From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Date: 31 Aug 1992 23:28:20 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <LJMORLY.92Aug31200753@polaris.utu.fi>
ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi writes:

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

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

Poor translation aside, this doesn't mention sin, only inclination.


> 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."

That's right, insincere righteous acts are ineffective.  This
contrasts with the previous verses describing those who
acted sincerely righteously.


> 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.

Atonement via bloodless sacrifice or no sacrifice at all?

Numbers 31:50 describes a bloodless offering.
I Kings 8:33-4 describes forgiveness of sin without any sacrifice.


> 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.

But it doesn't say it is *only* the blood.


>  Therefore I say to
> the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among
> you eat blood."

I'll let the net Catholics respond to this one.


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

Already dealt with above.


>> 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 ? 

You have yet to prove that Judaism is *based* on these
allegedly changed understandings.  You have merely asserted that 
some changes took place.  



>>> What makes [Rashi, Rambam, Ramban etc.] 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 ?

It doesn't.  You don't have to be a genius in medicine
to be a doctor, but the best doctors have to be.


> Or that you have to study it ?

Deut. 4:9, Josh. 1:8.


> Deut. 6 says you have to OBEY and TEACH it to your children; no
> mention about studying.

Are you seriously suggesting that one can obey and teach Torah without
studying it oneself?  That isn't diligent teaching.


> 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 ?

Those are "fences" to prevent transgressing a law, not laws
themselves.

> And where he says *people* are to develop *his* laws ?  

Deut. 30:11-14, but we went through that months ago. 


> 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.

You're using idioms alien to Judaism, but if reposting your faith
tenets makes you feel good, you have certainly found the appropriate
forum in alt.messianic.


> 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...

Because they don't say that the messiah must die.  


>>>   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 ?

So tell your "MJ" brethren to identify themselves publicly
as a Christian movement (since they share tenets with other
Christian groups) instead of a Jewish movement (since their
tenets differ from all the Jewish groups.)


Rabban Gamliel:
> .... 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)

A very prudent approach.  But Jesus' messianic aspirations failed,
since Jesus didn't accomplish what the messiah must do.


>> ... 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 ? 

Pretending to be a tzaddik is A Bad Thing, but it isn't avoda zara.

R

-- 
--
Robert A. Levene     Internet: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
  "/  //  / /"         Bitnet:   RXL1@APLVM