) movement within the charismatic side of things,
which has Messianic Jews (and many others as well) quite concerned. It
seems to me that Dispensationalism is losing favor. That in itself is good,
but we may be out of the frying pan and into the fire. <sigh>
>> Maybe you're
>> implying Reconstructionists don't hear from God, and since Earl Paulk did,
>> he's not a Reconstructionist ... ? :-)
>
> I hear from God every time I open up a Bible, and so does Earl Paulk.
> Does Earl Paulk hear voices? I've met some people who hear voices who
> claim to be Charismatic who I've considered to be crazy. (half a :-)
I have to agree with you there ... :-(
>> Why do you raise the issue of antisemitism? I didn't.
>
> It must have been the discussion of Hal Lindsey by another poster who
> linked Reconstructionism to anti-Semitism. Seems to be a fairly common
> attack against them, and I must have incorrectly thought that you
> shared that sentiment. Sorry for the error.
I wasn't saying anything about it one way or the other. Maybe you thought
I was because the words I was originally commenting on were in a paragraph
which also referred to antisemitism and Hal Lindsay. (You spelled it
Lindsey; you could be right.)
Tom quoted statements by David Chilton which were blatantly antisemitic; he
saw no antisemitism in them! But I am not saying Reconstructionists are
antisemites.
>> P.S. If I give you that Earl Paulk is not a Reconstructionist, will you folks
>> quit calling me a dispensationalist and associating me with Hal Lindsay? I'm
>> sure I have much bigger differences with Hal Lindsay than you all have with
>> Earl Paulk.
>
> "Dispensationalism" is a much broader term than "Reconstructionism", and
> perhaps much less well defined. I suppose it would be fair to try to formulate
> a definition of "Dispensationalism", since there are fairly good
> definitions of "Reconstructionism". Anybody have a good definition they
> care to put forth?
I'll leave that to the Dispensationalists ... :-)
-- BT
btif...@pbs.org
>> > You ... decided to pick a fight. You got whipped because
>> > you didn't do your homework.
>>
>> This accusation is unfounded.
>
> Nonsense, as I stated in the part you deleted, I had no ...
The accusation is UNFOUNDED.
>> You are overreacting. It is not evil. I am glad to hear you claim the Word
>> of God as your ultimate test. However, it appears from your reaction that
>> my statement is true. No, I'm *not* saying you're a Pharisee, or comparing
>> you to them in *other* aspects. But I couldn't help but notice the similarity
>> in this one aspect, that you are quick to challenge anyone who implies that
>> someone of your persuasion could have changed his views on Israel.
>
> You are correct, you did not "equate," but you did compare. I doubt
> therefore that I am overreacting. Jesus Christ had no more damning
> phrase to use against the rulers of Israel than to call them "scribes,
> PHARISEES, hypocrits." To compare a Christian brother with that
> term is odious. You should be ashamed of yourself. We may
> disagree on the role of Israel, but I have never treated your
> postion in such a low manner.
If you understood scripture, you wouldn't be so bent out of shape. By your
reasoning Yeshua had something against scribes for being scribes. Poppycock.
Today He might said: "Methodists, Presbyterians, hypocrites!"; or
"Baptists, Catholics: Hypocrites!"; or "teachers, civil authorities,
hypocrites!" Or "policemen and locomotive engineers, hypocrites!"
>>>>Perhaps you, like the modern Pharisees, are reluctant to believe that anyone
>>>>of your persuasion could ever come to see things differently.
>>
>> Note that this does not say you are a modern Pharisee. It says perhaps you are
>> reluctant to believe that anyone of your persuasion could ever come to see
>> things differently. It also says that this is a characteristic of the modern
>> Pharisees, so if the "perhaps" turns out to be true, then indeed you do share
>> this characteristic with them. I'm beginning to think you do. I find this
>> curious.
>
> I have asked you before not to impute motives to me. I was
> generally interested in those Reconstructionist leaders who might
> have changed. Their input would be very valuable in these
> discussions.
I'm not imputing anything, merely making an observation. And I agree with
you about such input being valuable.
> You were unable to produce what you claimed to
> have available. Don't try to turn the issue back on me. You
> couldn't deliver the goods.
And you say *I'm* trying to pick a fight? <chuckle>
>> My errors don't muck up the Kingdom of God too badly, I'll admit. Nor do
>> your erroneous views of Israel.
>
> Thanks be to God that he watches over both of us. I mean that
> sincerely: no hidden barbs, no smileys.
Amen! :-)
(The smiley doesn't mean I don't mean it; it means I'm smiling.)
>> > You certainly get annoyed when linked to
>> > dispensationialism (although, I think you quack louder on
>> > the dispie duck test than I would compared to Kingdom Now
>> > types :-) ).
>>
>> Fine, then. Just call me a Late Great Planet Earth Dispensationalist. Add
>> this to your errors. At least I admit when I'm wrong. You are exceedingly
>> zealous to point out that you are not part of the same group as Paulk, and
>> I accept that; but you're less willing to let me tell you what I do and do
>> not believe.
>>
>
> To quote you at this point (barb attached):
>
> "As it turns out, at least if your definitions are correct,
> I may have been confusing y[ou] with some others who hold to a very
> similar view of Israel. Sorry. But there are many people who hold
> views almost identical to yours on Israel who have been changing
> their views. That is my point. If you don't like that, I can't help
> it."
>
> I have NEVER called you a dispensationalist, even in the above.
> I will take you at your word that you are not. I cannot hide the
> fact that I am unable to distinguish your position from theirs. But,
> you certainly have no duty to try to defend yourself against
> a dispie appearance. I, on the other hand, will try to
> distinguish myself from those that you have linked me to. I have
> no desire to leave you in ignorance of the truth of my position.
Was that the barb? It didn't seem so bad. I still don't see why what I
said made you confuse me with dispensationalists. But I'm getting used to
this.
-- BT
btif...@pbs.org
>> >> You guys are getting way off the subject. I have no intention of discussing
>> >> the differences between various flows within Christianity on alt.messianic.
>> >
>> > But MJ IS a flow within Christianity! Isn't it?
>>
>> Well, that's debatable. But I'm not about to debate it.
>
> If it's not a flow within Christianity, then what is it? A flow
> OUTSIDE of Christianity? The ONLY form of Christianity?
It could be that you have it backwards ... :-) But I'm not going to get
into this. I think it's a matter of one's perception, and I don't really care
to waste time on it.
>> >> These people all tend to be or have
>> >> been postmillennialists or amillennialists.
>> >
>> > I admit I don't have the homework done to dispute this point, but
>> > isn't the vast majority of the mainstream Christian Church
>> > Dispensationalist if they admit any eschatology at all?
>>
>> No. Perhaps most of the church in America is dispensationalist,
>
> That's really what I meant...forgot to mention America there...
>
>> but not
>> the Kingdom/Covenant/Dominion people, to name a few.
>
> That's where I really admit not doing my homework. It just seems
> to me that a postmillennial viewpoint carries with it so much
> (good :-) baggage that certain aspects of 20th-century American
> Christianity (i.e., Charismaticism) need to be re-evaluated, if
> not totally dropped, by anyone who becomes a postmillennialist.
Since we spend a lot of time dealing with postmillennialist jibes at
Messianic Judaism, we never touch on other things, like all the things
that are *right* about Reconstructionism. We have some major disagreements,
to be sure, and of course alt.messianic is not the place to discuss
Reconstructionism, but people in the Reconstructionist movement are sure
doing a lot of good things as a result of their theology. There are
quite a few things we agree on, you know. They just don't tend to be the
things which fall under the purview of alt.messianic.
>> However, it appears
>> to be a tendency on the part of Reconstructionists to regard all others as
>> being dispensationalists. It's not I who hasn't done his homework!
>
> The reason for that is that it's a good generalization MUCH better
> than half the time. In America.
Well, then I can be forgiven for associating Paulk with Reconstructionism.
As far as the topics of alt.messianic are concerned, he has had a *lot* in
common with you guys. Where he differs are mostly in areas not discussed
on alt.messianic.
>Sorry if it's not always true, but
> that's the price anyone pays for acquiring knowledge and trying to
> apply it. Sometimes people who look and sound and walk like ducks
> aren't actually ducks. Or just don't want to be CALLED ducks. :->
Better duck!
Sorry. I don't sound as much like a duck as Tom Albrecht. He's more of a
dispensationalist than I.
>> There's no pleasing you
>> guys. I really have the impression you *look* for fights.
>
> Debate keeps my mind sharp. I'm sorry you regard it "fighting",
> as I have no ill feelings toward you or anyone else on this
> newsgroup. I enjoy it very much, and I hope to learn as well
> as inform...
Please keep in mind that my time is limited, and I'm usually operating in high
speed mode when answering posts, so that I generally don't have time to be
extra careful in the wording. It's either that or not post at all.
So, on from here, eh?
-- BT
Mark Malson
>
> "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my
> life -- only to take it up again. *NO ONE TAKES IT
> FROM ME*, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have
> authority to lay it down and autority to take it up
> again. This command I received from my Father."
> John 10:17-18
>
> Now obviouly someone isn't telling the truth here. Either Mr Malson
> is correct that Yeshua is wrong that no one could take His life from him
> and that the Jews actually did murder Yeshua. Or Yeshua is correct that
> the Father *commanded* the death of Yeshua and that Yeshua laid down His
> life on his own. At this point I would prefer to believe Yeshua. You are
> free to differ on that point.
Sheesh. God permits us to sin (He IS sovereign, or are we going to
have to debate this too?), even foreordains it (e.g., God hardened
Pharaoh's heart), yet He still holds us accountable for our sin.
It is totally wrong to say that even though God foreordains an act
that he relieves the transgressors of their responsibility. I don't
understand it fully, but the Bible clearly teaches it.
God permitted His Son to die, even foreordained it, yet He still
held the Jews (corporately and in some cases individually as well)
accountable. At the same time, Jesus laid down His life for them
and us. If they were doing nothing wrong, why would Jesus say,
"Forgive them, for they know not what they do"? If they were
guiltless then no forgiveness would be necessary.
In other words, Jesus is laid down his life AND the Jews murdered
him. Any cursory study of the Bible would reveal many such
concepts which seem paradoxical.
- Mark
Mark Malson
>
> In article <1992Jun5.2...@mlb.semi.harris.com> mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>
> In article <1992Jun5.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dse...@isis.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
> >
> > > They persecuted, rejected
> > > him, and eventually murdered him.
>
> that the Jews put Jesus to death is much the same as saying that the
> Americans put Abraham Lincoln to death.
Oh come on. I hope you're just being difficult and don't believe
that that is a good analogy.
> Just because the people involved
> in Lincoln's assasination were Americans doesn't mean that every American
> participated in the act.
FYI, Abraham Lincoln was murdered by a lone assassin, without
the aid of a single American leader, much less the aid of
any governing authority (or has Oliver Stone made another
revisionist movie?)
In contrast, Jesus was put to death for breaking the Jewish Law
(blasphemy - He claimed to be God) and executed with the full
consent and assistance of the Jewish authorities.
Perhaps you could find a VALID analogy.
> Hardly. A denial of historical truth is just plain silly. And it is
> most certainly *NOT* blasphemy by any stretch of the imagination.
> A more accurate term might have been "executed Jesus" since that
> was what they said they were doing.
>
> Again, it is at least a distortion and over-generalization, which
> typically produces even more animosity and misunderstanding.
Then I guess God distorts and over-generalizes in Acts 2:36 and
Acts 4:8-11 (Thanx Tom). He squarely places the responsibility
of the execution on to the House of Israel.
> The point I wanted to make was that the temple was central to all
> of Judaism. It was the place where the Lord met His people for
> sacrifices, by which their sins were paid for and forgiveness
> was given. I maintain that in the destruction of the Temple, the
> Lord ceased to deal with the Jewish people in that way (the "Old"
> way) and required them to enter the New Covenant. Without the
> blood of sacrifice, there is no forgiveness of sins. The only
> acceptable sacrifice now is the one God made for us on the cross.
> The destruction of the temple was the final chapter in the Old
> Covenant. Those who did not enter the New Covenant were, at that
> point, rejected ultimately.
>
> How do you reconcile this interpretation with the prophecy for a third
> temple to come?
What prophecy?
>
> dave...
>
- Mark
David J Stucki
In contrast, Jesus was put to death for breaking the Jewish Law
(blasphemy - He claimed to be God) and executed with the full
consent and assistance of the Jewish authorities.
Pardon me, but if Jesus violated Torah he would not have been an
acceptable sacrifice. You must mean something other than what you
said here.
Mark Malson
>
>
> In contrast, Jesus was put to death for breaking the Jewish Law
> (blasphemy - He claimed to be God) and executed with the full
> consent and assistance of the Jewish authorities.
>
> Pardon me, but if Jesus violated Torah he would not have been an
> acceptable sacrifice. You must mean something other than what you
> said here.
