From: btiffany@pbs.org
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Very Old question for Rob Levene
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:20:24 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Re: Very Old question for Rob Levene
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:11:50 GMT

>BT: Bruce Tiffany
>RL: Rob Levene
> 
>RL>>Well?  Is it intellectually honest to call such a person
>[who accepts Roe v. Wade]
>>>"pro-life" or not?  Please answer.
> 
>> Is it honest to call a Messianic Jew a Rabbinic Jew?
> 
>No, and that's what you imply when you try group yourselves
>under a Jewish umbrella and adopt Rabbinically-mandated symbols
>and rituals.

For Jews to act Jewish and call themselves Jews is perfectly fine.  And
we certainly have nothing against those rabbinic traditions which have some
merit.  By the same token, we don't equate them with Torah.  We recognize
them for what they are: the traditions of men.  But why not retain the
*good* traditions?  Why not even charge some of them with new meanings based
on a better understanding of God and His Word?

There are likewise many good "church" traditions contributed by Godly
Gentiles.  Why not retain these, also?  The problem is when traditions --
particularly erroneous ones -- are elevated to the status of Torah, which
often happens after a couple of generations, both in Rabbinic Judaism and
in Christianity.

>> Next question:  Who cares?  Nobody's claiming that MJ's adhere to Rabbinism,
>> which essentially is the rejection of Yeshua in favor of a sort of
>> mystical humanistic system of works righteousness which runs contrary to
>> the Spirit of Torah.
> 
>You have a problem with works righteousness?  Well, says
>Jesus:
> 
>[...]
>#     and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize
>#     them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
>#     kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who
>#     is in heaven.... -Matthew 7:18-23

You don't understand what He's saying because you don't know Him, or what
He has said.  The works result from righteousness -- a tree is known by its
fruit (see 7:15-28) -- the works do not make one righteous.  Try reading
Yaakov (brother of Yeshua).

>>1) Rejection of Roe v. Wade *does* characterize the pro-life movement.
> 
>If Roe v. Wade were overturned on technical grounds and replaced with
>another piece of legislation permitting unrestricted abortion, then
>there would be no pro-life movement, right?

You're really going off the deep end, Rob, and I don't think you know what
"characterize" means (try looking it up; Webster's give 2 definitions, both
of which apply).  Now we're really getting far afield.  To bring us back,
I'll repost what I said a few months ago:

     The statements do not "prove Christianity",  or  that  Yeshua  is  the
     Messiah.   They  do  more  or less debunk the claims of RJ's that "the
     Jewish view" is that the scriptures cited are not messianic, and  that
     those   who   say   they   are   are   merely  spouting  a  "Christian
     interpretation".  Will you concede that saying these passages refer to
     the Messiah is a Jewish interpretation?

     Secondly, the fact that people  who  recognized  that  those  passages
     referred  to the Messiah still did not regard Yeshua to be the Messiah
     does not mean He is not the Messiah.  It just means they didn't  think
     so.   There  are many Jews who do think so:  they are called Messianic
     Jews, and theirs is a Jewish view.

     If we show that MJ's say the passages are messianic, you say it  means
     nothing, because they believe in Yeshua.  If we show that RJ's say the
     passages are messianic, you say it means nothing  because  they  don't
     believe in Yeshua.

     I do not know the individual reasons the  RJ  sources  cited  rejected
     Yeshua;  but  if they hadn't, they would not have been RJ sources, but
     MJ sources, which you summarily reject as "Christian", so in order  to
     prove  his  point,  Bill  *had*  to quote people who did *not* believe
     Yeshua is the Mashiach.  But I've seen plenty of  cases  where  people
     haven't  believed  in  Him  simply  because  they don't *want* to.  To
     people who have decided from the outset that they  are  not  going  to
     believe,  it  doesn't  really  make  any  difference what Scripture or
     anybody or anything else says.

     In any case, it's time for you to start playing with a full deck.   If
     an   MJ   says  a  passage  refers  to  Mashiach,  it's  a  "Christian
     interpretation",  part  of  a  "different  religion",  and   "Jewishly
     irrelevant".   If  an RJ says the same thing, it doesn't mean anything
     because RJ's don't believe Yeshua is the Messiah.

     But it *does* mean something.  It  means  MJ's  (and  MG's,  for  that
     matter)  aren't the only ones who see those passages as messianic.  So
     away with this irrelevant nonsense about  such  interpretations  being
     only  "Christian";  they are Jewish.  Besides, the issue of importance
     is not "Who says  Yeshua  is  the  Messiah?",  but:   "Is  Yeshua  the
     Messiah?"

