From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:07:53

In article <9208310418.AA20348@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.92Aug30185025@polaris.utu.fi> writes:
> >> The accusation on the table is that Judaism is characterized by or
> >> based upon rejection of Jesus as messiah.
> >
> > But what do you say about the fact that the modern day Judaism (Rabbinic)
> > ignores the parts which talk about the Messiah as being Son of God and
> > his death as atonement for sins ?

> It doesn't ignore those parts, it understands them differently
> than you do.  

Pick'n'choose. You can't interpret Is. 53 as meaning Am Israel, since the
sacrifice for sins must be pure in itself. Other somewhat symbolic
interpretations are _quite_ hard to explain, as we have seen in this forum
before.

> >  Tanach also says that all men are sinners
> > (unlike RJ which says we've got a "Divine spark" inside) and that there

> Non-sequitur.

Jer. 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.
Who can understand it ?" 

Is. 64:6: "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our 
righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and
like the wind our sins sweep us away."

Is 53:6: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned
to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Want them in Hebrew ? (Ken, you had some more...)

> > is no atonement of sins without a blood sacrifice (Lev. 16,17).

> Some atonement offerings were bloodless, and some atonement
> didn't even involve sacrifices.

The bloodless sin offerings were given together with the blood, thus it
was the blood in any case that made the atonement. Please give me a quote
from Tanach that says that there is atonement without a sacrifice.

Lev. 17:10-12: "Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any
blood -- I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will 
cut him off from his people. For the LIFE of a creature is in the blood,
and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar;
IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKES ATONEMENT FOR ONE'S LIFE. Therefore I say to
the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among
you eat blood."
(Want it in Hebrew ?)

> > How do you think you'll get pass the angel who is standing in front of the 
> > paradise with a flaming sword (Gen. 3:24) ? 

> Present my life's accumulated merits.

Filthy rags... Without atonement the wrath of Hashem lies on you. Repentance
(tshuvah) doesn't atone without a sacrifice. 

> >> The reality is that rejection of Jesus as messiah follows from the
> >> tenets of Judaism, not the other way around.  I.e., rejection
> >> of Jesus is an effect of Judaism, not a cause.
> >
> > You have it backwards. The original, biblical Judaism was Tanach Judaism.
> > If the rejection of Yeshua follows from the tenets of modern day RJ, that
> > only prooves the fact that it isn't based on Tanach.

> You have only charged that Jewish misunderstanding of Tanach led to
> rejecting Jesus.  You have not demonstrated that this rejection forms
> the basis of Judaism.  Prove or retract.

No. The Jews understood Tanach very well during the time of Yeshua. Only
later did the Rabbis start changing the meaning of Tanach in order to 
"refute" Christianity. What do you want me to do ? Find some RJ Rabbi
who says this ? Ha! That's what you are waiting for, right ? 

> > ...  Or do you just think that you
> > are not allowed to believe what Tanach says, but only what Rambam or Rashi
> > or some other rabbi says ? What makes them more capable of knowing Hashem ?

> Their genius in Torah, and their hard work to develop it.

Where does Tanach say you have to be genius in Torah ? Or that you have to
study it ? Deut. 6 says you have to OBEY and TEACH it to your children; no
mention about studying. By developing Torah I guess you mean creating new
laws, like that men and women should have their own busses in public 
transport and different times to do shopping... Where in Tanach Hashem 
commands to create new laws ? And where he says *people* are to develop 
*his* laws ?  

> [usual gang of misinterpretations deleted]
You want them in Hebrew ?

> > You said that a better term would be 'failed messiah'. Does that mean that
> > you believe that Yeshua was the Messiah,

> No, just one of many candidates (assuming he was Joseph's son.)
> "Failed would-be messiah" is better yet.

> > ...  but somehow he "failed" by dying
> > instead of setting a kingdom in Jerusalem ?

> Yes.

Do you know, that since Yeshua was without sin, he wasn't under the curse
set on Adam (or the other way around), i.e. it was "unnatural" for him to 
die in the first place. No-one couldn't even have killed him unless he 
voluntarily would have given his life. I once asked here, how do you deal 
with the parts of Tanach that say the Messiah must die (e.g. Is. 53, Ps. 
22:17, Zech. 12:10) but got no replies on the net...

> >   And how would you define what
> > is Christianity, if not a belief in the Jewish Messiah, the real one ?

>   'a belief that Jesus was/is the messiah.'

I.e. almost exactly as I said. So ?

A wise man, Rav Gamaliel z"l, said about the followers of Yeshua to the 
Sanhedrin:
"Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some
time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred
men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it
all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of
the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all 
his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you:
Leave these men alone ! Let them go ! For if their purpose or activity is
of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able
to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
(Acts 5:35-39)

> > BTW if Yeshua wouldn't have risen from the dead, it would be the worst kind
> > of avodat zara to serve him.

> Irrelevant.  But anyway, why would worshipping a dead person be the 
> worst kind?  What about worshipping statues or sacrificing children?

Yes, you make a good point. And what about pretending to be tzaddik by
one's own, without ichud with Hashem ? 
 
> R

Yours, Laura
--
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans 
of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from ancient, from the days of eternity." - Micha 5:1

"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing 
love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.    - Yeshaya 54:10

met b'chet, CHAI B'Y'SHUA !