Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site sdcc7.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!li63sbi
From: li63sbi@sdcc7.UUCP (MATTHEW HUNT)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Jews, Christians, and Mormons
Message-ID: <1468@sdcc7.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 18:54:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc7.1468
Posted: Fri May 24 18:54:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 29-May-85 23:37:34 EDT
References: <1537@aecom.UUCP> <2074@sdcc6.UUCP> <1610@aecom.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 144
Summary: Reply to Micha Berger concerning the OT vs. the NT

In article <1610@aecom.UUCP>, pechman@aecom.UUCP (Yaakov Pechman) writes:

Forgive the lengthiness of this but it isn't long winded, just long.  If it
keeps others from reading it, that's too bad, but I felt your responses 
deserved longer answers. 
>  
> 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?
> 
When I quoted from Isaiah you told me to look at the context from which
the verse was taken, well here, you should do the same.  In John 8:39,
the Pharisees start a discussion with Christ about whose children they
are.  They start by saying that they are Abraham's children.  Christ
responds by saying that if they were Abraham's children then they should
do the deeds of Abraham, but because they don't believe Him (Christ)
they are doing the works of the devil and are thus the devil's children.

Also, what about all the times that God (through the prophets) tells
Israel that they are adulterers and worshoppers of false gods.  What
about in Genesis 6:5 where God says that all men are corrupt.  What
about in Exodus 32 when the Israelites made a golden calf and worshipped
it as the god that delivered them out of Egypt.  In Exodus 32:22 Aaron
says, "you know the people yourself, how they are prone to evil."  Is
this too the other Jewish people?  Maybe it's not two Jewish people, but
one Jewish people with the same problem in way back then as Christ
criticized them for in John 8.
> 
> 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.
> 
You win two out of the three points here.  The Hebrew word does mean
young girl and now, having thought about it, just because the child's
name means God with us, that doesn't necessitate that he is God.
However, point three about the translation of God is mighty that makes
no sense.  I have a hard time believing the scholars who translated this
verse simply left out a verb (namely "is") and translated it as an
adjective (i.e. mighty God).  But even still, what about "Eternal
Father"?  These are titles being applied to this Prince of Peace that
unless you are trying to take the meaning out of what Isaiah is saying,
can only belong to God Himself.
>
> 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.
>
O.K., lets look at some verses in context.  In the end of the 43 chapter
of Isaiah, God says, "Rather you have burdened me with your sins. You
have wearied me with your iniquities.  I, even I am the one who wipes
out your transgressions for My own sake."  Is this a physical
redemption God is talking about?  And what about in Isaiah 45:21-25, and
Isaiah 55:6-9, and Isaiah 56:1,6-8.  All of these verses are talking
about how God's salvation, in a spiritual sense will come first to the
nation of Israel at that time, but also "to all the ends of the earth."
>
> 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....
>
I know this will sound a little like religious mumbo jumbo, but I don't
think that we as people with finite and limited minds can understand the
exact wat that God is One and yet God is God the Father, God the Son and
God the Holy Spirit.  To redeem myself somewhat, let me give you a
question to answer.  Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?
Sure the question is a paradox, but the answer is yes to both parts and
we just can't understand how God could do both at once. 
>
> 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..."
> 
Here we just blatantly disagree.  Who in Isaiah's time was "Smitten of
God and afflicted.  But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being
fell upon Him.  ...  All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us
have turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us
all to fall on Him."  Who in Isaiah's time "had done no violence, nor
was there any deceit found in His mouth"?  Who in Isaiah's time could
ever have God say of them, "My servant will justify the many, as He will
bear their iniquities."  While you obviously disagree, who in any time
but God Himself, could bear the iniquities of Man and be the perfect
blood sacrifice that was needed. (Leviticus 17:11)
>
> 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?
> 
I must admit that I do not hold to the traditional interpretation of
original sin.  When Paul talks about death entering into the world
because of Adam's sin, that I accept and I believe, but Paul goes on to
say, "Therefore, jsut as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
(Romans 5:12)  It doesn't say that all are guilty of Adam's sin, it says
that all sinned.  Death entered into the world because of what Adam did
adn the world was made different by what Adam did, by my spiritual
status before God is determined by what I do, and Paul says all have
sinned.
>
> Once again, you prove blind. See my comments above about schizoid gods
> with three personalities. "Oneness" can not be claimed by a trinity.
> 
Your sarcasm and lack of real thought show that you aren't really
thinking about the possibility of what Christ said actually being true.
Christ said in John 7:17 "If any man is willing to to do His will, he
shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God or from Myself."  You
criticize and you make jokes, but you don't seem to give the idea any
real thought.
> 
> 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".
> 
And that is what Christ and Paul both say.  Christ tells the Pharisees
that they are prisoners and slaves to sin and they don't believe Him.
Paul says that the Law is a guide to lead us to Christ, but in and of
itself it is a ministry to death, righteousness cannot come through the
law.  What you say about not observing is true to an extent, but do you
still sacrifice?  Do you foolow all of the commandments laid out
through the OT?  I believe Christ came to explain and make clear what
the OT was really trying to get across.  Christ said that adultery was
wrong, but that the lust behind adultery (that the Pharisees ignored)
was just as bad.  I believe that Christ showed the true intention of the
law and of the OT and that that is what I now follow.
>
> "And thou shalt now vear from what the elders teach you, neither right nor
> left." Unless that was changed too.


"God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear even though the earth should change." (Psalm 46)

"And in the same way after they had eaten, saying 'This is the new covenant
in My blood'" (Luke 22:20)

				Rick Frey