From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 20:02:49 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <LJMORLY.92Aug31200753@polaris.utu.fi>, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
|> 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.
|> 

We've been over this before.  By the above logic, you can't interpret
Is. 53 as meaning Jesus either, since the sacrifice for sins must be an animal.

I think this whole argument about the blood is a red herring.
Neither Jews nor Christians believe that the blood sacrifices
described in Leviticus are the *only* means to atonement.
If Christians did believe this, they would be sacrificing
bulls today.


|> 
|> Filthy rags... Without atonement the wrath of Hashem lies on you. Repentance
|> (tshuvah) doesn't atone without a sacrifice. 
|> 
But you don't believe this yourself, otherwise you'd be sacrificing
animals today.  We've discussed this before.  The animal sacrifices
were performed with regularity.  Nowhere in the Bible does it
say that you can replace multiple periodic sacrifices of animals
with a single unique sacrifice of a human.  The notion that
a human can be a sacrifice is a new (Christian) idea, not
a Jewish one.

The Bible is full of discussion about repentance through
acts of righteousness.  The idea that we are all damned
except through a gift given through faith is thoroughly
Christian.

|> > >> 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 ? 
|> 

We've been through this before, too.  There were Pharisees in the
time of Jesus --- your New Testament admits this and shows Jesus
arguing with them.  The "changes" you talk about had already
taken place at the time of Jesus.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598