Saying you are God (when you are not) is blasphemy. The penalty
for blasphemy was death. Because the Jewish leaders THOUGHT He
was committing blasphemy, they executed Him.
Jesus did not in fact violate the law because He WAS God, and
His statement to that fact was true, therefore not blasphemy.
>
> dave...
>
- Mark
Kenneth J. Hendrickson
>In article <1992Jun9.1...@mlb.semi.harris.com> mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>
> In contrast, Jesus was put to death for breaking the Jewish Law
> (blasphemy - He claimed to be God) and executed with the full
> consent and assistance of the Jewish authorities.
>
>Pardon me, but if Jesus violated Torah he would not have been an
>acceptable sacrifice. You must mean something other than what you
>said here.
No, he meant exactly what he said. And if he didn't, I'll repeat his
words, and mean exactly what he said!
You make a false presupposition. You assume that Yeshau lied!
*If* Yeshua lied, *then* He would have been violating several of the
commandments, including "I am the LORD your God who saved you", "You
shall have no other gods", and "You shall not take The Name of the LORD
your GOD in vain".
However, because Yeshua was telling the truth, He violated no
commandment. He was put to death for breaking the Torah. However, He
was an innocent Man. (And God also!) He was executed with the full
consent and assistance of the Jewish authorities.
If you continue to believe the presupposition that you didn't state, and
that I pointed out, and that the evidence doesn't support, then you are
guilty of the same crime and sin as the Jewish leaders who were in
agreement with putting Yeshua to death. (Let the reader know that I'm
not anti-semitic, and I'm perfectly willing to not take action, and let
the LORD deal with those the way He wishes. I pray that the LORD won't
give me what I deserve, however.) The evidence suggests that Yeshua was
the most morally uprighteous Man ever to live. Nobody could bring any
charge against Him, except the charge of blasphemy. (Which wouldn't be
a crime or a sin if He was telling the truth.) Nobody accused Him of
selfishness. Nobody accused Him of deceit. Nobody accused Him of
harbouring evil in His heart. Nobody accused Him of greed. Nobody
accused Him of pride. Nobody accused Him of lying. Nobody accused Him
of gluttony. Nobody accused Him of any of these serious sins that all
the rest of us are guilty of. If Yeshua's contemporaries couldn't
accuse Him of these things, who are you accuse Him?
Kenneth J. Hendrickson
>> I suppose it would be fair to try to formulate
>> a definition of "Dispensationalism", since there are fairly good
>> definitions of "Reconstructionism". Anybody have a good definition they
>> care to put forth?
>
>I'll leave that to the Dispensationalists ... :-)
I have a book on my bookshelf that I haven't yet read, Modern
Dispensationalism, written by Ryrie in 1967. I suppose that this book
will do a good job of defining Dispensationalism, written by an
insider.
Soon I'll have to get around to reading this book. I have a stack of
about 20 books on my "to read" list.
Daniel Lockhart
by a group of religious political men: could it be he was innocent? Therefore he didn't commit
a crime, he was not guilty of anything other that loving you and I.
daniel
Mark Malson
> By your
> reasoning Yeshua had something against scribes for being scribes. Poppycock.
He had something against scribes for being BAD scribes.
> Today He might said: "Methodists, Presbyterians, hypocrites!"; or
> "Baptists, Catholics: Hypocrites!"; or "teachers, civil authorities,
> hypocrites!" Or "policemen and locomotive engineers, hypocrites!"
I don't find this to be a good analogy. Perhaps He might say:
"Pastors, Bishops, hypocrites!" that would be closer. Or,
"Senators, Congressmen, hypocrites!". That one seems to fit
rather well. :-)
He was criticizing the leaders of the Jews for leading their
people down the path of Godless legalism. A more serious
offense than just being, say, a poor engineer. They were
all supposed to be spiritual leaders.
Needless to say, not all Jews followed the errant Scribes and
Pharisees.
- Mark
Tom Albrecht
>
> Now obviouly someone isn't telling the truth here. Either Mr Malson
>is correct that Yeshua is wrong that no one could take His life from him
>and that the Jews actually did murder Yeshua. Or Yeshua is correct that
>the Father *commanded* the death of Yeshua and that Yeshua laid down His
Or there is a third possibility that you have selectively quoted Jesus out
of context in order to support your distorted theology and have purposely
ignored other passages, e.g., Acts 2, which clearly place the blame for the
death of Messiah at the feet of the house of Israel.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know, that God has made this
same Jesus, WHOM YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
I don't get your angle. What purpose is served in distorting the
testimony of Scripture in this matter? Using highly charged words like
"blasphemy" as a smokescreen only seems to add to your evasiveness. Or
is plain-talk not a characteristic of your movement?
--
Tom Albrecht
Tom Albrecht
>
>I have a book on my bookshelf that I haven't yet read, Modern
>Dispensationalism, written by Ryrie in 1967. I suppose that this book
>will do a good job of defining Dispensationalism, written by an
>insider.
I believe Ryrie's book is called _Dispensationalism Today_. However, it
is 23 years old, and a lot has changed at Dallas Theological Seminary and
elsewhere since Ryrie was on the scene.
--
Tom Albrecht
Laura Johanna Manninen
> Or there is a third possibility that you have selectively quoted Jesus out
> of context in order to support your distorted theology and have purposely
> ignored other passages, e.g., Acts 2, which clearly place the blame for the
> death of Messiah at the feet of the house of Israel.
> Therefore let all the house of Israel know, that God has made this
> same Jesus, WHOM YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
> I don't get your angle. What purpose is served in distorting the
> testimony of Scripture in this matter? Using highly charged words like
> "blasphemy" as a smokescreen only seems to add to your evasiveness. Or
> is plain-talk not a characteristic of your movement?
Now this goes a bit too far. By this posting you showed everybody that
you don't consider the *whole* Bible as being the word of God.
Instead, your theology is based on some verses taken out of the context
& ignoring all other places where the Bible talks about the same issue.
- Laura
--
Daniel Segard
mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>In article <1992Jun5.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>> > him, and eventually murdered him.
>>
>> Your use of such a blanket term as "they" will likely come
>> across to many as being somewhat racist. As such your use
>> of such poor phrasing will likely get you lumped in with
>> those who shout "Christ killer" at the Jews.
>
> lumping you are suggesting that I am doing.
statement that your words "will likely come across to many as being
somewhat racist" I believe is true. We have many non-Messianic Jews
reading this newsgroup, and I think you will find that many of them took
your remark as being racist. If you don't happen to care that the way you
choose to phrase things is being percieved by a significant portion of
your readers as being racist then that is certainly your business. The
most I can do is to caution you.
> In fact, I am not one of those who
> bears a grudge against the Jewish people for crucifying my Lord.
> Why do you call me anti-Semitic (by insinuation)
Why do you inject new words into the conversation and project
attitudes and beliefs upon me which I did not express? I warned you what
it is likely that many would extract from your statements. It was not a
conclusion on my part as to what your beliefs are.
However, my point remains that Messiah said that no one could take
His life from Him, but that He laid it down willingly, by the command of
the Father. He was the one who of His own Will "gave up His Spirit" and
said "Father into your hands I commend My Spirit".
But you want to blame the Jews? Okay, so if we say that Yeshua died
because of the Jews and not because of the Gentiles then what can we
conclude from this? The only obviously conclusion that I could see is
that therefore the Jews have Salvation since Yeshua died for them, but the
Gentiles don't have Salvation since Yeshua didn't die for them.
Obviously this conclusion would be false. And the reason it is
false is because the starting premise is false. If you don't believe that
*you yourself* caused Yeshua to die, then you have not recieved Salvation.
>> *HOWEVER* for you to claim that the Jews
>> murdered Jesus is blasphemy.
>
well). Yeshua said "no one can take My life from me", you say that
someone could and did. I believe that you are the one that is wrong, not
Yeshua.
>Oops. The Temple of Jerusalem was wiped off the face of the earth.
>My term was too broad - sorry. The temple still does not exist
>today. Doesn't a Moslem temple sit on that site now?
use the term "temple" to describe their places of worship). The Temple
does still exist, your problem is that you don't know where it is.
Ezekiel saw it, and John saw it in Revelation. Yeshua went into the Holy
of Holies of that Temple and sprinkled His own blood just as the High
Priests of old did on Yom Kippor.
Daniel Segard
mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
> God permitted His Son to die, even foreordained it,
isn't used here. It isn't a matter of G-d "permitting His Son to die",
the Biblical *Truth* of the matter is that it was *COMMANDED* by G-d
Himself that Yeshua should die.
> yet He still held the Jews (corporately and in some cases
> individually as well) accountable.
> At the same time, Jesus laid down His life for them and us.
> If they were doing nothing wrong, why would Jesus say,
> "Forgive them, for they know not what they do"?
responsible for the death of Yeshua up until the time Yeshua pronounced
forgivness over them? (So they were forgiven of the death even before it
occured.) So if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are
saying that the Jews are forgiven of the death of Yeshua.
> In other words, Jesus is laid down his life
> AND the Jews murdered him.
entirely my fault.
Mark Malson
>
>
> mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
> > God permitted His Son to die, even foreordained it,
>
> "This *command* I received from My Father." The word "permitted"
> isn't used here. It isn't a matter of G-d "permitting His Son to die",
> the Biblical *Truth* of the matter is that it was *COMMANDED* by G-d
> Himself that Yeshua should die.
I don't disagree with you there. Permission and commandment are not
mutually exclusive. I state again that even though God commands an
act to happen, He does not absolve the perpetrators until they
repent.
> > yet He still held the Jews (corporately and in some cases
> > individually as well) accountable.
>
> Oh? For how long?
Well, at least through AD 70. And perhaps to the third and fourth
generation. READ MY LIPS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE JEWS OF THE 20TH
CENTURY HAVE SOME SPECIAL GUILT ON THEIR HEADS BECAUSE OF WHAT
HAPPENED 2000 YEARS AGO. (Think I'll put this on my clipboard so
I can just paste this in.)
> > At the same time, Jesus laid down His life for them and us.
> > If they were doing nothing wrong, why would Jesus say,
> > "Forgive them, for they know not what they do"?
>
> Oh, that long? Okay, so you are saying that the Jews were
> responsible for the death of Yeshua up until the time Yeshua pronounced
> forgivness over them? (So they were forgiven of the death even before it
> occured.) So if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are
> saying that the Jews are forgiven of the death of Yeshua.
There is much debate as to the words of Jesus on the cross. I.e., in the
statement, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", how could He be
forsaken by God if He was God at the time. Another one of those seeming
paradoxes. (Perhaps someone else would care to share their thoughts on
that one.) In the same vein, I would regard his words, "Forgive them.."
as a request for forgiveness rather than the pronouncement of such. This
is also borne out by the grammar - He didn't say, "I forgive you, for
you know not what you do".
> > In other words, Jesus is laid down his life
> > AND the Jews murdered him.
>
> No, actually I was the one who murdered Him. No one else, it was
> entirely my fault.
That's another way of looking at it. But not because you're Jewish -
because you're a sinner. I can make the same statement about myself.
- Mark
Mark Malson
Boy, I missed the logic on this one. Are there verses in which the Bible
states that Christ was NOT crucified by the Jews? It seems to me that
you would have to pull some out to defend this statment. Maybe I just
don't understand what you're trying to say.
- Mark
Mark Malson
> >In article <1992Jun5.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
> >dse...@isis.cs.du.edu ( Daniel Segard) writes:
> >> > They persecuted, rejected
> >> > him, and eventually murdered him.
> >>
> >> Your use of such a blanket term as "they" will likely come
> >> across to many as being somewhat racist. As such your use
> >> of such poor phrasing will likely get you lumped in with
> >> those who shout "Christ killer" at the Jews.
> >
> > That sort of lumping is exactly the same sort of
> > lumping you are suggesting that I am doing.
>
> Not really, because I think my statement could be tested. My
> statement that your words "will likely come across to many as being
> somewhat racist" I believe is true. We have many non-Messianic Jews
> reading this newsgroup, and I think you will find that many of them took
> your remark as being racist.
Let's be reasonable. I made a remark about people who lived 2000
years ago. Why would you take that to mean anything more than
that? I still assert you are doing some lumping yourself.
> > In fact, I am not one of those who
> > bears a grudge against the Jewish people for crucifying my Lord.
>
> And how would a non-Messianic Jew know that from your words?
I just said it. Why would they assume otherwise? [answer is below]
> > Why do you call me anti-Semitic (by insinuation)
> > when I state a matter of historical fact?
>
> Why do you inject new words into the conversation and project
> attitudes and beliefs upon me which I did not express? I warned you what
> it is likely that many would extract from your statements. It was not a
> conclusion on my part as to what your beliefs are.
I understand the distinction. However, calling my remarks (possibly)
racist is very close to calling ME a racist. And those who would blur
the distinction are likely those who would assume that I am anti-
Semitic by reading my remarks, no?
I appreciate you making the distinction, and I realize that I am
treading thin ice with some people's feelings. However, it is my
hope that they can make the distinction that you did...
