From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Date: 13 Sep 1992 15:48:27 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <LJMORLY.92Sep13120620@polaris.utu.fi> you write:

> Robert, I'm very sorry if you hate me,

I never said I hated you, I disagree with you.


>  because I myself have nothing against you, personally.

What you think about me personally is irrelevant. You
have a lot against my religion, and that's what matters.


>> I don't know the context of R' Riskin's remarks, but I don't see
>> what is has to do with your assertion that having a "Divine spark"
>> is incompatible with committing sins.
>
> Tha name of the article was 'Man, beast and God', and the basic message 
> that we should strive to reach the "God within"(sic.), totally leaving
> out the concept of original sin, i.e. that we are separated from God 
> due to the original sin. BTW I didn't say "committing sins" but that 
> we are sinners.

You still haven't said how having a "Divine spark" is
incompatible with being a sinner, according to Judaism.



>> I think we've dug down to a first-principle disagreement, hinging on
>> whether or not having an inclination to sin is itself a sin, or
>> evidence of a "sinful nature."  I claim that it's not.  Ethics 
>> of the fathers teaches - "Who is strong?  He who subdues his
>> inclination to transgress."  I believe Christianity teaches otherwise,
>> or else former U.S. President Carter wouldn't have caught all the flak
>> for his "lust in my heart" confession.
>
>> Do you agree that this distinction is based on different first
>> principles?

> See my discussion with Rob Strom under the title "Paradise".

You didn't discuss the concept of inclination to transgress.
You just repeated the same old proof texts.


[...]
> (Ref. Is. 64) The distinction here isn't between 'sincere' and 'insincere'
> righteous acts, but living either with or without God.

It doesn't mention living with or without G-d, it mentions
acts of righteousness in verses 4 and 5.

> [stuff about atonement deleted]
> You'll get an answer for that, don't worry.

OK

> But if you say there are other
> means for atonement than blood, you go against both Tanach and Talmud.

You keep saying that, but you never back it up.  I provided
both Tanach and Talmud passages that repentance gets atonement.

>[...]
>> >> > IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKES ATONEMENT FOR ONE'S LIFE.
>[...]
>> All it says is that with properly performed animal sacrifices of this
>> sort, the blood is the atonement.  You've started a new religion when
>> you make the leap from this to the belief that the blood of sacrifice
>> through murder/suicide of a man-god is the only atonement for sin.  
>
> Is. 53, Ps. 40:7-9  You have it backwards. 

You're not responding to what I write, you're waving the
same old passages in my face.  I gave the context
of both Lev. 17:11 and the Talmudic page which quotes it,
namely, doing proper animal sacrifices.

If I said "It is the electricity which makes the light bulb shine"
that doesn't rule out chemical sources of light, only that a 
light bulb without electricity is useless.


>> > it; only some examples that can be understood in different ways. Anyway,
>> > what would you say about Ps. 40:7-9 ?
>[...]
>> Psalm 40 doesn't make any reference to bodies.
>
> Irrelevant.

But your whole proof was based on "prepared a body for me" which
isn't in the Psalm.  You can't just dismiss that as irrelevant.


>> I said, by presenting my merits.
>
> Yes, I remember. However that doesn't help you, since God is holy and sin
> separates man from God.

That it _totally_ separates man from G-d is a Christian idea,
not a Jewish one.


>> But Hillel, Shammai and the others of that generation lived _before_
>> the time you claim Jesus lived.  How could the tenets of Judaism
>> have been formed _after_ Jesus's time?
>
> The process away from the Bible was gradual. 

Care to substantiate this charge?


>> Not at all.  We're well aware of the tests a prospective prophet
>> must pass to be validated, once prophecy returns.
>
> Are you implying that Yeshua rose from the dead in some other day than
> the third after his death ?

I'm not implying anything about Jesus, just that there are set
tests a would-be prophet must pass.  Kindly refrain from putting
words in my mouth.


>> Such as the Pauline advocacy of celibacy versus the Torah's
>> celebration of marriage and family?
>
> 1 Cor. 7:2: "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have
> his own wife, and each woman her own husband."
>
> The reason for "Pauline advocacy of celibacy": I Cor. 7:26:
> "Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain
> as you are."

