berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (05/07/85)
I've been watching the recent attacks on the Mormon faith. I don't
understand one thing... What's the difference between what the Christians
did the the OT, and what the Mormons did to the NT?
Ken, there *are* contradictions between the OT and the NT. Where does it say
that Gd has a son (other than Adam)? Where does it say that I must believe
in this son in order to be "saved"? Where does it use the phrase "salvation"
altogether? Where does it refer to a second coming, or a first one that
did not succeed in unifying the Jews and bringing peace to the world? Where
does it say that we will all burn in hell for sins someone else committed?
Where does it refer to a Gd who is not "One and there is no oneness like his"
(Morning Service)? What happened to all the commandments written in the OT?
Do you burn fires on the Sabbath? Do you eat pork? Do you wear tzitzit on all
four cornered garments? What about "thou shalt not stray from what your elders
teach you, neither right nor left"? Do Christians deny the fact that all
the elders of the time denied the Jesus was the Messiah? What about Passover,
Shavuoth, and Succoth? The lunar calendar? etc. etc. etc....
I now expect you to present me with some argument stating that I'm now
better, for I don't sacrifice animals in the temple.
1- We are discussing Christianity's claims, not modern Jewry's.
2- If we would know where on the temple mount to build it, and it were built,
I would be there in 28 days for Shavuot.
Similarly, may tzitzith aren't colored with t'cheleth, for I have no idea
what t'cheleth is. If you can identify it, I'll provide the thread. And so
on...
I would say therefor Ken, that you are in no position to
throw stones at the Mormons, until you can prove to me that you don't live in
a glass house.
--
Micha Berger
2525 Amsterdam Ave. Suite M406 NY, NY 10033 (212) 781-0756
{philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!bergerjho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (05/10/85)
> I would say therefor Ken, that you are in no position to > throw stones at the Mormons, until you can prove to me that you don't live in > a glass house. > -- > Micha Berger Why do expect ken to realize that he lives in a glass house? Don't you know that the camel cannot see its hump. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T-IS Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (05/15/85)
In article <1537@aecom.UUCP>, berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) writes: > I've been watching the recent attacks on the Mormon faith. I don't > understand one thing... What's the difference between what the Christians > did the the OT, and what the Mormons did to the NT? > Glad you asked that. The Mormons have taken the Net Testament and added to it with various writings from Joseph Smith, assorted other Mormon theologians and scriptures supposedly given from God. These additional teachings *BLATANTLY* contradict the message given by the writers of the New Testament. You are probably saying that that is exactly what Christians have done to the Old Testament, but I will try to show that the New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament, but as Christ claims, it is the fulfillment of it. > Ken, there *are* contradictions between the OT and the NT. Where does it say > that Gd has a son (other than Adam)? In Isaiah 7:14 it says that a virgin shall bear a child and he should be called Immanuel. Immanuel means God with us (literally God or Jehovah with us). Since there is only one God, who else can this child be but God? In Isaiah 9:6 it says, "For unto us a child is born: ... and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God" Who else can be called The Mighty God without it being blasphemy other than God Himself? Isaiah clearly prophesies that God promises to come to the earth in human form from Bethlehem, out of Galilee, of a virgin. > Where does it say that I must believe in this son in order to be "saved"? > Where does it use the phrase "salvation" altogether? Again, the book of Isaiah clearly and continually refers to God as the savior and redeemer of the nation of Israel. In Isaiah 43:3, "For I am the Lord your God, the Holy one of Israel, your Savior." Again in Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no Savior besides me." One more time in 43:14, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer." God continualy refers to saving the nation of Israel and that is why Christ was very specific in maiking the *EXACT CLAIMS* of God to make clear to everyone (especially the Jews) that He was claiming to be God in the flesh, the only Savior of Israel. In John 14:6, Christ says, "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me." > Where does it refer to a second coming, or a first one that > did not succeed in unifying the Jews and bringing peace to the world? Isaiah, in the 53 chapter, prophesies about the coming of the redeemer, the "Righteous One" and it says that He will be beaten, abused and that "He was cut off from the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due." This doesn't sound like the peace that He tried to bring was accepted to kindly. The chapter goes on to say, "as a result of the anguish of His soul ... My servant will justify many." The peace that Christ offered and that Isaiah prophesied was not a ruling King that would crush all of Israel's physical enemies. It was one of peace in the broken relationship between man and God. > does it say that we will all burn in hell for sins someone else committed? God doesn't need to accuse you of someone else's sins, the Old Testament says that we all have enough of our own. In Genesis, during the time of Noah, God described the state of mankind, "And God looked upon the earth and behold, for it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth." Are you really going to say that we're better people now? That the accusation leveled against Noah's generation doesn't hit us as well? Paul says it in the New Testament quite clearly, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) > Where does it refer to a Gd who is not "One and there is no oneness like his" Again, as I said before, Christ claims to be that ONE God and agrees that there is no other God besides Himself. > What happened to all the commandments written in the OT? > Do you burn fires on the Sabbath? Do you eat pork? Do you wear tzitzit on all > four cornered garments? What about "thou shalt not stray from what your elders > teach you, neither right nor left"? Paul (a Pharisee it might be added) said that the Law served as a tutor to lead us to Christ. The law served only to show man his sin, Christ came to make atonement for that Sin and to show mankind how they had forsaken God's covenant. Christ says in Mathew 5:17,18 "Do not think I came to abolish the Law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." > Do Christians deny the fact that all > the elders of the time denied the Jesus was the Messiah? We don't deny the fact, we just disagree with it. I believe that Christ not only claimed to be the Messiah, the promise for salvation to the Nations given to Abraham, but that He was the Messiah and that He was Immanuel, literally and truly God with us. Rick Frey (..ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix415) "The woman said to Him, 'I know that the Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes He will decleare all things to us. Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am He.'" (John 4:25,26)
pechman@aecom.UUCP (Yaakov Pechman) (05/17/85)
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)li63sbi@sdcc7.UUCP (MATTHEW HUNT) (05/25/85)
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