Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!aecom!pechman From: pechman@aecom.UUCP (Yaakov Pechman) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Jews, Christians, and Mormons Message-ID: <1610@aecom.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-May-85 08:39:11 EDT Article-I.D.: aecom.1610 Posted: Fri May 17 08:39:11 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 08:20:34 EDT References: <1537@aecom.UUCP> <2074@sdcc6.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY Lines: 128 In the following quotes, I am "MB" (Micha Beger), Rick Fray's responces are denoted with RF. My responces are unprefaced. MB: I've been watching the recent attacks on the Mormon faith. I don't MB: understand one thing... What's the difference between what the Christians MB: did the the OT, and what the Mormons did to the NT? RF: Glad you asked that. The Mormons have taken the New Testament and added RF: to it with various writings from Joseph Smith, assorted other Mormon RF: theologians and scriptures supposedly given from God. These additional RF: teachings *BLATANTLY* contradict the message given by the writers of the RF: New Testament. RF: You are probably saying that that is exactly what Christians have RF: done to the Old Testament, but I will try to show that the New Testament RF: does not contradict the Old Testament, but as Christ claims, it is the RF: fulfillment of it. First mistake. Don't you think the Mormons claim the same thing? For a book that does not contradict the OT, how's this for an example: "The children of Gd, a kingdom of preists, and a holy nation" Deut. 14:1, Exod. 19:6 "The children of the devil" -John 8:44 Maybe there are two Jewish people? Or maybe just one, with three parts? MB: Ken, there *are* contradictions between the OT and the NT. Where does it say MB: that Gd has a son (other than Adam)? RF: In Isaiah 7:14 it says that a virgin shall bear a child and he should be RF: called Immanuel. Immanuel means God with us (literally God or Jehovah RF: with us). Since there is only one God, who else can this child be but RF: God? In Isaiah 9:6 it says, "For unto us a child is born: ... and his RF: name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God" Who else RF: can be called The Mighty God without it being blasphemy other than God RF: Himself? Isaiah clearly prophesies that God promises to come to the RF: earth in human form from Bethlehem, out of Galilee, of a virgin. MB: Where does it say that I must believe in this son in order to be "saved"? Second mistake. Virgin birth does not imply Gd as a father, just that a miracle took place. "Almah" does not neccesarily mean virgin, usually it means young girl. If my name is Micha - Who is like the Lord, does this mean that I too am Gd BTW, the name SHOULd be translated "GD is mighty". I was always told to use original texts when quoting, now I know why. MB: Where does it use the phrase "salvation" altogether? RF: Again, the book of Isaiah clearly and continually refers to God as the RF: savior and redeemer of the nation of Israel. In Isaiah 43:3, "For I am RF: the Lord your God, the Holy one of Israel, your Savior." Again in RF: Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no Savior besides RF: me." One more time in 43:14, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer." God RF: continualy refers to saving the nation of Israel and that is why Christ RF: was very specific in maiking the *EXACT CLAIMS* of God to make clear to RF: everyone (especially the Jews) that He was claiming to be God in the RF: flesh, the only Savior of Israel. In John 14:6, Christ says, "I am the RF: way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me." I don't think Gd here means salvation in a spiritual sense here, rather a physical one. Why else would Gd say he is "The One who took at chariot and horse, soldier and strong one" (Isaiah 43:17 - translation mine)? If you'd look at verses in context they'd make more sense. Mistake #4 - If there is only one Gd, wouldn't it be schizophrenic of Him to say "no man comes to the Father but by me"? Unless he was claiming not to be Gd.... MB: Where does it refer to a second coming, or a first one that MB: did not succeed in unifying the Jews and bringing peace to the world? RF: Isaiah, in the 53 chapter, prophesies about the coming of the redeemer, RF: the "Righteous One" and it says that He will be beaten, abused and that RF: "He was cut off from the land of the living for the transgression of my RF: people to whom the stroke was due." This doesn't sound like the peace RF: that He tried to bring was accepted to kindly. The chapter goes on to RF: say, "as a result of the anguish of His soul ... My servant will justify RF: many." The peace that Christ offered and that Isaiah prophesied was not RF: a ruling King that would crush all of Israel's physical enemies. It was RF: one of peace in the broken relationship between man and God. Note, you yourself have the first quote in the past tense. Isaiah 53 is not referring to the Messiah, but a man who existed in Isaiah's times. It was an example of the degradation of the Jewish nation. The phrase you quote should be read "...the land of the living *by* the transgression of my people..." MB: does it say that we will all burn in hell for sins someone else committed? RF: God doesn't need to accuse you of someone else's sins, the Old Testament RF: says that we all have enough of our own. What does this have to do with my question? Am I or am I not going to suffer because of the original sin. Wasn't the whole goal of jesus's comming to absolve us from the original sin? MB: Where does it refer to a Gd who is not "One and there is no oneness like his" RF: Again, as I said before, Christ claims to be that ONE God and agrees RF: that there is no other God besides Himself. Once again, you prove blind. See my comments above about schizoid gods with three personalities. "Oneness" can not be claimed by a trinity. MB: What happened to all the commandments written in the OT? MB: Do you burn fires on the Sabbath? Do you eat pork? Do you wear tzitzit on MB: four cornered garments? What about "thou shalt not stray from what your elders MB: teach you, neither right nor left"? RF: Paul (a Pharisee it might be added) said that the Law served as a tutor RF: to lead us to Christ. The law served only to show man his sin, Christ RF: came to make atonement for that Sin and to show mankind how they had RF: forsaken God's covenant. Christ says in Mathew 5:17,18 "Do not think I RF: came to abolish the Law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but RF: to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, RF: not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until RF: all is accomplished." This is self denying clap-trap. "I did not come to abolish", but you don't have to observe it anyway. Besides in Corintheans (3:7) he calls it "a ministry of death". MB: Do Christians deny the fact that all MB: the elders of the time denied the Jesus was the Messiah? RF: We don't deny the fact, we just disagree with it. "And thou shalt now vear from what the elders teach you, neither right nor left." Unless that was changed too. Micha Berger ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Gd got a married woman pregnant, who should do the stoning? -Ari (age 9)