From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby book
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:47:16

In article <9209081832.AA14500@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> >> The different religions are based on contradictory understandings of
> >> what they believe G-d said.
> >
> > Then what is Tanach ???

> The written Torah, which the different religions understand in
> contradictory ways, each believing its way to be correct.

I wonder why it is understood in *contradictory* ways... It is the 
Word of God, and thus the different books it include can't be 
contradictory with each other. Truth is one.

> >> Neither could be called "a religion."  Judaism, which you call
> >  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> "Rabbinic Judaism" is the correct form of the Jewish religion,
> >                        VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV        
> >> unlike Karaism, Frankism, etc.  "Messianic Judaism" is a
> >> form of the Christian religion, based upon shared faith tenets,
> >> which Harvey Smith was kind enough to post for us.  It doesn't
> >> make sense for me to decide if it's "correct" or not, since
> >> I don't accept Christianity's faith tenets in the first place.

> > Once again, what have "tenets" to do with this ?

> *Everything*

Only if you forget God altogether.  

>   They are the criteria by which we classify, compare,
> and contrast systems of belief.  The purpose of intellectual
> discussion should be to break the disagreement down to first
> principles, as is done in the complicated Talmudic law
> discussions.  To learn how "A" differs from "B" you have to
> isolate the elements of "A" and "B" and see how they compare.

The Word of God is the criteria to which we compare *everything*.
If there is contradiction, the issue compared must be rejected.

> > Could you give the faith tenets of RJism and what are they based on.

> There is no carved-in-stone catechism of Jewish faith tenets, although
> various compendia have achieved near-universal acceptance.  Rabbi
> Aryeh Kaplan's _Handbook of Jewish Thought_ discusses the beliefs of
> Judaism in quite a bit of detail.  More than half the book is
> footnotes citing a wide range of sources for the principles he
> enumerates.

> A modern essayist suggests that the pillars of Judaism are 
>   a. Belief in G-d
>   b. Observance of Torah law
>   c. Jewish nationhood (identity as a people)

Sounds fine, although the third one tends to be based on the rejection 
of the Messiah Yeshua.

> One popular collection is the 13 principles of faith by Maimonides, of
> necessity, highly simplified.  (Translation based on the Artscroll
> prayerbook)

Rambam had Aristotle as his model of forming the theology, not Tanach.
Anyway, let's check whether these principles go along with Tanach or not.

>   1  G-d exists

Wov !

>   2  G-d is a complete and total unity

In Hebrew: yachid. Not true. There aren't a single verse in Tanach which
says so, whereas several that tell otherwise, e.g. Gen. 1:26, Deut. 4:7,
Prov. 30:4. Furthermore, a name for God, Elohim, is in plural; the 
singular 'Eloah' can be found e.g. from the book of Job.
 
>   3  G-d is not physical

God is spirit, yes, but there are verses in Tanach that imply 
that he has a body (e.g., Gen. 28:11-19) and that the Messiah, who 
naturally has a body, is God. (e.g. Ps. 2, Ps. 110, Is. 9:5 (9:6)).

>   4  G-d is eternal and transcends time

OK.

>   5  Prayers should be directed to G-d

The the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, yes.

>   6  G-d communicates with man

OK. Does he communicate with you ? With me he does.

>   7  Moses' level of prophecy was unique, of greater quality
>       than those who preceded and followed him

Are there different "levels" of prophesy ? Moshe was a servant of God
like many others. 

>   8  The entire Torah, written and oral, is given by G-d to man

Impossible, since they partially contradict each other. 

>   9  The Torah is unchangeable

OK.

>  10  G-d knows man's thoughts and deeds

Yes.

>  11  Reward and punishment; each deed is treated separately

Each deed is treated, yes, but since the punishment for many transgressions
of the Torah is death, they need to be atoned for; the person himself
can't atone by doing good deeds.

>  12  The messiah of the house of David will come, and will be fully human

In order to disqualify the real messiah, Yeshua, who came and is the Son
of God.

>  13  The dead will live again

Yes.

[The Nicene creed and Harwey's "tenets" deleted in order to save space.]

> I'm no Christian theologian, but I can't see how Harvey's
> tenets disagree with the Nicene creed of Christianity.

Hasn't it ever occured to you that when something fits to something
else, it's the truth ? 

> Both Harvey's tenets and the Nicene creed assert that
> Jesus was God, not just the messiah.  Such an assertion
> disagrees with the tenets of Judaism, which believes
> that the messiah will be fully human and that G-d cannot
> be a man.

Thus, Judaism isn't based on Tanach.

[some other points & pro-life stuff deleted.]

> It would make infinitely more sense and be infinitely more honest
> to say "We consider ourselves in favor of life, but since our positions
> differ from those who call themselves 'pro-life,' and our views are
> 100% in line with groups such as NARAL and NOW, we are affiliated with
> the pro-choice movement, and publicly call ourselves 'pro-choice.'"

Totally invalid comparison. And I don't know enough about American 
movements to get further into this...

> So would it make sense for "Messianic Judaism[sic]" to acknowledge
> their organizational and ideological ties to other Christian groups,
> and to recognize the divergence of their beliefs from Judaism by
> deciding to cease and desist from calling their beliefs and practices
> "Judaism."

> ( Although some liberal Jewish groups deny some of the tenets of
>   Judaism, none of these groups accept the tenets of other religions,
>   and so their use of the term "Judaism" isn't nearly as problematic
>   as that of Christian groups posing as Jewish groups. )

MJ'ism of today is about the same as Judaism 2000 years ago. So, why
not call it so ? I retract of calling RJ'ism of today 'Judaism'.

Quoting what you say in the beginning: 
"..."Messianic Judaism"... It doesn't make sence for me to decide if
it's correct or not, since I don't accept Christianity's faith tenets
in the first place."

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it ? 

> R

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

Yours, Laura

--
Loving the truth is loving God.