> But you want to blame the Jews?
I don't want to blame anybody. I'm just stating historical fact.
> Okay, so if we say that Yeshua died
> because of the Jews and not because of the Gentiles then what can we
> conclude from this?
I did not say that Jesus died BECAUSE OF the Jews. I am
saying that the Jews were instruments in God's perfect, eternal
plan.
> The only obviously conclusion that I could see is
> that therefore the Jews have Salvation since Yeshua died for them, but the
> Gentiles don't have Salvation since Yeshua didn't die for them.
I did not say that Jesus died ONLY FOR the Jews. I am
saying that the Jews were instruments in God's perfect, eternal
plan.
> Obviously this conclusion would be false. And the reason it is
> false is because the starting premise is false.
You have imputed so many false premises to me today that you can't know
what my conclusions would be. Even after I have stated them.
> If you don't believe that
> *you yourself* caused Yeshua to die, then you have not recieved Salvation.
>
> >> *HOWEVER* for you to claim that the Jews
> >> murdered Jesus is blasphemy.
> >
> > Hardly. A denial of historical truth is just plain silly.
>
> No, calling Yeshua a liar is "just plain silly" (and blasphemous as
> well).
I agree.
> Yeshua said "no one can take My life from me", you say that
> someone could and did.
I said that they murdered Him, then I corrected myself and said that
they executed Him. Consider the execution of a condemned man by the
State of Florida. Who is it that causes the man to die? The guy
throwing the switch (on the chair)? The hangman? No, it is always
God Himself who sees fit to end the man's life at that moment. That
does not change the fact that the man was executed by the authority
vested in the State of Florida.
> I believe that you are the one that is wrong, not
> Yeshua.
If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose Jesus too. However, I
think He and I agree on this one, and that you are the one who is
wrong. (Why would be be posting if we agreed, eh?)
> The Temple
> does still exist, your problem is that you don't know where it is.
Sure I do. It's in the heavenlies. Where it always will be.
> Ezekiel saw it, and John saw it in Revelation. Yeshua went into the Holy
> of Holies of that Temple and sprinkled His own blood just as the High
> Priests of old did on Yom Kippor.
I agree. With a perfect temple in the heavenlies, why do we need
another earthly, imperfect image of it later?
- Mark
Laura Johanna Manninen
> In article <LJMORLY.92...@polaris.utu.fi>, ljm...@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
> >
> > In article <1992Jun11.1...@portland.mdc.unisys.com> t...@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
> > > Therefore let all the house of Israel know, that God has made this
> > > same Jesus, WHOM YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
> >
> > > I don't get your angle. What purpose is served in distorting the
> > > testimony of Scripture in this matter? Using highly charged words like
> > > "blasphemy" as a smokescreen only seems to add to your evasiveness. Or
> > > is plain-talk not a characteristic of your movement?
> >
> > Now this goes a bit too far. By this posting you showed everybody that
> > you don't consider the *whole* Bible as being the word of God.
> > Instead, your theology is based on some verses taken out of the context
> > & ignoring all other places where the Bible talks about the same issue.
> >
> states that Christ was NOT crucified by the Jews? It seems to me that
> you would have to pull some out to defend this statment. Maybe I just
> don't understand what you're trying to say.
I guess that must be the case. Don't you remember Daniel's previous posting
pointing out that Yeshua *gave* his life ? And by referring to Tom's
theology I meant solely *his* theology; his own theory based on a wrong
way to read the Bible. Tom doesn't see any "controversies" or "paradoxes"
in the Bible, because he simply skips those parts that doesn't support
his theology. Lately I have more and more agreed with what you've written.
Keep on that way. ;-)
- Laura
--
"...for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding
as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away.
If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love,
it would be utterly scorned." (Song of Songs 8:6-7)
God is love.
Tom Albrecht
>
>> > In other words, Jesus is laid down his life
>> > AND the Jews murdered him.
>>
>> No, actually I was the one who murdered Him. No one else, it was
>> entirely my fault.
>
>That's another way of looking at it. But not because you're Jewish -
>because you're a sinner. I can make the same statement about myself.
There seems to be some confusion in this thread over the difference between
those folks for whom Christ died and those who physically put Him to death.
Every Christian can stand up and say that Christ went to the cross to pay
for my sin. In that sense we are responsible for the death of Christ,
because had it not been for our sin He would not have had to die. The Lamb
of God was sacrificed for the sins of His people, just as the Passover
lamb's blood was shed to cover over the people of Israel.
However, let's not get carried away. There were still real people living
in the 1st century who were responsible, in a non-propitiatory way, for the
death of Jesus. Those are the folks mentioned by the apostle Peter in Acts
2:36 by the words, "whom you crucified." And many of them, the one's who
never found forgiveness for their sin, were punished by almighty God in
AD70 when He sent the armies of Titus to destroy the nation once for all.
Trying to subsume this second set of folks under the first is unbiblical,
and it leads to the sort of analysis that ends up suggesting that Jews
today are somehow responsible for the death of Jesus. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
--
Tom Albrecht
Tom Albrecht
>
>I guess that must be the case. Don't you remember Daniel's previous posting
>pointing out that Yeshua *gave* his life ? And by referring to Tom's
>theology I meant solely *his* theology; his own theory based on a wrong
>way to read the Bible. Tom doesn't see any "controversies" or "paradoxes"
>in the Bible, because he simply skips those parts that doesn't support
Excuse me??!! I don't see paradoxes and controveries in the Bible? I skip
parts of the Bible? Which parts have I skipped in considering this matter?
Now let's be honest. I have yet to hear either you or Mr. Segard explain
precisely what Peter meant in Acts 2:36 and 4:10. If he didn't lay the
responsibility for the death of Messiah at the feet of the "house of
Israel," exactly what did he do?
There is no doubt about it, as a prophet of God, Peter was carefully laying
the charges of God's covenant lawsuit against Israel. They were being
prosecuted, and the judgment was about to fall. Ironically, the only way
to be saved from the coming "days of vengeance" was to trust in the very
Person they killed.
--
Tom Albrecht
Laura Johanna Manninen
> And many of them, the one's who
> never found forgiveness for their sin, were punished by almighty God in
> AD70 when He sent the armies of Titus to destroy the nation once for all.
Rubbish. The Israelis have never ceased to be a nation in God's eyes.
What happened in 70 AD was the destruction of the temple, and since the
temple was the most precious thing the Jews had, it couldn't have been
destroyed without first putting down the whole Jerusalem. However, even
Jerusalem didn't disappear from the map just like that. It still exists,
and today it has been re-build and restored as the capital of Israel in its
whole. Well, the nation has not yet recognized its Messiah, but it will.
In Isaiah 49:14-20 it is written:
'But Zion said, "LORD has forsaken me, the LORD has forgotten me."
"Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion
on the child she has borne ? Though she may forget, I will not
forget you !
See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls
are ever before me.
Your sons hasten back, and those who laid you waste depart from you.
Lift up yor eyes and look around; all your sons gather and come
to you. As surely as I live, "declares the LORD, "you will wear
them all as ornaments; you will put them on, like a bride.
"Though you were ruined and made desolate and your land laid waste,
now you will be too small for your people, and those who devoured
you will be far away.
The children born during your bereavement will yet say in your
hearing, 'This place is too small for us; give us more space to
live in.'
Read also the rest of the chapter. And maybe you should read the whole
book of Isaiah. And Jeremiah, too. And, in fact, the whole Tanach...
Laura Johanna Manninen
> >
> >I guess that must be the case. Don't you remember Daniel's previous posting
> >pointing out that Yeshua *gave* his life ? And by referring to Tom's
> >theology I meant solely *his* theology; his own theory based on a wrong
> >way to read the Bible. Tom doesn't see any "controversies" or "paradoxes"
> >in the Bible, because he simply skips those parts that doesn't support
> >his theology. ...
> Excuse me??!! I don't see paradoxes and controveries in the Bible?
I guess I was wrong about that...
> I skip parts of the Bible?
That's for sure. You skipped Ezekiel 36 & 37, which I gave you in our
conversation. I would also like to hear how you interpret John 14:28-31,
which you skipped as well.
> Which parts have I skipped in considering this matter?
Considering this matter... Hmmm, well, I guess you just corrected your
error...
> Now let's be honest. I have yet to hear either you or Mr. Segard explain
> precisely what Peter meant in Acts 2:36 and 4:10. If he didn't lay the
> responsibility for the death of Messiah at the feet of the "house of
> Israel," exactly what did he do?
I don't need to explain Acts 2:36 and 4:10. They are very clear. The rest
of your paragraph is a bit ambiguous and I'll let it alone...
> There is no doubt about it, as a prophet of God, Peter was carefully laying
> the charges of God's covenant lawsuit against Israel. They were being
> prosecuted, and the judgment was about to fall. Ironically, the only way
> to be saved from the coming "days of vengeance" was to trust in the very
> Person they killed.
ENOUGH! How long do you need to continue this issue ? Just as if you'd
enjoy it!
And my sig isn't be taken so that *I* would like to continue this.
- Laura
--
"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me,
the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns
for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for
a firstborn son." - Zechariah 12:10
Mark Malson
>
> In article <LJMORLY.92...@polaris.utu.fi> ljm...@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
> >
> >I guess that must be the case. Don't you remember Daniel's previous posting
> >pointing out that Yeshua *gave* his life ? And by referring to Tom's
> >theology I meant solely *his* theology; his own theory based on a wrong
> >way to read the Bible. Tom doesn't see any "controversies" or "paradoxes"
> >in the Bible, because he simply skips those parts that doesn't support
> >his theology. ...
>
> Excuse me??!! I don't see paradoxes and controveries in the Bible? I skip
> parts of the Bible? Which parts have I skipped in considering this matter?
>
> Now let's be honest. I have yet to hear either you or Mr. Segard explain
> precisely what Peter meant in Acts 2:36 and 4:10.
Please also include Matthew 16:21: "...Jesus began to explain to
his disciples that he most go to Jerusalem and suffer many things
at thge hands of the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law,
and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." [NIV]
and how if Jesus said he *gave* His life, how he could also say
he was going to be *killed*. Using Mr. Segard's logic, now it's
Jesus who disagrees with Himself.
> --
> Tom Albrecht
>
>
- Mark Malson
David J Stucki
Please also include Matthew 16:21: "...Jesus began to explain to
his disciples that he most go to Jerusalem and suffer many things
at thge hands of the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law,
and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." [NIV]
and how if Jesus said he *gave* His life, how he could also say
he was going to be *killed*. Using Mr. Segard's logic, now it's
Jesus who disagrees with Himself.
- Mark Malson
If I jump off a cliff and die, am I not killed by the fall?
dave...
David J Stucki /\ ____ /\ Department of Computer and
537 Harley Dr. #6 /__\ \ /\ / /\ /__\ Information Science
Columbus, OH 43202 /\ /\ \--/ /__\ /_\/_\ 2036 Neil Avenue Mall
stu...@cis.ohio-state.edu /__\/__\ \/ /\ /\ Columbus, OH 43210
/__\ /__\ __
There is no place in science for ideas, /_\/_\/_\/_\ \/ /\ /\
there is no place in epistemology for knowledge, -- /__\
and there is no place in semantics for meanings. -- W.V. Quine /_\/_\
David J Stucki
Please also include Matthew 16:21: "...Jesus began to explain to
his disciples that he most go to Jerusalem and suffer many things
at thge hands of the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law,
and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." [NIV]
and how if Jesus said he *gave* His life, how he could also say
he was going to be *killed*. Using Mr. Segard's logic, now it's
Jesus who disagrees with Himself.
- Mark Malson
If I jump off a cliff and die, am I not killed by the fall?
I don't know about you, but in Star Wars when Obi-Wan "gave up" his
life, I still thought Darth had "killed" him.
Mark Malson
>
> In article <1992Jun17.1...@mlb.semi.harris.com> mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>
> Please also include Matthew 16:21: "...Jesus began to explain to
> his disciples that he most go to Jerusalem and suffer many things
> at thge hands of the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law,
> and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." [NIV]
>
> and how if Jesus said he *gave* His life, how he could also say
> he was going to be *killed*. Using Mr. Segard's logic, now it's
> Jesus who disagrees with Himself.
>
> - Mark Malson
>
> If I jump off a cliff and die, am I not killed by the fall?
>
> I don't know about you, but in Star Wars when Obi-Wan "gave up" his
> life, I still thought Darth had "killed" him.
>
> dave...
>
(This is getting to be quite a long thread...)
My statement after the verse was not to imply that *I* believe
that Jesus could not have "laid down his life" AND be killed
by the Jews of the 1st century. My bone of contention is with
those who believe that:
a. Jesus could NOT have been "killed" by the 1st c. Jews,
because
b. He said that no one takes His life from Him.
Dave, please ref. the dialog between Mr. Segard and me...
Everyone, sorry for not making myself quite clear [Again! :-[
- Mark
Steve Warren
this matter (of who is responsible for crucifying Yeshua).