I thought it was "better to marry than to burn" but maybe
it's a different verse.

This is also against Judaism.  King Hezekiah knew that his
future son (Menashe) would be a bad king, so he delayed having
children.  But he was told that the child's terrible future did not
release him from his obligation to have children.


>> >   ... The essence of Rabbinism is a severe 
>> >   departure, replacing revelation with human reason.
>
>> The Temple with its daily miracles was standing at the time
>> of the rabbis.
>
> Only until 70 AD. 

So?  Before that time, the Rabbis extensively discussed 
the laws concerning the Temple and sacrifices.  Where do you
get a "replacement" with human reason?


>> Deut. 13:2-5.  "Signs and wonders" aren't sufficient for validation.
>
> So you admit that the Messiah must do signs and wonders ?
> Yeshua said himself he is the Messiah.

I said no such thing, otherwise I would have said "... are
necessary but insufficient."

Signs and wonders are not among the requirements for a messiah.  Just
succeeding in what the messiah has to do is sufficient.  Prophets have
to be able to tell the future exactly.  Just doing signs and wonders
does not establish one as a prophet.


>(About the Son of God being the mediator:)
>> > and Prov. 8:32-36.
>
>> which talks about wisdom, the beginning of which is
>> awe of G-d (Psalm 111).  
>
> Read the whole chapter. (Although all translations make some mistakes, 
> like using the word 'created', which doesn't exist in the original.)
> The Wisdom, as well as the Truth, the Salvation and the Righteousness
> (ref. Jer. 23:6) are in their basic essence God himself.

Judaism doesn't reduce G-d to those things.  As for Jer. 23:6,
see the similar constructs in Ex. 17:15.

> The best example of the Son as the mediator is Ps. 110; during the old
> covenant the priests were the mediators (which I forgot while thinking
> only about the Rabbis).

The prayers were directed to G-d, not to the priests.


>>> Want me to explain them ? At least Is. 53 is clear enough;
>
>> I disagree.
>
> Buy yourself a new translation.

What translation?


>> >  Bill has given 
>> > the explanation for Zech. 12:10
>
>> which refers to moshiach ben-Yosef.  That eliminates Jesus,
>> at least if you believe the Christian Scripture's genealogies.
>
> So do you believe it refers to "Messiah be Yosef", then ?

Yes, that's what Zech. 12:10 refers to.


>> >  and I've explained the distortion made in Ps. 22:17 (22:16).
>
>> another Psalm about Israel's future.
>
> "Ka'aru yadai veraglai" = "They pierced my hands and my feet."
   ^^^^^^

It says "Ka'ari," "like a lion" continuing the
imagery of attacks by animals.  At least quote the right
Hebrew.


> The clearest verse I forgot to mention is Dan. 9:26. 

Dealt with exhaustively before.

>> whether or not Jesus was the messiah (or if Jesus was God), I asked
>> with whom do "Messianic Jews [sic]" share tenets: everyone else
>> who calls themselves Jews, or those who call themselves Christians?

The question stands.

> Hmmm... Here's the part you deleted: 
>---
>> >>>   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 ...
----

> IS YESHUA THE MESSIAH OR NOT ?

Why all the shouting?  Christians believe that Jesus
was the messiah, therefore "MJ's," who share that belief,
should identify themselves as Christians.



>> Even if you suggest that Jephtah literally killed his daughter,
>> it doesn't say that G-d accepted her as a sacrifice.
>
> Neither it says he didn't.

Then this isn't a proof that He did accept it.


>> > and Gen. 22). 
>
>> Isaac *wasn't* sacrificed.
>
> Almost.

That's the point.  He *wasn't* sacrificed.


>> > 2 Kings 3:27 
>
>> It doesn't say that G-d accepted the Moabite king's son as a
>> sacrifice, only that the king killed him as a sacrifice.  Pagan
>> sacrifices take place throughout the Torah.
>
> But if God would have rejected it, Israel would have won the battle
> instead of losing it.

Is this a new rhetorical device, "proof by speculation?"  


Rob











Newsgroups: alt.messianic