From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: An Old Question For Robert A. Levene
Organization: University of Turku
	<1992Nov02.193250.25838@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:01:25

In article <1992Nov02.193250.25838@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.92Nov2182103@polaris.utu.fi>, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
> |> In article <9211012311.AA09750@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> |> > In article <LJMORLY.92Nov1103800@polaris.utu.fi> you write:
> |> > >new <sigh> and doesn't prove anything. Besides, no one replied to 
> |> > >Mike Brown's article concerning Yeshua that I reposted last Monday, 
> |> 
> |> > I found nothing new or interesting in the article.  He repeated the
> |> > conspiracy theory that Judaism was created specifically as a rejection
> |>   *****************      *******************
> |> > of Jesus,
> |> 
> |> It's no "conspiracy theory" but a simple fact that the *Pharisaic* sect
> |> of Judaism rejected Yeshua and then formed the principles that are in
>                                   ^^^^
> |> contradiction with Messianic Judaism.
> |> 

> To substantiate this you have to show the sequence you stated above.
> That is, you have to show that:
> 1. Originally the Pharisees accepted your (Christian) definition
>    of Messiah.
> 2. They rejected Jesus as Messiah for some *other* reason.
> 3. They subsequently hid their real reason for rejecting
>    Jesus and manufactured new definitions of Messiah so
>    that they would be appear to be rejecting Jesus on
>    the basis of religious principles.

> I'd like to hear your evidence for (1), and your
> hypothesis for (2): the real reason the Pharisees had
> for rejecting Jesus.

Aw don't be so picky. You've been told the story many times already,
so what's the use of coming up with questions like the above ?

By the time of Yeshua, the system of works-righteousness has already
started to develop, and the "Oral Torah" was quite important (although
its compilation probably included many things that hadn't yet been
invented). And there were different opinions about it. R. Hillel accepted
a ger without the "Oral Torah", whereas R. Shammai didn't. 

The main sects in Judaism after Yeshua until 70 AD were Sadducees, Pharisees,
Essenes and Messianics (Nazarenes and Ebionites). Naturally only Messianics
considered Yeshua to be the Messiah, but among them were many "former"
Pharicees etc. After the temple was distroyed and after the Bar Kochba
revolt, only the Pharisaic sect survived; Messianics were excommunicated
both from the Jewish community and the arising Gentile church, so they
gradually almost ceased to exist.
 
The reason to reject Yeshua was and always is the same: people think they
don't need any Saviour from outside, but think they can trust they own
"good works"...

> |> > and tacked on standard-issue Christian dogma. 
> |> 
> |> Really ?
> |> 
> |> Check yourselves:

> [Laura posts *yet another* copy of Mike Brown's old
> posting.  Don't you think it's standard issue
> Christian dogma?]

> [I have deleted most of it.]

[Rob posts *yet another* series of his old questions and comments. 
I've deleted a couple of the most irrelevant.]

What's "standard issue Christian dogma", anyway ? Go and discuss with the 
professor of NT exegetics in the University of Helsinki, and you'll notice 
that his "dogma" is very near to yours.   :-] 

> |>      As for Messianic Judaism, the Judaism  that  believes  in  Yeshua  the
> |>      Messiah,  the  facts are as follows:  the sole authority for faith and
> |>      practice is the Bible,  consisting  of  the  Old  and  New  Covenants.
> |>      Rather  than  the  New  Covenant  being  a  late gentile book, all its
> |>      authors, except one, were Jews, Jews who lived in  the  days  *before*
> |>      the  second Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E.  Many other traditions and
> |>      customs added in the  following  centuries  by  the  church  have  had
> |>      absolutely  nothing to do with the Bible and therefore have absolutely
> |>      no connection with Messianic Judaism.  Although some people  may  call
> |>      them  "Biblical" or "Christian," they are totally devoid of scriptural
> |>      authority.

> Explain why any of these NT writings should be canonical for
> Jews.

Because they are the word of God.

>  Let's
> start with Paul's Epistles.  Why do you include them in the
> Bible?

Ask those who compiled Brit haChadasha.