I don't think I have seen a post yet that did not make a valid
point about it, yet many seem determined to prove that their
point is the *only* valid point on the subject.
As I see it, there is plenty of blame to go around for everyone;
no one has to fight to get their fair share. ;^)
There is a spiritual sense in which all of mankind is responsible,
because it is our sin that made his death necessary.
In a related sense, national Israel bears the responsibility of rejecting
him as a nation (through the religious officials who were in charge
at the time) and of each succeeding generation ratifying that rejection
by their own decisions.
Similarly Western Europe (was Rome at that time) and the USA (and other
descendants of Western Europeans) bear the responsibility of being
willing instruments to execute him at the request of the chief priests
and Pharisees. It was our system that pragmatically crucified him
with the knowledge that he was innocent, on the grounds that it was
better to appease the many than to protect one innocent man. Our
justice system often still seems to function this way today (the
system of justice in the USA is directly descended from Rome). God is
not amused when the nations pervert justice and condemn the innocent.
There is also the direct responsibility of the individuals involved.
But let me say this: if the USA sends an emmissary to another nation
and the officials of the other nation publicly humiliate and execute
him - although he has committed no crime - the USA will not make war
on those individual officials; the USA will make war on everyone in
that nation.
God holds the whole world responsible for the death of Yeshua. He sent
His emmissary to the world, and the world executed him. The UN today is
the locas of the same political forces that were centered in Rome in
those days. When Yeshua returns he will make war on all of those nations
and everyone who has not bowed the knee to him.
--
_.
--Steve ._||__ Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
Warren v\ *| -----------------------------------------------
V
Tom Albrecht
>
>That's for sure. You skipped Ezekiel 36 & 37, which I gave you in our
The "dry bones" vision is a reference to the renewal of the covenant when
the Messiah would come. Jesus renewed His covenant with the houses of
Israel and Judah when He put flesh back on the bones. This has already
happened. There is no future fulfillment of this prophecy since it's been
ongoing from the time of Messiah, and will be until the resurrection and
judgment day.
> I would also like to hear how you interpret John 14:28-31,
>which you skipped as well.
I skipped it because I didn't know what it had to do with the subject.
Here it is, perhaps you can point out particularly what you want me to say
about it.
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If
ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my
Father is greater than I.
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to
pass, ye might believe.
Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world
cometh, and hath nothing in me.
But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father
gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. (John 14:28-31)
As I've pointed out, and which you ignore, the Bible makes it clear that
God judged national Israel for the sins associated with rebelling against
the covenant. The curses of Deuteronomy 28 & 29 fell upon the 1st century
generation of Israel. They were the children of those who killed the
prophets, and they were about to kill The Prophet of God; Jesus Christ.
Their punishment for their sin would be visited upon them within one
generation.
The good news is that by disposing of the old covenant nation of Israel,
God was able to establish His spiritual Israel, the Church. Jesus came and
made us - Jews and Gentiles - priests in the new holy nation. No longer
would God deal with men according to their nationalities. The old covenant
separation that existed between Jew and Gentile was gone forever.
Only folks who miss the true and complete message of Jesus and His apostles
want to reconstruct the future world based on nationalistic distinctions
between Jew and Gentile. Only people who fail to understand the new
covenant teaching on the new Jerusalem and the Temple of God want to
reconstruct mere earthly representations of what God has done in heaven.
--
Tom Albrecht
Tom Albrecht
>> And many of them, the one's who
>> never found forgiveness for their sin, were punished by almighty God in
>> AD70 when He sent the armies of Titus to destroy the nation once for all.
>
>Rubbish. The Israelis have never ceased to be a nation in God's eyes.
Then God has a strange sense of justice. When Israel sinned against the
Lord and Moses in the desert of Sinai, they only had to wander until one
generation had died off - 40 years. In the book of Judges, when Israel
sinned and God sent an enemy to chastise them, the punishment never lasted
more than a generation - 40 years. When God sent the Hebrews into exile in
Babylon, they were allowed to return to rebuild the Temple after just 70
years of captivity, again until that generation of unbelievers had died
off.
Now you expect us to believe that for almost 2000 years God has kept the
Jewish people wandering and will still restore them in the future. Sorry,
but there is absolutely no biblical justification for such a flight of
fancy.
The "holy nation" of God has existed for the last 2000 years, and it's not
the Israelites. It's called the Church, it's made up of Christians, and it
is the visible manifestation of God's people in the new covenant. God has
not forgotten is people Israel. He brought them safely into the "holy
nation." The true members of the house of Israel and Judah back in the
days of Messiah became identified with this holy nation as part of the new
covenant. The unbelievers were cast off, and punished. Jews who want to
be part of the "nation of God" need to trust in Messiah and identify with
His body, the Church. They need to look to the new Jerusalem for their
eternal habitation, not a clod of dust in the Middle East.
--
Tom Albrecht
Daniel Segard
t...@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <1992Jun8.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>dse...@isis.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
>> Now obviouly someone isn't telling the truth here. Either Mr
>> His life from him and that the Jews actually did murder Yeshua.
>> Or Yeshua is correct that the Father *commanded* the death of
>> Yeshua and that Yeshua laid down His life on his own. ...
>
> selectively quoted Jesus out of context in order to
> support your distorted theology
"no man can take My life" is in any way an out of context remark. Quote
the entire chapter if you like, it still says the same thing and conveys
the same meaning.
> and have purposely ignored other passages, e.g., Acts 2,
> feet of the house of Israel.
Hey, you are the one who tries to define "House of Israel" as
refering to the Church. Suddenly you are inconsistant with yourself. You
define terms for how they suit you it would appear.
> Therefore let all the house of Israel know, that God
> has made this same Jesus, WHOM YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED,
> both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
another reader of compairing this with John Wilkes Booth's murder of
Lincoln. If someone addressed John Wilkes Booth and his collaborators in
the murder and said "Therefore let all the country of America know....
that Abraham Lincoln WHOM YOU SHOT...", you would be the only one to
presume that the speaker was saying that the entire country of America
shot Lincoln. So, if only certain people in the crowd were being
addressed by this statement, then your complaint falls apart.
Secondly, the translation says "WHOM YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED", but the
question we are dealing with was who took Yeshua's life. I contend with
Scripture that Yeshua gave up his life of his own accord and that no one
took it. Yes, crucifixion can lead to death, but in the case of Yeshua,
he gave up his life on his own. Every spring there are Phillipinos who
crucify themselves, but they don't die from it.
The third issue to consider is whether the phrase ON HUMEIS
ESTAUROOSATE is being dealt with properly here. Can it for example be
translated not only as "whom you crucified" but as "who for you was
crucified"?
> Using highly charged words like "blasphemy" as a
> smokescreen only seems to add to your evasiveness.
where you suddenly stopped talking. Most recently I asked you to back up
your claim that I was using the term "manuscript" incorrect. Silence from
you. I asked you to evaluate my response on the use of "seed" in the
singular. Silence from you. There have been many other times when you
have evaded responding as well.
> Or is plain-talk not a characteristic of your movement?
have come to so commonly expect from you.
Daniel Segard
mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>In article <1992Jun12.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>dse...@isis.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
>>
>> > God permitted His Son to die, even foreordained it,
>>
>> "This *command* I received from My Father." The word "permitted"
>> isn't used here. It isn't a matter of G-d "permitting His Son to die",
>> the Biblical *Truth* of the matter is that it was *COMMANDED* by G-d
>> Himself that Yeshua should die.
>
> Permission and commandment are not mutually exclusive. I
> state again that even though God commands an act to happen,
> He does not absolve the perpetrators until they repent.
doesn't make it so. Your statement would be stronger if you backed it up
with Scripture. But since you don't, we'll just dismiss it.
>> > yet He still held the Jews (corporately and in some cases
>> > individually as well) accountable.
>>
>> Oh? For how long?
>
> fourth generation. READ MY LIPS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE JEWS
> OF THE 20TH CENTURY HAVE SOME SPECIAL GUILT ON THEIR HEADS
> BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED 2000 YEARS AGO. (Think I'll put this on
> my clipboard so I can just paste this in.)
what "you are not saying", but could you turn it around for the record and
state it in the affirmative? You know, something like "I AM SAYING THAT
THE JEWS OF THE 20TH CENTURY HAVE NO SPECIAL GUILT ON THEIR HEADS BECAUSE
OF WHAT HAPPPENED 2000 YEARS AGO." That would come across more strongly.
Hopefully you now see my original point that just saying "the Jews"
comes across badly and makes people think that you are including modern
Jews in your statements.
>> > At the same time, Jesus laid down His life for them and us.
>> > If they were doing nothing wrong, why would Jesus say,
>> > "Forgive them, for they know not what they do"?
>>
>> Oh, that long? Okay, so you are saying that the Jews were
>> responsible for the death of Yeshua up until the time Yeshua
>> pronounced forgivness over them? (So they were forgiven of
>> the death even before it occured.) So if I understand what
>> you are saying correctly, you are saying that the Jews are
>> forgiven of the death of Yeshua.
>
> I.e., in the statement, "My God, my God, why hast thou
> forsaken me?", how could He be forsaken by God if He was
> God at the time. Another one of those seeming paradoxes.
> (Perhaps someone else would care to share their thoughts on
> that one.) In the same vein, I would regard his words,
> "Forgive them.." as a request for forgiveness rather than
> the pronouncement of such. This is also borne out by the
> grammar - He didn't say, "I forgive you, for you know not
> what you do".
asking for something that was outside of His Father's Will. I personally
believe that Messiah never said *anything* apart from what His Father told
Him to say. (And I think I can find Scripture to back that up.) I also
think I can come up with Scripture to show that the Father does whatever
the Son asks. If that is true then obviously the Father granted the
forgiveness.
>> > In other words, Jesus is laid down his life
>> > AND the Jews murdered him.
>>
>> No, actually I was the one who murdered Him. No one else, it was
>> entirely my fault.
>
> statement about myself.
Then why don't you spend more time here taking responsibility and
less time trying to affix blame to "the Jews"?
Daniel Segard
mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>> >> > They persecuted, rejected
>> >> > him, and eventually murdered him.
>> >>
>> >> Your use of such a blanket term as "they" will likely come
>> >> across to many as being somewhat racist. As such your use
>> >> of such poor phrasing will likely get you lumped in with
>> >> those who shout "Christ killer" at the Jews.
>> >
>> > That sort of lumping is exactly the same sort of
>> > lumping you are suggesting that I am doing.
>>
>> Not really, because I think my statement could be tested. My
>> statement that your words "will likely come across to many as being
>> somewhat racist" I believe is true. We have many non-Messianic Jews
>> reading this newsgroup, and I think you will find that many of them took
>> your remark as being racist.
>
> years ago.
the possibility that it is what you originally meant. You will recall
that my original msg cautioned you that you probably did not mean "they"
in such a generic sense. But the fact remains that you said "the
Jews....they persecuted, reject and killed". The modern Jew still
considers himself to be part of "the Jews" and therefore your remarks were
phrased in such a way as to be taken incorrectly by your readers.
> Why would you take that to mean anything more than that?
>> > In fact, I am not one of those who
>> > bears a grudge against the Jewish people for crucifying my Lord.
>>
>> And how would a non-Messianic Jew know that from your words?
>
>> > Why do you call me anti-Semitic (by insinuation)
>> > when I state a matter of historical fact?
>>
>> Why do you inject new words into the conversation and
>> project attitudes and beliefs upon me which I did not
>> express? I warned you what it is likely that many would
>> extract from your statements. It was not a conclusion on
>> my part as to what your beliefs are.
>
> (possibly) racist is very close to calling ME a racist. And
> those who would blur the distinction are likely those who would
Which is why I cautioned you in the first place. You may not
realize how your words might come across to others. That is why I
requested that you think through your phrasing a bit more carefully.
> I appreciate you making the distinction, and I realize that I am
> treading thin ice with some people's feelings. However, it is my
> hope that they can make the distinction that you did...
you on thin ice with the unbeliever, then perhaps rethinking your phrasing
would be a good idea.
>> Okay, so if we say that Yeshua died
>> because of the Jews and not because of the Gentiles then what can we
>> conclude from this?
>
life because of a friend." Yeshua laid down His life *BECAUSE* of the
Jews (and the Gentiles). He did this because we are important to Him and
we need redemption.
> I am saying that the Jews were instruments in
> God's perfect, eternal plan.
plans. Some of us don't live up to it very well though.
>> The only obviously conclusion that I could see is that
>> therefore the Jews have Salvation since Yeshua died for
>> them, but the Gentiles don't have Salvation since Yeshua
>> didn't die for them.
>
impression that you believe it to be the Jews and not the Gentiles that
Yeshua died because of.
>> >> *HOWEVER* for you to claim that the Jews
>> >> murdered Jesus is blasphemy.
>> >
>> > Hardly. A denial of historical truth is just plain silly.
>>
>> No, calling Yeshua a liar is "just plain silly" (and blasphemous as
>> well).
