From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: My Heritage
Date: 15 Sep 1992 08:54:35 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Bill Carlson writes:

>     Why should you be so bent out of shape, if we use a Hebrew term,
>     since we are Jewish?  Me thinks thou dost protest too much!

Because your use of the term "Messianic Jewish [sic]" falsely implies
that both you and Jews have compatible tenets, and obscures your
compatibility of tenets with other Christians.

>     What if I contend that certain forms of "Rabbinic Judaism" are not
>     compatable with Biblical Judaism, (in particular Reform Judaism),
>     and it is deceptive for them to label themselves "Judaic". -Same
>     argument, why aren't you making that one?

Because Reform shares enough of its philosophy with the rest of
Judaism to be within the same umbrella, and Reform does not accept
the tenets of other religions.

[...]

>          (Ever wonder, why if we are so "compatible" with
>          "Christianity" [sic] as you proclaim, Tom Albrecht and his
>          bunch, who represent ONE form of "Christianity" have so
>          much problems with us?  Seem that if we agreed on all the
>          "tenets", that you keep saying, there would be no argument.
>          Ain't the case is it.  So..., we have to conclude then, that
>          at least with Tom Albrect's "form" of Gentile "Christianity",
>          there is some discord, nu?)

I didn't say you were compatible with his *form*, rather that you
have a place under the same umbrella as he.


>     Settle down Rob and take a deep breath.

I'm fine, thank you.  Care to explain your finger-in-the-dike
imagery?  I'm waiting.

> RAL> Bill correctly notes that the commandment is "circumcise" not
> RAL> "be circumcised."  The doctor in the hospital doesn't fulfill ...
>     The doctors at the hospital "Circumcises" one.  Therefore, to use
>     a 'southern' expression: 'You be circumcised' :-)

Again, wrong.  The commandment is an action "circumcise."  The
commandment is not "be in a circumcised state."  The commandment
is incumbent upon the parent (until the boy is 13) to do the
circumcision, not the doctor.

> RAL> Volumes have been written on this, but if you want a few
> RAL> examples, see the braisa brought down in the gemara in Kiddushin
> RAL> chaf-tes.
>     Of courses, volumes have been written about Brit-Millah; now
>     quote for us any passage in the halachah, (not just Rabbinic
>     opinion), that states it is so.

I did, see the Yoreh Deah section, which spells it out explicitly.

>    ...  I can't find any, and neither
>     could the Orthodox that were attempting to re-circumcise the
>     Ethiopian Jews,

This is, of course, slanderous and false, since they were already
circumcised, and "re-circumcision" is impossible.  I can't understand
why you continue to use this term after I've told you that it is
incorrect.

The 'hatafas dam bris' (drawing the drop of blood)
accomplishes 'bris milah' for the already-circumcised.
Whether or not this was necessary for them is the point of
contention re: Ethiopian Jews.

Please refrain from further response until you've looked up the
halacha I've cited.

Rob