From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What's In A Name?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 11:31:18 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


>           -=> Quoting Robert A. Levene to Bill Carlson <=-
> RAL> Are you suggesting that "Church" isn't a valid English word
> RAL> for a Christian house of worship?
>     For those who worship in a Gentile setting it is.

But earlier you objected to it on the basis:
----
#>>     *Why?  "Churches" is an English translit. of a Greek term.
#>>     We are not Greek.
#...
#>  For similar, (and more), reasons, we do not go by the
#>     term "Christian", but either M'shacheeym-Y'hudim, or else Y'hudim-
#>     Natzratim.  Why? - Simple, were Jewish, not Greek!
----

Hence, your objection was on the basis of it being a Greek word.
"Gentile setting" did not come up.  You can't change your
arguments mid-stream, or pretend you never made them.


> RAL> Then it's OK for you to use Greek terms.  Then why your objection
> RAL> to "Church" for being derive from Greek?
>     It is a Gentile Greek term; Synagogue is a Jewish/Judaic Greek
>     term.  We worship in a Judaic, not a Gentile form.

You still haven't justified your use of Greek terms, based
upon your original line of reasoning.



> RAL> Because your *beliefs* are Christian, despite the form of your
> RAL> worship. 
>     No.  Some of the Gentile Christians beliefs are of Messianic
>     Judaism that they derived from us in the first place, not we from
>     them.

I didn't ask who came from whom.  What matters is that your
beliefs are compatible, and a term now exists which encompasses
both of your fundamental beliefs.  Use it.

I will grant you this: if you can convince the overwhelming
majority of Christians to change their names to "Messianic Jews,"
thereby nullifying _both_ the terms "Christian" and "Jewish,"
then it would be fair by me, since "Jewish" would no longer imply
any particular set of beliefs, while today it does imply beliefs.


> RAL> You can't choose a term which denotes a set of beliefs different
> RAL> from yours, unless you wish to deceive people into thinking that
> RAL> your beliefs correspond to the users of that term, which is
> RAL> what you do.
>     That is why we qualify it with "Messianic"; (as do even Rabbinic

 [...]

Your qualification "Messianic" is meaningless if your umbrella
description, "Judaism" is incorrect.  Remove the umbrella term
and leave "Messianic" and "Messianics" and I would consider
you no worse than ordinary missionaries.

[...]
>     the Nation of Eretz-Israel as a whole.  There were several
>     Prophets who didn't marry, and obviously they had a "special
>     calling".  Are you saying that because one may have an unusual
>     calling from HaShem - that they are wrong?

Who said it was a special calling?  They chose not to marry,
they weren't ordered.


[Referring to the term "Judaism"]
 
> RAL> It only denotes "Messianic" according to "Messianic Jews,"
> RAL> not the rest, therefore the term can't represent all of those.
>
>     No.  "Messianic" is also the title that the majority of Rabbinic
>     Jews use when they define us. ...

You again misread my text.  "Judaism" does not denote "Messianic"
except to "Messianic Jews[sic]," therefore the term cannot logically
encompass both "Messianic Jews[sic]" and Jews.


[...] 
> RAL> See Sukkah 52.  What is your source that "ben Yosef" isn't
> RAL> literal?
>     Besides giving his title in Sukk. 52; - do you see anything that
>     talks about Him being from the actual "line" of Yosef? I don't.
 
"ben Yosef" = "descended from Yosef."  This is how it is understood.
If lineage of the messiah isn't important, why would the Christian
scripture go out of its way to give Jesus's lineage?


>  If
>     you really want something to think about, look up: Midrash Pesikta
>     Rabbati {Piska 36:142}/Yalkut on Isaiah 60:1-2}, where Messiah is
>     called both Messiah Ben-David, Messiah ben-Yosef, and Ephraim in
>     the same account!  (Goes along way to show that at times, the
>     two accounts of Messiah DO overlap.  - [Would almost make one
>     think it could be talking about the SAME PERSON ...hum?! :-)

More likely you've forgotten that Ephraim was Yosef's son,
therefore ben Ephraim = ben Yosef.  The passage you quote does
not describe the two messiahs as one person, although some
contend that moshiach ben Yosef will also play a role similar
to moshiach ben Dovid.

Rob