>
Great, glad to hear it.
>> Yeshua said "no one can take My life from me", you say that
>> someone could and did.
>
> and said that they executed Him.
"executed" me? Either way someone would have "taken my life from me".
Yeshua promised this would not occur. You said that it did occur. I
believe Yeshua and not you. It's just that simple.
> Consider the execution of a condemned man by the State
> of Florida. Who is it that causes the man to die? The
> guy throwing the switch (on the chair)? The hangman?
> No, it is always God Himself who sees fit to end the
> man's life at that moment. That does not change the
> fact that the man was executed by the authority vested
> in the State of Florida.
You claim it was G-d that did it. If that were the case then there would
be no need for the execution. G-d could just strike the guilty man down
and allow the innocent man to go free. (Saving us the trouble of having a
court system.) B
>> I believe that you are the one that is wrong, not
>> Yeshua.
>
> are the one who is wrong. (Why would be be posting if we
> agreed, eh?)
He said "no man can take my life from me"? Please explain why you believe
Yeshua disagrees with what He said.
>> The Temple
>> does still exist, your problem is that you don't know where it is.
>
Temple in Heaven.
>> Ezekiel saw it, and John saw it in Revelation. Yeshua went
>> into the Holy of Holies of that Temple and sprinkled His own
>> blood just as the High Priests of old did on Yom Kippor.
>
> another earthly, imperfect image of it later?
be built. Ask David and Solomon the question as well. The Eternal Temple
has always been there. Why make an imperfect image of it on earth?
Because G-d commanded it would be one very good reason.
Mark Malson
>
> But the fact remains that you said "the
> Jews....they persecuted, reject and killed".
That's what I said and I stand by it. Refer to other postings on this
subject for an expansion of this statement.
> The modern Jew still
> considers himself to be part of "the Jews"
Do they? Modern Judaism doesn't resemble the Judaism of that day
very much at all...
> >> > In fact, I am not one of those who
> >> > bears a grudge against the Jewish people for crucifying my Lord.
> >>
> >> And how would a non-Messianic Jew know that from your words?
> >
> > I just said it. Why would they assume otherwise? [answer is below]
>
> Just now, yes. But I was speaking of your original words.
Seems you wish to impute to me the worst of motives. Or at
least do so back-handedly by saying others would.
> >> Okay, so if we say that Yeshua died
> >> because of the Jews and not because of the Gentiles then what can we
> >> conclude from this?
> >
> > I did not say that Jesus died BECAUSE OF the Jews.
>
> Oh, but He did! "Greater love hath no man than he lay down his
> life because of a friend." Yeshua laid down His life *BECAUSE* of the
> Jews (and the Gentiles). He did this because we are important to Him and
> we need redemption.
He died BECAUSE OF the Jews AND the Gentiles, as you said.
>
> > I am saying that the Jews were instruments in
> > God's perfect, eternal plan.
>
> Isn't everybody? We are all called to be instruments in G-d's
> plans. Some of us don't live up to it very well though.
Yes, but we all have different roles. One of the roles of the 1st
century Jewish nation was to deliver the Messiah to be put to death.
> >> The only obviously conclusion that I could see is that
> >> therefore the Jews have Salvation since Yeshua died for
> >> them, but the Gentiles don't have Salvation since Yeshua
> >> didn't die for them.
> >
> > I did not say that Jesus died ONLY FOR the Jews.
>
> However, the way in which you phrased your statement did leave the
> impression that you believe it to be the Jews and not the Gentiles that
> Yeshua died because of.
Only to you, it seems...
> >> Yeshua said "no one can take My life from me", you say that
> >> someone could and did.
> >
> > I said that they murdered Him, then I corrected myself
> > and said that they executed Him.
>
> Would it matter to me whether someone "murdered" me, or if they
> "executed" me?
"Murder" to me connotes an unlawful act. The act of executing Jesus
was indeed unlawful by God's standards, but since it was the leadership
of the Jews who did it, it was, in a sense, lawful. By using the
word "executed", I think the more accurate portrayal is made that
His death was brought about by the authority and with the approval
of the Sanhedrin.
> Either way someone would have "taken my life from me".
> Yeshua promised this would not occur. You said that it did occur. I
> believe Yeshua and not you. It's just that simple.
You read that verse in a vacuum. Your hermeneutic is errant; it
does not square with the rest of the Word of God. Believe Jesus.
But believe ALL of what He said. You are picking and choosing.
> > Consider the execution of a condemned man by the State
> > of Florida...
>
> Weak argument. The condemned man still had his life taken from him.
I said the condemned man was executed, killed.
> You claim it was G-d that did it.
Am I to understand that you do not believe that God is sovereign?
If it was not God's will for the guilty man to die, then how is it
that He died?
> If that were the case then there would
> be no need for the execution. G-d could just strike the guilty man down
> and allow the innocent man to go free.
Then what do you make of the commandments to stone blasphemers and
murders and kidnappers and adulterers etc? Do you think God was
just giving commandments to hear Himself speak? I'm beginning to
think you haven't read more than one verse in the Bible.
God gives men the opportunity to obey His law, and one of the ways
is by putting our own guilty to death. If we don't do it then we
become guilty of not obeying God's law, just like the condemned
man.
> >> I believe that you are the one that is wrong, not
> >> Yeshua.
> >
> > If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose Jesus too.
> > However, I think He and I agree on this one, and that you
> > are the one who is wrong. (Why would be be posting if we
> > agreed, eh?)
>
> You think that Yeshua disagrees with me for agreeing with Him when
> He said "no man can take my life from me"? Please explain why you believe
> Yeshua disagrees with what He said.
I'll say it again because it's so true. You are reading that
verse in a vacuum. You can take any one of thousands of verses
and build a whole errant theology around it, and claim that you
"agree with God". That's where most of the wacko splinter groups
come from too: you know, the ones that quote a single verse as
the basis for everything they do, such as Acts 2:4. :-) By
your logic, Robin Hood could have justified his entire "ministry"
by claiming Proverbs 13:22b.
> >> The Temple
> >> does still exist, your problem is that you don't know where it is.
> >
> >Sure I do. It's in the heavenlies. Where it always will be.
>
> And always has been. The Temple on earth was just a model of the
> Temple in Heaven.
Amen. We agree there. God does still perform miracles. :-)
> Go back in time and ask Moses that when he ordered the Tabernacle to
> be built. Ask David and Solomon the question as well. The Eternal Temple
> has always been there. Why make an imperfect image of it on earth?
> Because G-d commanded it would be one very good reason.
You are missing the fact that Moses, David, and Solomon were under the
old, obsolete Covenant with a sinful mediator. We have a New Covenant
with a perfect mediator. The perfect has come, and that which is
imperfect has passed away. But this is a whole different subject.
- Mark
Mark Malson
>
> > Permission and commandment are not mutually exclusive. I
> > state again that even though God commands an act to happen,
> > He does not absolve the perpetrators until they repent.
(Apparently you missed this)
> Perhaps. But having you pronounce what G-d will or won't do,
> doesn't make it so. Your statement would be stronger if you backed it up
> with Scripture. But since you don't, we'll just dismiss it.
Are you saying there is forgiveness of sins without repentance?
Please back that one up with Scripture, Mr. Segard. I believe I'll
have an easier time than you.
> >> > yet He still held the Jews (corporately and in some cases
> >> > individually as well) accountable.
> >>
> >> Oh? For how long?
> >
> > Well, at least through AD 70. And perhaps to the third and
> > fourth generation. READ MY LIPS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE JEWS
> > OF THE 20TH CENTURY HAVE SOME SPECIAL GUILT ON THEIR HEADS
> > BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED 2000 YEARS AGO. (Think I'll put this on
> > my clipboard so I can just paste this in.)
>
> But are you willing to say it emphatically?
Caps isn't enough? :-)
> It is nice to know what "you are not saying",
Apparently it's hard to determine in your mind, Mr. Segard, since you
seem to be imputing to me a lot that I am not saying.
> but could you turn it around for the record and
> state it in the affirmative? You know, something like "I AM SAYING THAT
> THE JEWS OF THE 20TH CENTURY HAVE NO SPECIAL GUILT ON THEIR HEADS BECAUSE
> OF WHAT HAPPPENED 2000 YEARS AGO."
I agree with that statment. Why wouldn't I?
> Hopefully you now see my original point that just saying "the Jews"
> comes across badly and makes people think that you are including modern
> Jews in your statements.
Not really. But you will notice I've been including "1st century" in my
references to these Jews, in order to accommodate you.
BTW, you seem to speak for a lot of people who are not addressing
me directly. Methinks you have a phantom multitude...
> > There is much debate as to the words of Jesus on the cross.
> > I.e., in the statement, "My God, my God, why hast thou
> > forsaken me?", how could He be forsaken by God if He was
> > God at the time. Another one of those seeming paradoxes.
> > (Perhaps someone else would care to share their thoughts on
> > that one.) In the same vein, I would regard his words,
> > "Forgive them.." as a request for forgiveness rather than
> > the pronouncement of such. This is also borne out by the
> > grammar - He didn't say, "I forgive you, for you know not
> > what you do".
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Messiah was
> asking for something that was outside of His Father's Will. I personally
> believe that Messiah never said *anything* apart from what His Father told
> Him to say. (And I think I can find Scripture to back that up.) I also
> think I can come up with Scripture to show that the Father does whatever
> the Son asks.
How about His prayer in the Garden? He specifically asked God to "take
this cup from me", and God didn't. You can personally believe what you
want, but you can also be personally wrong.
> If that is true then obviously the Father granted the forgiveness.
Obviously, that is not true. They may or may not have been forgiven,
depending on whether or not they repented of their acts.
>
> >> > In other words, Jesus is laid down his life
> >> > AND the Jews murdered him.
> >>
> >> No, actually I was the one who murdered Him. No one else, it was
> >> entirely my fault.
> >
> > That's another way of looking at it. But not because you're
> > Jewish -because you're a sinner. I can make the same
> > statement about myself.
>
> Then why don't you spend more time here taking responsibility and
> less time trying to affix blame to "the Jews"?
What kind of a statement is that? When you don't like my ideas
you begin attacking me personally. Are you out of substance to
debate with already?
- Mark
Mark Malson
> >> > In other words, Jesus is laid down his life
> >> > AND the Jews murdered him.
> >>
> >> No, actually I was the one who murdered Him. No one else, it was
> >> entirely my fault.
> >
> > That's another way of looking at it. But not because you're
> > Jewish -because you're a sinner. I can make the same
> > statement about myself.
>
> Then why don't you spend more time here taking responsibility and
> less time trying to affix blame to "the Jews"?
>
I'll explain why I made the statement initially, rather than leave
it with the flip answer I gave you earlier.
I responded to Mr. Tiffany's signature quoting the verse about Christ
coming "first to the Jew, then to the Greek". It was clear to me that
he chose this signature in order to try to make a point that the modern
Jews who convert to MJ have some special place in the New Covenant,
over an above those of different ethnic origins. His interpretation
of that seemed to me to be that Christ came first in IMPORTANCE to the
Jews, hence the Jews are always and will always be the most
important people to God.
My response was to bring out the fact that they were at one time
important to God, but they blew it and were judged for it. They were
initially offered the opportunity to repent (in that the Messiah
came to THEM, and not to some other nation), and many of them did,
but they did not do it as a nation. Hence the need to bring up the
point that Jesus was delivered by the 1st c. Jewish LEADERSHIP to
be executed. As a result, the nation of the Jews was destroyed
covenantally (disowned) via the destruction of the Temple. And
any Jew who was cut off could be grafted back in if He would
repent and put his faith in Jesus.
Colossians 3:11 Here [in Christ] there is no Greek or Jew,
circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave
or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (NIV)
All the other fine points of these discussions have been strictly
recreational and secondary to that main point.
- Mark
Laura Johanna Manninen
> In article <LJMORLY.92...@polaris.utu.fi> ljm...@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
> >
> >That's for sure. You skipped Ezekiel 36 & 37, which I gave you in our
> >conversation. ...
> The "dry bones" vision is a reference to the renewal of the covenant when
> the Messiah would come. Jesus renewed His covenant with the houses of
> Israel and Judah when He put flesh back on the bones. This has already
> happened. There is no future fulfillment of this prophecy since it's been
> ongoing from the time of Messiah, and will be until the resurrection and
> judgment day.
I don't quite understand your explanation here. The vision is explained
in Ezekiel 37. And let's say that if I *would* accept this explanation,
it would cover just Ez. 37:1-10. You still have the rest unexplained.
I know a man that has seen the same vision about the dry bones as Ezekiel.
Now is going on the third stage; giving the breath to the dead bodies.
The dead bodies mean unbelieving Jews.
In these two chapters the word 'Israel' can't mean the church.
> > I would also like to hear how you interpret John 14:28-31,
> >which you skipped as well.
> I skipped it because I didn't know what it had to do with the subject.
:-) The subject was about Satan being bound (sic.). Don't you remember ?
