From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What's In A Name?
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:32:31 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Bill Carlson:

>RAL> "Churches" may be derived from Greek, but it's a valid English
>RAL> word as well.

>    For those who go to them, I'm sure it is.

Are you suggesting that "Church" isn't a valid English word
for a Christian house of worship?


> RAL> Kindly explain how, despite not being Greek, you ("Messianic Jews
> RAL> [sic]") nevertheless list yourselves under "Synagogues -
> RAL> Messianic?" "Synagogues" is also a transliteration from Greek.

>     Yes; but it is also a Judaic term.

Then it's OK for you to use Greek terms.  Then why your objection to
"Church" for being derive from Greek?

>      We are Jewish, and come out
>     of Synagogues, Shules, Congregations, Edot, and Temples.  We
>     continue in a Judaic form of worship, so why should we suddenly
>     want to call ourselves by a Genitle Christian term?

Because your *beliefs* are Christian, despite the form of your worship.


>     ...   Synagogue
>     is used in the Brit HaChadashah, so is Congregation, Edot.  So,
>     we can choose whatever term we want that our fore-fathers
>     used :-)

You can't choose a term which denotes a set of beliefs different
from yours, unless you wish to deceive people into thinking that
your beliefs correspond to the users of that term, which is
what you do.


> RAL> Such as the Pauline advocacy of celibacy versus the Torah's
> RAL> celebration of marriage and family?
>     Sha'ul says marriage is good.  The Qumran community used to be
>     spoken of as a non-marrying community too.  Now it is seen that
>     they indeed did marry, but discouraged it thinking times of
>     distress were coming, the time of Ya'akov's trouble.

Sorry, but the idea of not having children during crises 
goes against Judaism.  If we held that way, there
wouldn't be any Jews left.





> RAL> There is no condemnation of Jesus in the synagogue liturgy,

>     Well, besides the article of the heretic in the Daily Amidah that
>     many scholars felt was added because of the Messainic Jews;

Only *partially* because of them, and it doesn't mention Jesus,
just the followers of various heretical sects.

>  ... and
>     the fact that many/most Rabbi's require a statement against Jesus
>     in their making of a Ger Tzaddik, you are correct :-)

This is an *effect* of having them renounce their former religions.
Obviously if a Christian wishes to convert, he has to renounce
Jesus, just as a Muslim would have to renounce his belief
in Muhammad's prophecy.


> RAL> that "Judaism" denotes "Rabbinic Judaism."
>     And Ethiopian, and Kararim, and Messianic :-)

It only denotes "Messianic" according to "Messianic Jews,"
not the rest, therefore the term can't represent all of those.


> RAL> which refers to moshiach ben-Yosef.  That eliminates Jesus,
> RAL> at least if you believe the Christian Scripture's genealogies.
> RAL> According to Christian Scriptures, Jesus' lineage is traced to
> RAL> Judah, not Joseph.
>     The title of Messiah ben-Yosef in Rabbinic lit. is not one based
>     upon Messiah's lineage, but "type" of ministry. - Yosef suffered
>     in Egypt for Israel; so will the suffering Messiah suffer for
>     Israel. - Was how the "title" developed in Rabbinic sources.

See Sukkah 52.  What is your source that "ben Yosef" isn't literal?

> RAL> with whom do "Messianic Jews [sic]" share tenets: everyone else
> RAL> who calls themselves Jews, or those who call themselves
> RAL> Christians?

>     Both.  But the reason we share "tenets" with Gentile-Christianity,
>     is they sprung from 1st Century Messianic Judaism (Which came
>     first, the chicken or the egg :-)  So rather, it would be more
>     proper to say that they share certain tenets with us. 

It doesn't matter in this case which came first, what matters
is that the reality that "Christianity" describes both
of your religions, and that your tenets don't conflict.

Your tenets may contradict those of sub-groups like
Catholics, but that only means that you shouldn't
use the names of other sub-groups.  You can still use
the umbrella term.


>     ... And since
>     both Rabbinic and Messainic Judaism sprung out of Tanakh - we
>     share certain "tenets" with each other.

But unlike your relationship with Christianity, your tenets
*conflict* with those of Judaism, therefore it is less accurate
to group you under "Judaism" than "Christianity."

I contend that this loss of accuracy is intentional and
deceptive, in that your adoption of the label "Judaism" 
falsely implies compatibility with Judaism (which you call
"Rabbinic Judaism) and obscures your true compatibility
with Christianity.  Tom Albrecht has also rightly
taken you to task for this.  I hope he makes his associates
aware of the deceptively Orwellian language of the 
"Messianic Jews[sic]."

Rob