     Now, if a Jew, starting with the thoroughly  Jewish  realization  that
     these  passages  refer  to  the  Mashiach,  comes to believe that this
     Mashiach is Yeshua, what makes that belief  *not*  Jewish?   The  mere
     fact that many Gentiles also happen to believe it?

>Finally, why "Pretty soon?"  Or else what?

As the pressure increases, you'll want Mashiach more and more.  This will get
interesting in the next few years!

>>>Use of the term Judaism to denote what I believe is more accurate,
>>>since placing Christianity within "Judaism" makes the
>>>term "Judaism" meaningless.
>>
>>Only if Judaism is characterized by rejection of Yeshua would it take away
>>the meaning of Judaism.  This is true for Rabbinic Judaism, not
>>Biblical Judaism.
> 
>Please step back and clarify your use of "Characterized."  I
>understand "Y is characterized by X" to mean "X is the *primary*
>characteristic of Y" not "X is *a* characteristic of Y."
> 
>It sounds like you're suggesting the latter rather than the former.

I'm suggesting both.  For some it is primary.  For others it is not.  In
either case, as has been pointed out, Rabbinism entails an auto-rejection
of Yeshua.

>>>I'm beginning to think that "Messianic Judaism[sic]" is characterized
>>>by a belief that Judaism is characterized by rejection of Jesus, since
>>>you continually assert it without proof.
>>
>>Others have offered ample proof in this forum.
> 
>Then put together a summary post on the topic.  Call it
>"Proof that Judaism today is built around rejecting Jesus" and
>put the highlights there.

I don't save these things.  But you've read it -- you just did it with your
eyes close and your fingers in your ears.

>>> How would you react to the following statement: "The only good
>>> Jew is a Christian Jew."  That's the impression I get from here.
>>
>> I'd say you're starting to sound like Tom Albrecht, and I'd disagree.
> 
>OK, let's rephrase.  The term "good" is too vague:
>    "The only authentic Jew is a Christian Jew."  Well?

I'd still say you sound like Tom Albrecht, and I'd still disagree.

How about this one: "The only authentic Jew is a Rabbinic Jew."  Well?

>>  ... This is
>> not a question of Christianity vs. Judaism and drawing a line of
>> distinction, but strictly a Jewish question of whether Yeshua is the
>> Messiah.
> 
>If the later is a "strictly a Jewish question" then why is it that all
>the "ayes" are Christian and all the "nays" are Jewish?  It's only
>"strictly Jewish" if you call Christianity a form of Judaism, in which
>case we would be discussing the former question of the line of distinction.

The "ayes" are Messianic, and the "nays" are Rabbinic.  So these two factions
within Judaism disagree about who Messiah is.  But only the Rabbinic faction
is saying you can't be Jewish unless you agree with them.

>>   The temporarily dominant Rabbinic sect denies that He is
>> [while claiming to speak for all of Judaism, as the feminists claim
>> to nspeak for all women; admittedly feminists are the minority, and RJ's
>> are still the majority among Jews], whereas Messianic Jews know
>> better.
> 
>You're "admittedly" clause is the whole reason why you can't use
>the umbrella term "Jews" to describe Christianity.

Are you actually trying to say that truth is decided by majority vote?

>>> To prove your assertion, you would have to demonstrate that
>>> rejection of Jesus is unique.  The reality is that Judaism
>>> rejects all the other religions, too.
>>
>> Again your falacious assumption that acceptance of Yeshua automatically
>> makes one a practitioner of a "different religion" -- the auto-rejection
>> Harvey was talking about.  But you are wrong, and no such "proof" is
>> required.  We're talking about RJ's rejecting the *Jewish* Messiah,
>> Yeshua.  Yeshua is not Southern Baptist.
> 
>Does acceptance of Jesus automatically make one a Christian?  If yes,
>then the follow-up is "Is Christianity a different religion from
>Judaism."

YOUR followup.  But you are wrong.  Biblical Christianity is not a different
religion from Biblical Judaism.  But it certainly is a different religion
from Rabbinic Judaism, and RJ's want us to believe that Rabbinic Judaism
is the only Judaism.

>So caucus with your cohorts and put together a compilation
>"Rejection of Jesus - how Rabbinic Judaism derives from this"
>and subject it to readers' scrutiny.

It all began with the rejection of the prophetic Spirit, increasingly
replacing it with hellenistic, humanistic reasoning derived more from
Greek philosophy than from the Word.  One only need read the Talmud to
see this is so.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
		Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried;
     /\		... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was
____/__\____	crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being
\  / || \  /	fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.  All of us
 \/--++--\/	like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own
 /\  ||  /\	way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on
/  \ || /  \	Him. ... By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will
----\--/----	justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.
     \/							-- Isaiah 53
		Bruce Tiffany
Newsgroups: alt.messianic