> Here it is, perhaps you can point out particularly what you want me to say
> about it.
> Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If
> ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my
> Father is greater than I.
> And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to
> pass, ye might believe.
> Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
> cometh, and hath nothing in me.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
> But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father
> gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. (John 14:28-31)
These were the lines I had put in caps in our conversation. Maybe they are
easier to understand in NIV:
FOR THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD IS COMING. HE HAS NO HOLD ON ME...
The explanation below has nothing to do with this.
> As I've pointed out, and which you ignore, the Bible makes it clear that
> God judged national Israel for the sins associated with rebelling against
> the covenant. The curses of Deuteronomy 28 & 29 fell upon the 1st century
> generation of Israel. They were the children of those who killed the
> prophets, and they were about to kill The Prophet of God; Jesus Christ.
> Their punishment for their sin would be visited upon them within one
> generation.
Curse ?
<sigh> I guess you and Mark aren't going to quit this subject.
> The good news is that by disposing of the old covenant nation of Israel,
> God was able to establish His spiritual Israel, the Church. Jesus came and
> made us - Jews and Gentiles - priests in the new holy nation. No longer
> would God deal with men according to their nationalities. The old covenant
> separation that existed between Jew and Gentile was gone forever.
> Only folks who miss the true and complete message of Jesus and His apostles
> want to reconstruct the future world based on nationalistic distinctions
> between Jew and Gentile. Only people who fail to understand the new
> covenant teaching on the new Jerusalem and the Temple of God want to
> reconstruct mere earthly representations of what God has done in heaven.
Just came to my mind the other day... Would you like to share us, please,
what kind of controversies and paradoxes do you see in the Bible ?
- Laura
--
"Hine Se haElohim hanose chatat haolam. Ze sheamarti alav, 'acharai
ba ish asher hu kvar lefanai, ki kodem li haya." (Yochanan 1:29,30)
Laura Johanna Manninen
> >> And many of them, the one's who
> >> never found forgiveness for their sin, were punished by almighty God in
> >> AD70 when He sent the armies of Titus to destroy the nation once for all.
> >
> >Rubbish. The Israelis have never ceased to be a nation in God's eyes.
> Then God has a strange sense of justice. When Israel sinned against the
> Lord and Moses in the desert of Sinai, they only had to wander until one
> generation had died off - 40 years. In the book of Judges, when Israel
> sinned and God sent an enemy to chastise them, the punishment never lasted
> more than a generation - 40 years. When God sent the Hebrews into exile in
> Babylon, they were allowed to return to rebuild the Temple after just 70
> years of captivity, again until that generation of unbelievers had died
> off.
Isaiah 49:14-20 marked as "skipped" for Tom.
> Now you expect us to believe that for almost 2000 years God has kept the
> Jewish people wandering and will still restore them in the future. Sorry,
> but there is absolutely no biblical justification for such a flight of
> fancy.
But that's the truth. "Will still restore them in the future." ? He is
restoring them presently; it has been going on for about 100 years
already. What kind of specs are you using ?
> The "holy nation" of God has existed for the last 2000 years, and it's not
> the Israelites. It's called the Church, it's made up of Christians, and it
> is the visible manifestation of God's people in the new covenant. God has
> not forgotten is people Israel. He brought them safely into the "holy
> nation." The true members of the house of Israel and Judah back in the
> days of Messiah became identified with this holy nation as part of the new
> covenant. The unbelievers were cast off, and punished. Jews who want to
> be part of the "nation of God" need to trust in Messiah and identify with
> His body, the Church. They need to look to the new Jerusalem for their
> eternal habitation, not a clod of dust in the Middle East.
This is one-level explanation. Read prophets through and give a more
complete one after that.
Tom Albrecht
>
> Out of context you say? Please demonstrate that Yeshua saying that
Jesus was certainly a willing sacrifice. No one had to force Him to climb
on the cross. That's all He seems to be saying in the passage. To suggest
that this passage somehow exonerates the Jews for their action in putting
Messiah to death is absurd.
Violent men put Him to death. He didn't simply expire in His sleep one
night. Their violence in shedding the blood of the son of Man would
be repaid once He was raised from the dead and seated on His throne in
heaven.
> > and have purposely ignored other passages, e.g., Acts 2,
> > which clearly place the blame for the death of Messiah at the
> > feet of the house of Israel.
>
> Hey, you are the one who tries to define "House of Israel" as
>refering to the Church. ...
When? Direct quotes please.
> > Therefore let all the house of Israel know, that God
> > has made this same Jesus, WHOM YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED,
> > both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
>
> A few obvious points, first, let's take the example raised by
>another reader of compairing this with John Wilkes Booth's murder of
>Lincoln. ...
As someone else has pointed out, this comparison is invalid. John Wilkes
Booth did not represent the people of the US in anyt way, shape or form.
Unlike the scribes and Pharisees, he was not acting in an official capacity
as "elders of the people."
Next.
> Secondly, the translation says "WHOM YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED", but the
>question we are dealing with was who took Yeshua's life. ...
No it's not. The question was; who crucified Messiah? Who was responsible
for putting Him to death? Who was to suffer punishment for crucifying the
Prince of Peace? Who plotted His murder (Matt. 27:1)? Who had Him nailed
to the cross by Roman hands (only because the Jews were forbidden the use
of capital punishment)? You simply twisted Mr. Malson's comment to suit you
fancy.
Next.
> The third issue to consider is whether the phrase ON HUMEIS
>ESTAUROOSATE is being dealt with properly here. Can it for example be
>translated not only as "whom you crucified" but as "who for you was
>crucified"?
Well, you tell us. What translation renders the passage that way? Analyze
the Greek for us.
You're really grasping at straws here.
--
Tom Albrecht
Daniel Segard
mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
> In article <1992Jun19.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
> dse...@isis.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
>
ds> Jews....they persecuted, reject and killed".
>
> That's what I said and I stand by it. Refer to other postings on
> this subject for an expansion of this statement.
phrasing will come across poorly to the unbeliever.
>>>>mm> In fact, I am not one of those who
>>>>mm> bears a grudge against the Jewish people for crucifying my Lord.
>>>>
>>>ds> And how would a non-Messianic Jew know that from your words?
>>>
>>mm>I just said it. Why would they assume otherwise? [answer is below]
>>
>ds> Just now, yes. But I was speaking of your original words.
>
> Seems you wish to impute to me the worst of motives. Or at
> least do so back-handedly by saying others would.
non-Messianic Jew would be unlikely to view your words in a positive
light. Let's take a quick survey and find out....
I have seen half a dozen or so Jews who are not of the "Messianic"
variety post here. (That is to say Jews of the more traditionally
recognized variety of Judaism -- Orthodox, Conservative, etc.) I suspect
that there are a few more reading beyond those who have posted. To those
of you who fall into that category, I would like to ask a simple
question....
When you read Mark Malson's comments that "Jesus came to the Jews,
but they persecuted, rejected and murdered Him", do you feel that Mark's
comments are free from the attitude that Jews are "Christ killers"? If
you do feel that Mark's comments come across to you as being free from
such additional emotional baggage, I would like to see a follow-up from
you to that effect.
Okay Mark, let's see how many of our Jewish readership would read
your comments in the way in which you think they are supposed to be coming
across....
Daniel Segard
mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>ds> The modern Jew still
>ds> considers himself to be part of "the Jews"
>
> Do they?
Yes. Additional survey item... If there are any Jews reading out
there who *don't* feel like they are part of "the Jews", please post a
follow-up here to that effect.
> Modern Judaism doesn't resemble the Judaism of
> that day very much at all...
that.... Haven't you been watching the comments of Bruce Krulwich?
Additional survey item.... If there are any non-Messianic Jews out there
who feel that Mark Malson is correct in saying that Modern Judaism has
changed greatly in the past 2,000 years, post a followup to that effect...
(I realize that there are Messianics here that might agree with Mark,
which is why I am specifying non-Messianics.)
Daniel Segard
mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>> ds> Yeshua said "no one can take My life from me", you say that
>> ds> someone could and did.
>> >
>> mm> I said that they murdered Him, then I corrected myself
>> mm> and said that they executed Him.
>>
>> Would it matter to me whether someone "murdered" me, or if they
>> "executed" me?
>
> executing Jesus was indeed unlawful by God's standards,
> but since it was the leadership of the Jews who did it, it
> was, in a sense, lawful.
on Watergate, the Iran-Contra deal, Boss Tweed and most of history....
> By using the
> word "executed", I think the more accurate portrayal is made that
> His death was brought about by the authority and with the approval
> of the Sanhedrin.
But what of Nicodemus? He was part of the Sanhedrin (but was he there for
the meeting?), did the Sanhedrin speak for him?
>ds> Either way someone would have "taken my life from me".
>ds> Yeshua promised this would not occur. You said that it did
>ds> occur. I believe Yeshua and not you. It's just that simple.
>
> You read that verse in a vacuum.
>> mm> Consider the execution of a condemned man by the State
>> mm> of Florida...
>>
>ds> Weak argument. The condemned man still had his life taken from him.
>
> I said the condemned man was executed, killed.
>ds> You claim it was G-d that did it.
>
> Am I to understand that you do not believe that God is sovereign?
convey by the term "sovereign". Explain and I'll let you know.
> If it was not God's will for the guilty man to die, then how
> is it that He died?
movement. Let's see.... the government has declared that a woman has the
right to put her unborn child to death. If it was not G-d's will for the
unborn child to die, then how is it that it died?
That line of reasoning could be used to excuse any act of sin in
the world. That line of reasoning basically can be summarized as "whatever
happens in the world is G-d's will."
But this cannot be true for some things are forbidden. And the
fact that forbidden acts occur (even under the authority of leadership)
does not mean that it is G-d's will for them to occur. Now sure, there
are certainly just executions of righteous men carried out under the
authority of government leadership. But on the other hand government
leadership has also had executed men who are not guilty of the crime of
which they are accused.
Daniel Segard
In article <1992Jun19.2...@mlb.semi.harris.com>
mma...@x102a.ess.harris.com (Mark Malson) writes:
>> > Permission and commandment are not mutually exclusive. I
>> > state again that even though God commands an act to happen,
>> > He does not absolve the perpetrators until they repent.
> (Apparently you missed this)
commited in ignorance without knowing that a sin was committed.
>ds> Perhaps. But having you pronounce what G-d will or won't
>ds> do, doesn't make it so. Your statement would be stronger if
>ds> you backed it up with Scripture. But since you don't,
>ds> we'll just dismiss it.
>
> Are you saying there is forgiveness of sins without repentance?
treat me as "the weaker brother" and back up your claim from Scripture.
> Please back that one up with Scripture, Mr. Segard. I believe
> I'll have an easier time than you.
your point from Scripture and I am not as yet attempting to make a point.
Go ahead and state your case.
>>> Well, at least through AD 70. And perhaps to the third and
>>> fourth generation. READ MY LIPS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE JEWS
>>> OF THE 20TH CENTURY HAVE SOME SPECIAL GUILT ON THEIR HEADS
>>> BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED 2000 YEARS AGO. (Think I'll put this on
>>> my clipboard so I can just paste this in.)
>>
>> But are you willing to say it emphatically?
>
around saying "I AM NOT SAYING" and state a variety of things which they
don't believe. What I am attempting to nail down is exactly what you ARE
saying.
>> It is nice to know what "you are not saying",
>
> since you seem to be imputing to me a lot that I am not saying.
other person is actually saying rather than shooting in the dark and
having the other person say over and over again "I AM NOT SAYING THAT". A
positive statement of what you ARE saying is much easier to deal with.
>> but could you turn it around for the record and state it in the
>> affirmative? You know, something like "I AM SAYING THAT THE
>> JEWS OF THE 20TH CENTURY HAVE NO SPECIAL GUILT ON THEIR HEADS
>> BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPPENED 2000 YEARS AGO."
>
I was attempting to extract from you in the first place.
Daniel Segard
>ds> "the Jews" comes across badly and makes people think that
>ds> you are including modern Jews in your statements.
>
> Not really.
<sigh> I guess I wish that I could explain things in a way in which
you could understand.
> But you will notice I've been including "1st century" in my
> references to these Jews, in order to accommodate you.
that modern Jews will think that you are including them. Now if I could
get you to say "certain 1st century Jewish leaders", we would have almost
no disagreement at all.
> BTW, you seem to speak for a lot of people who are not addressing
> me directly. Methinks you have a phantom multitude...
such person who took your statement in the way which I said it was likely
to be taken (that was the guy who brought up the question of whether "the
Americans" had killed Abraham Lincoln). And now I have asked a survey
question to ask if any of them feel that I have misrepresented them. We
shall see how many speak up and say that they didn't have any problem with
your phrasing.
continued next article...
Daniel Segard
>mm> I.e., in the statement, "My God, my God, why hast thou
>mm> forsaken me?", how could He be forsaken by God if He was
>mm> God at the time. Another one of those seeming paradoxes.
>mm> (Perhaps someone else would care to share their thoughts on
>mm> that one.) In the same vein, I would regard his words,
>mm> "Forgive them.." as a request for forgiveness rather than
>mm> the pronouncement of such. This is also borne out by the
>mm> grammar - He didn't say, "I forgive you, for you know not
>mm> what you do".
>
>ds> If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that
>ds> Messiah was asking for something that was outside of
>ds> His Father's Will. I personally believe that Messiah
>ds> never said *anything* apart from what His Father told
>ds> Him to say. (And I think I can find Scripture to back
>ds> that up.) I also think I can come up with Scripture to
>ds> show that the Father does whatever the Son asks.
>
> How about His prayer in the Garden? He specifically asked
> God to "take this cup from me", and God didn't.
of context. What Messiah said is "Father, if it is possible let this cup
pass from me, yet not my will, but Your's". Messiah was speaking *within*
the will of the Father, not outside.
When Messiah says "Father forgive them, for they know not what they
do" he does not add "if it be your will" or any other qualifier. He
didn't even say "if they realize what they are doing and seek repentance".
So I tend to believe that for this particular deed, they were forgiven.
They couldn't repent for it because "they know not what they do" and you
have to know that you did something wrong in order to repent (turn away).
Secondly, Messiah requested that the Father forgive them. Based
upon the fact that Messiah requested the Father forgive them, we can
presume that Messiah forgave them. (Why would He seek to have them
forgiven if He hadn't forgiven them?) Would the Father judge against them
when the Son had requested that they be forgiven?
"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted
all judgement to the Son," John 5:22
So, clearly the judgement of the guilt or innocence is Messiah's call to
make. He made the decision and passed along the judgement to the Father.
I say we take the forgiveness at face value.
>ds> I personally believe that Messiah
>ds> never said *anything* apart from what His Father told
>ds> Him to say.
>
> You can personally believe what you
> want, but you can also be personally wrong.
"I am the one I claim to be and I do *NOTHING* on my own but
speak *ONLY* what the Father has taught me." John 8:28
I don't see why you would suggest that I should disbelieve the words of
Messiah. So I repeat that I personally believe that Messiah never said
*anything* apart from what his Father told him to say. My personal belief
on this point lines up with Scripture.
>> If that is true then obviously the Father granted the forgiveness.
>
> been forgiven, depending on whether or not they repented
> of their acts.
had commited? Messiah didn't require that they repent, in fact he stated
their ignorance of their actions as being the *reason* why they should be
forgiven. "Father forgive them *BECAUSE* they know not what they do."
c
Daniel Segard
>>>> mm> AND the Jews murdered him.
>>>>
>>>ds> No, actually I was the one who murdered Him. No
>>>ds> one else, it was entirely my fault.
>>>
>>mm> That's another way of looking at it. But not because you're
>>mm> Jewish -because you're a sinner. I can make the same
>>mm> statement about myself.
>>
>ds> Then why don't you spend more time here taking responsibility and
>ds> less time trying to affix blame to "the Jews"?
>>
>
> I'll explain why I made the statement initially, rather than
> leave it with the flip answer I gave you earlier.
> I responded to Mr. Tiffany's signature quoting the verse
> about Christ coming "first to the Jew, then to the Greek".
> It was clear to me that he chose this signature in order to
> try to make a point that the modern Jews who convert to MJ
> have some special place in the New Covenant, over an above
> those of different ethnic origins.
looks very much to me as though you have just shoved a whole bunch of
supposed motives into Mr Tiffany's quotation of a verse of Scripture. Is
this not true? How do you know the motives of Mr Tiffany. Ah yes, you
say "it was clear to me", that explains everything I guess....
> His interpretation of that seemed to me to be that Christ
> came first in IMPORTANCE to the Jews, hence the Jews are
> always and will always be the most important people to God.
be some signature. I would restate that you are reading motives and
interpretations into Mr Tiffany's signature. Please provide evidence of
your claims.
> My response was to bring out the fact that they were at one time
> important to God, but they blew it and were judged for it.
You are not even reading the verse correctly. It says that the Good
News of Messiah is to the Jew first and also to the Greek. You appear to
be saying that the Message of Messiah is no longer to the Jew. Yet the
words of Messiah are that his message was to be delievered first in
Jerusalem, and Judea, then in Samaria and then unto the uttermost parts of
the earth. He didn't say that it was not longer supposed to be preached
in Judea.
Mark Malson
> I would like to ask a simple
> question....
>
> When you read Mark Malson's comments that "Jesus came to the Jews,
> but they persecuted, rejected and murdered Him", do you feel that Mark's
> comments are free from the attitude that Jews are "Christ killers"? If
> you do feel that Mark's comments come across to you as being free from
> such additional emotional baggage, I would like to see a follow-up from
> you to that effect.
Not me. I'd rather get E-mail (cc: dsegard) if anyone has an opinion
EITHER WAY on this statement. So far you are the only person who has
contacted me personally about the way my postings have been coming
across. I daresay it's because we're in most everone else's KILL
files. :-)
Tom Albrecht
> I would like to ask a simple
> question....
>
> When you read Mark Malson's comments that "Jesus came to the Jews,
> but they persecuted, rejected and murdered Him", do you feel that Mark's
Only if that's the sense you get when you read the Scriptures:
AND THEREFORE DID THE JEWS PERSECUTE JESUS, AND SOUGHT TO SLAY HIM,
because he had done these things on the sabbath day. (John 5:16)
They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will
let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits
in their seasons.
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, THE STONE
WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, the same is become the head of the corner:
this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
AND WHEN THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND PHARISEES HAD HEARD HIS PARABLES, THEY
PERCEIVED THAT HE SPAKE OF THEM.
But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude,
because they took him for a prophet. (Matt. 21:41-43,45,46)
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage
for his son,
And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding:
and they would not come.
Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden,
Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all
things are ready: come unto the marriage.
But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another
to his merchandise:
And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and
slew them.
BUT WHEN THE KING HEARD THEREOF, HE WAS WROTH: AND HE SENT FORTH HIS
ARMIES, AND DESTROYED THOSE MURDERERS, AND BURNED UP THEIR CITY.
Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were
bidden were not worthy.
...
Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in
his talk. (Matt. 22:1-8,15)
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith
the prophet,
Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build
me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Hath not my hand made all these things?
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist
the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have
slain them which shewed before of the COMING OF THE JUST ONE; OF WHOM YE HAVE
BEEN NOW THE BETRAYERS AND MURDERERS:
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept
it.
When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they
gnashed on him with their teeth. (Acts 7:48-54)
Now I have my own simple question, does anyone get the sense that Mr.
Segard is trying to minimize the responsibility of the 1st century Jews and
their leaders in the crucifixion of Jesus, especially in light of the fact
that the Bible uses words like "rejected," "persecuted," and murdered," to
describe their actions?
--
Tom Albrecht
Kenneth M. Joffe
(John 5:16)
>
(Matt. 21:41-43,45,46)
>
(Matt. 22:1-8,15)
>
(Acts 7:48-54)
>
Now I have my own simple question, does anyone get the sense that Mr.
>Segard is trying to minimize the responsibility of the 1st century Jews and
>their leaders in the crucifixion of Jesus, especially in light of the fact
>that the Bible uses words like "rejected," "persecuted," and murdered," to
>describe their actions?
>
>Tom Albrecht
The thing about these proofs that you spout off is the fact that
they are not from the jewish bible, but from the new testement.
I think that true jews do not put any faith into this. You will
have to supply proof from the old testement that the jews were
the ones that crucified 'Jesus' and that Jesus was who he claimed
to be.
Kenneth J. Hendrickson
% The thing about these proofs that you spout off is the fact that
% they are not from the jewish bible, but from the new testement.
% I think that true jews do not put any faith into this. You will
% have to supply proof from the old testement that the jews were
% the ones that crucified 'Jesus' and that Jesus was who he claimed
% to be.
Mr. Joffe:
[sarcasm on]
I don't accept anything you or any other modern Jew says about the
holocaust in the 1940's. I just don't put any faith into it. If you
want me to accept what you say about the holocaust, you will have to
provide proof from the writings of people who lived in the middle ages.
[sarcasm off]
Shalom,
--
"Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible." --RC Sproul
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 k...@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
Kenneth M. Joffe
In article <l5ncqf...@pollux.usc.edu> k...@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes:
>[sarcasm on]
alcoholic stupor deleted
>[sarcasm off]
Mr. Hendrickson:
Sarcasm aside, all I am saying is that such arguments are
pointless. To use statements from the new testament to support
your claims and try to convince jewish people how correct you
are is a waste of time. Jews and christians alike believe that
their religion is the 'only' and 'true' one. The arguments are
pointless. We believe what we believe, and most people are not
swayed when others quote passages from a source different from
their own.
Kenneth J. Hendrickson
> alcoholic stupor deleted
Invectives won't help your already weak case.
>Sarcasm aside, all I am saying is that such arguments are
>pointless. To use statements from the new testament to support
>your claims and try to convince jewish people how correct you
>are is a waste of time. Jews and christians alike believe that
>their religion is the 'only' and 'true' one. The arguments are
>pointless.
But, your original statement concerned a *fact* of history, and not an
opinion. The *fact* in question was who killed Yeshua. The NT is a
historical document, about things that actually happened in history. You
said that you would not accept the testimony of the NT with regard to a
historical question (Who killed Yeshua?), because you don't believe it.
kmj> The thing about these proofs that you spout off is the
kmj> fact that they are not from the jewish bible, but from
kmj> the new testement. I think that true jews do not put
kmj> any faith into this. You will have to supply proof
kmj> from the old testement that the jews were the ones
kmj> that crucified 'Jesus' and that Jesus was who he
kmj> claimed to be.
Instead, you said you would only accept the testimony of the OT for this
matter. The fact is that the last book in the OT was written about 500
years *before* the historical events that the NT discusses.
This is why I posted my sarcastic analogy of not accepting your word or
the word or writings of any moderns about the holocaust, but would only
accept the writings of people from the middle ages.
kjh> I don't accept anything you or any other modern Jew
kjh> says about the holocaust in the 1940's. I just don't
kjh> put any faith into it. If you want me to accept what
kjh> you say about the holocaust, you will have to provide
kjh> proof from the writings of people who lived in the
kjh> middle ages.
Now, let me briefly visit your statement once again.
kmj> You will have to supply proof
kmj> from the old testement that the jews were the ones
kmj> that crucified 'Jesus' and that Jesus was who he
kmj> claimed to be.
There were two things that you require proof for. The historical *fact*
that the Jews were the ones who crucified Yeshua, and the historical
question of whether Yeshua was who He claimed to be. (I said question
only because there are some like you who dispute it.) My point here is
that it is a historical question to be answered from historical sources,
whether Yeshua is who He claimed to be or not. You must study the
historical documents from the time in question, and draw your
conclusions from *evidence* rather than mere opinion or desire. You
refuse to study the historical documents. You refuse to look at the
*evidence*. Your position is both anti-historical and
anti-intellectual.
>We believe what we believe, and most people are not
>swayed when others quote passages from a source different from
>their own.
This is the problem. Your mind is made up, and you don't wish to be
confused with the facts. To refuse to appeal to the correct historical
sources and documents to answer factual historical questions is the
ultimate in closed-mindedness. I pity you. I pray that G-d will give
you eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. May G-d circumcise your
heart, so that you may fulfull the Shma. (Deut 30:6)
tbea...@vax1.umkc.edu
> their religion is the 'only' and 'true' one. The arguments are
> pointless. We believe what we believe, and most people are not
> swayed when others quote passages from a source different from
> their own.
"A man convinced against his will / is of the same opinion still."
Thomas Beaudoin
Kansas City
Kenneth M. Joffe
>Invectives won't help your already weak case.
Well now, lets really see who is the one with the weak case.
>But, your original statement concerned a *fact* of history, and not an
>opinion. The *fact* in question was who killed Yeshua. The NT is a
>historical document, about things that actually happened in history. You
>said that you would not accept the testimony of the NT with regard to a
>historical question (Who killed Yeshua?), because you don't believe it.
I do not think that you can use the word *fact* in this case.
There is no fact about this, just a belief system which deals
with the subject.
>Instead, you said you would only accept the testimony of the OT for this
>matter. The fact is that the last book in the OT was written about 500
>years *before* the historical events that the NT discusses.
>This is why I posted my sarcastic analogy of not accepting your word or
>the word or writings of any moderns about the holocaust, but would only
>accept the writings of people from the middle ages.
Your point is clear enough to me, but I am not too sure that my
points were clear to you. My statements were produced to show
you that what you say means nothing to me because it is not
included in the old testament, and that it is only the old
testament that I put my faith into.
>There were two things that you require proof for. The historical *fact*
>that the Jews were the ones who crucified Yeshua, and the historical
>question of whether Yeshua was who He claimed to be. (I said question
>only because there are some like you who dispute it.) My point here is
>that it is a historical question to be answered from historical sources,
>whether Yeshua is who He claimed to be or not. You must study the
>historical documents from the time in question, and draw your
>conclusions from *evidence* rather than mere opinion or desire. You
>refuse to study the historical documents. You refuse to look at the
>*evidence*. Your position is both anti-historical and
>anti-intellectual.
This is a very weak reply. The new testament, like the old
(without faith) is not sufficient as historical evidence. Was
not the NT written by 4 individuals some time after the death of
Jesus??? Putting aside assumptions about the 'devine word', the
only historical fact about the OT and NT is that they were indeed written.
It all boils down to what you put *faith* into.
You go on to write......
>This is the problem. Your mind is made up, and you don't wish to be
>confused with the facts. To refuse to appeal to the correct historical
>sources and documents to answer factual historical questions is the
>ultimate in closed-mindedness. I pity you. I pray that G-d will give
>you eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. May G-d circumcise your
>heart, so that you may fulfull the Shma. (Deut 30:6)
>
Again, what is fact to one man could be fiction to another, even
if this man has open eyes and ears. With your logic, why is your
bible not the Koran??? Can you supply evidence that the Koran is
incorrect?? There is no reason that the Koran could not be
*fact* (as you would say). The only reason you may not believe
in the Koran is because you do not put *faith* into the printed
words. Similarly, your arguments would lead me to believe that
you are mormon. If you are not mormon, why do you not believe in
the book of mormon and the claim that Joseph Smith was a
prophet???? Is the book of mormon not historical documentation,
and since it exists, is it not *fact*???
Finally, please, you do not have to pray for me. I am sure I
will do just fine without your wholehearted concern that I may
one day wake up and welcome the *truth* into my heart. And the
shma, yes I know it well and recite it often. if I recall
correctly, is not the shma a prayer which states that
the lord is ONE ???
Harvey Smith
In a message of <Jul 09 16:36>, Kenneth M. Joffe (1:30163/150) writes:
KM=>Now I have my own simple question, does anyone get the sense that
KM=>Mr.
>Segard is trying to minimize the responsibility of the 1st century Jews and
>their leaders in the crucifixion of Jesus, especially in light of the fact
>that the Bible uses words like "rejected," "persecuted," and murdered," to
>describe their actions?
>
Nope not at all. Our People and their leaders rejected Yeshua as Messiah,
and the gentiles crucified Him...
So hence, we have a very important question here. Who did the worse?
But thank G-d for His unspeakable gift, to give grace to the Jew first and
also to the greek...
--
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey...@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
Bill Carlson
KMJ> From: kmj...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Kenneth M. Joffe)
KMJ> Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
KMJ> Message-ID: <92Jul12.03...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
-=> Quoting Kenneth J. Hendrickson to Kenneth M. Joffe <=-
KJH> <l5pdjr...@pollux.usc.edu> k...@pollux.usc.edu
KJH> But, your original statement concerned a *fact* of history, and
KJH> not an opinion. The *fact* in question was who killed Yeshua.
KJH> The NT is a historical document, about things that actually
KJH> happened in history. You said that you would not accept the
KJH> testimony of the NT with regard to a historical question ...
-=> Quoting Kenneth M. Joffe to Kenneth J. Hendrickson <=-
KMJ> I do not think that you can use the word *fact* in this case.
KMJ> There is no fact about this, just a belief system which deals
KMJ> with the subject.
But; that is not the only witness. Not touching on certain Roman
documents; we also have....
Sanhedrin 43a: Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Fourty days previously
the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has
practiced sorcery and let Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy.
Whosoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare
it. As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on
Passover Eve. [Sanh. 6,1; / TJ Sanh. I.I]
And The Talmud states that Yeshua was of royal decent....
Rabbi Ulla's comments; Sanhedrin 43a>Would you believe that any defence
would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and the
All-mercciful says: You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal
him, [Deut.13:9]. It was different with Jesus, for He was near to the
kingship.
From the Karaite Anthology, by Leon Nemoy, Yale press, pgs. 50-51, 9...
Next there appeared Yesua, who Rabbanites say was the son of Pandera;
he is known as Jesus, the son of Mary. He lived in the days of Joshua,
the son of Perahiah, who is said to have been the maternal uncle of
Jesus. The Rabbanites plotted against Jesus until they put him to death
This took place in the reign of Augustus Ceasar, the emperor of Rome,
i.e.,at the time of the second Temple.{Jacov Al-Kirkisani,900's AD/CE.}
Although way after the fact, and having the events misconstrued; it
does show that the Rabbi's accepted His death as a fact; and that His
death was sought after by certain of the Jewish leadership. Also the
New Covenant accounts would be correct that says that His death
occurred at the hands of the goyim/gentiles-Romans; as by that time, we
know from TJ Sanhedrin I.I, that the right to inflict the death penalty
was taken away from Israel by the Romans.
KMJ> is not the shma a prayer which states that the lord is ONE ???
Yes; ECHAD!
ZOHAR[TO DEUT. 6:4]: Hear O Israel:HaShem our G-d,HaShem is One. Why is
there a need of mentioning the Name of G-d three times in this verse?
The First HaShem is the Father above.The Second is the Stem of Jesse,
the Messiah Who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And
the Third One is the Way which is below [meaning the Holy Spirit Who
shows us the way] and These Three are One/(ECHAD).
[See also: Midrash Rabbah 999:8; Sukkah 52a, Rabbi Dosa; Zohar part
III, fol.307, Amsterdam edition; Bereshis Rabba 2; R.Simeon on Song of
Songs 2:6, Zohar Tanchuma; R. Tzvi Nassi's book, The Great Mystery,
How Can Three Be One; etc....] Am Israel Chai!
--
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.C...@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Jonathan Baker
kjh> But, your original statement concerned a *fact* of history, and not an
kjh> opinion. The *fact* in question was who killed Yeshua. The NT is a
kjh> historical document, about things that actually happened in history. You
kjh> said that you would not accept the testimony of the NT with regard to a
kjh> historical question (Who killed Yeshua?), because you don't believe it.
The *fact* in question? the NT a historical document? These are only true
for a believing Christian. The "fact" of Jesus' death presumes: a) that
he existed, b) the events in the NT about his life are true, etc.
Perhaps the other fellow's choice of backup documents was unfortunate:
of course the Bible cannot prove things in the NT, but there are other
Jewish and Roman documents from the same period, that barely mention Jesus'
existence, such as Josephus and the Talmud (Actually, the Talmud would not
be a good document, as it was largely written after Christianity came to
power with Constantine, and it was censored many times over the centuries in
Europe to remove anything that might contradict Christian beliefs.)
What the other fellow said still holds: for a non-Christian, the NT is *not*
a valid source for historical proof, any more than the Bible's statement
that 600,000 people witnessed the Revelation at Sinai can be a convincing proof
of the validity of the Bible for a non-believing Jew.
Semper pluralism
Jon Baker
ba...@robocop.nyu.edu
Laura Johanna Manninen
> Again, what is fact to one man could be fiction to another, even
> if this man has open eyes and ears. With your logic, why is your
> bible not the Koran??? Can you supply evidence that the Koran is
> incorrect?? There is no reason that the Koran could not be
> *fact* (as you would say).
Qur'an says Miryam the mother of Yeshua lived about 300 years before him...
(from some Leon Uris's book; I don't know Arabic.)
- Laura
--
Who has gone up to heaven and come down ?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands ?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak ?
Who has established all the ends of the earth ?
What is his name, and the name of his son ?
Tell me if you know !
- Mishlei 30:4
Kenneth J. Hendrickson
have eyes to see nor ears to hear. However, I will respond to a couple
of your points, in order to state my opposition to your relativistic
world view.
In article <92Jul12.03...@acs.ucalgary.ca> kmj...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Kenneth M. Joffe) writes:
>With your logic, why is your
>bible not the Koran??? Can you supply evidence that the Koran is
>incorrect?? There is no reason that the Koran could not be
>*fact* (as you would say). The only reason you may not believe
>in the Koran is because you do not put *faith* into the printed
>words.
I can supply volumes of evidence that the Koran is not God's word, as is
claimed by the Muslims. One strong proof is that the Koran appeals to
the Bible (both OT & NT) in order to establish it's authority as a
revelation from God, but then goes on to directly contradict both the OT
and the NT. In addition, the Koran is internally inconsistant.
>Similarly, your arguments would lead me to believe that
>you are mormon.
This is the biggest non-sequitur I've ever seen in my life.
>If you are not mormon, why do you not believe in
>the book of mormon and the claim that Joseph Smith was a
>prophet???? Is the book of mormon not historical documentation,
>and since it exists, is it not *fact*???
First, you demonstrate your inability to do even simple logic. If I
*was* a Mormon, it should follow that I believe in the Book of Mormon.
But, if I was not a Mormon, it would likely (but not necessarily) follow
that I don't believe the Book of Mormon.
Now, let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you merely
made a typo. The Book of Mormon is indeed a historical document, as it
talks about *alleged* history. However, there is 0 archeological
evidence for any of the events in the Book of Mormon. In contrast,
there is not even one archeological find in contradiction with the
Biblical record. Not only is there no archeological support for the
Book of Mormon, there is plenty of archeological evidence that the Book
of Mormon is *not* historically accurate. The opposite is true for the
Bible (both OT & NT). The Bible has plenty of supporting archeological
evidence. In addition, like the Koran, the Book of Mormon contradicts
the Bible at many points. Not only does the Book of Mormon contradict
the Bible, in many other passages it plagiarises the KJV translation.
This is an embarrassment to the Mormons. I could go on, but you should
get the point.
--
The Point: We must not turn off our brains. HaShem commanded us to
love Him with all our *minds*. We must use every tool
we have, including archeology, reason, logic, etc., to
determine the truth and/or falsehood of all that we come
into contact with. (But, we cannot become Rationalists,
believing that we can discover all truth using only
reason.) I invite you to start (because you haven't yet
started) using this approach to the claims of various
religions. Start with the easy cases, like Mormonism
and Islam. Work up to the hard cases, like Rabbinic
Judaism. In addition, don't be scared to apply these
techniques to the truth claims of Christianity--but
don't be suprised when you cannot show Christianity to be
a false religion like the others. I look forward to
future discussions with you, *after* you start to
examine the truth claims of various religious systems.
>And the shma, yes I know it well and recite it often. if I recall
>correctly, is not the shma a prayer which states that
>the lord is ONE ???
Yes. Absolutely! And I believe it with all my heart, all my mind, and
all my strength. But let me point out to you that Echad (one), used to
describe God's One-ness, is also the exact same word used to describe
the union of a man and his wife in marriage. Perhaps this will give you
a new perspective/understanding of God's One-ness. (Gen 2:24)
Kenneth J. Hendrickson
> [Secular-Humanistic arguments against Bible omitted]
>Semper pluralism
This illustrates the problem. Instead of "Semper Pluralism", how about
Semper Fidelis, or Semper Veritas. (Always Faithful or Always Truthful)
hillel.e.markowitz
This is actually somewhat of a mistranslation.
1. The actual Talmud in the printed edition has had this section
censored out by the church. The translation above appears to have
been cut from the Soncino edition (which put the section back in
the English) with a few changes.
2. This particular person (there are several called y"shu just as
there was acher in the mishna) was condemned by the Sanhedrin 40
days before Passover (about the fourth of Adar). He was kept in
jail while possible witnesses where searched for. He was executed
on the day before Passover.
3. The Sanhedrin was still in force as the trial and execution are
being carried out according to Halacha. Thus it could not have
been in the times of the Romans
4. The trial and sentence were 40 days before Passover and the
execution was on erev Pesach so it could not have been the way the
Xian story is told.
5. The ending does not say that he was of royal descent. It
actually says that he was connected to the government (the
kingdom). That is he had governmental influence which delayed the
carrying out of the sentence while an attempt was made to find
*someone* who could give favorable testimony. This means not that
he was of the Davidic house but that he was connected with the
Hasmoneans or if it occurred earlier, with the Hellenists who were
powerful in government at the time.
6. The above also shows it is not the Xian deity as their own
story has him as a powerless wanderer tried, condemned, and
executed in one day *after* the Pesach seder.
The next section is an aggada that y"shu had 5 disciples who were
also executed with the discussion having them quote a pasuk that
they should be freed based on their names and the retort being a
pasuk that they should be based on another pasuk. This is a
symbolic section and is not necessarily fully historical.
____________________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, join me ashore |
| H_Mar...@att.com | So too is it with the Jews and the TORAH |
|_____________________|____________________________________________|
Robert A. Levene
> But; that is not the only witness. Not touching on certain Roman
> documents; we also have....
>
> Sanhedrin 43a: Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Fourty days previously
...
???? That passage refers to a "Yeshu" not to "Jesus," not to "Yeshua."
> From the Karaite Anthology, by Leon Nemoy, Yale press, pgs. 50-51, 9...
> Next there appeared Yesua, who Rabbanites say was the son of Pandera;
Again, this isn't referring to your Jesus.
Rob