> It's not enough to argue that Paul was Jewish, etc.
> Plenty of people have been Jewish without their writings
> being included in the Bible.

Yeah, like Dan ben Amuz  ;-)

> |>                                  Substitution
> |> 
> |>      There is no more important word in the Hebrew Bible than  this  if  we
> |>      are to understand God's holy love for us -- Substitution.
> ...
> |> 
> |>      For it was not the blood of bulls that God wanted for Himself; it  was
> |>      not  the  fat of rams that He desired.  It was not a people of outward
> |>      holiness that He sought; He did not require a new code that would keep
> |>      men  clean.   No.   He wanted a substitute, a righteous lamb who would
> |>      bear His people's sins.  He wanted  a  spotless  sacrifice  who  would
> |>      purify the people within.

> I asked Mike (via his net-conduit, Bruce Tiffany) to explain where he got this
> idea.  Where (in Jewish sources) does it say God wanted a substitute?

Do you consider Tanach to be a Jewish source ? Ps. 40:7-9  (Is.53)

> |>      Over and over again, a thousand times ten thousand, the offerings were
> |>      brought  before  the  altar.   And over and over again, in numbers too
> |>      great to count, their innocent blood was spilled.  And over  and  over
> |>      again, the message of God was crying out:  "A substitute must come!  A
> |>      substitute must come!"

> |>      The Jewish people of Yeshua's day were all looking for a Savior.  Some
> |>      hoped  for  a  mighty  military  leader,  while  others  looked  for a
> |>      deliverer from the sky.  Some looked for a holy priest,  while  others
> |>      looked  for  a teacher of righteousness.  Yet no one was looking for a
> |>      crucified Messiah.  And no one was looking for the Lamb of God.   They
> |>      had  forgotten that the righteous Servant of the LORD was *Himself* an
> |>      'asham -- an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). 

> Isaiah 53:10 "But it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he
> hath put him to grief: if his soul shall consider
> it a recompense for guilt, he shall see his seed,
> he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the
> Lord shall prosper in his hand".

Too bad if this is from your wife's bridal Bible, but I already told you
it's, say, unique. 

"VaHashem chafetz dak'o hecheli im tasim ASHAM nafsho yir'eh zera ya'arich
yamim v'chefetz Hashem b'yado yitzlach."

"Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though
the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and
prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand." (NIV)

> |>      And they had  forgotten
> |>      father Abraham's words that *God* would provide the lamb for the burnt
> |>      offering (Genesis 22:8).

> And Mike forgot that (1) Abraham was talking to Isaac about an event
> that was happening in the near future; (2) Jesus wasn't a lamb.

Mike didn't forget those things.

> |>      Our rabbis tell us that when Messiah comes, He will establish peace on
> |>      earth.  When the real Savior comes, He will remove us from sin.  BUT A
> |>      SAVIOR WHO TAKES US OUT OF SIN WITHOUT TAKING THE SIN  OUT  OF  US  IS
> |>      REALLY NO SAVIOR AT ALL.  AND A MESSIAH WHO ESTABLISHES PEACE ON EARTH
> |>      WITHOUT FIRST ESTABLISHING PEACE IN OUR HEARTS IS REALLY NO MESSIAH AT
> |>      ALL.


> |>      Messiah *had* to die.  Messiah *had* to take our place.  THERE WAS  NO
> |>      OTHER  WAY.  No other substitute was found.  No one else could pay the
> |>      price.  Nothing else could heal our wounds, for sin required death.
> |> 

> There is no Jewish evidence for this.  Nowhere in Jewish writings does
> it say that a human sacrifice or execution, performed once, (1) atones for sin,
> or (2) substitutes for the repetitive animal sacrifices.

Not true. These ideas aree found e.g. from the writings of R. Moshe Cohen Ibn
Crispin, R. Eliyah de Vidas and R. Moshe el Sheikh (that is, if you think
Melech David and Yeshaya haNavi suddenly stopped being Jewish).

> |>      The traditional Judaism of our day has its roots in  the  religion  of
> |>      the  Pharisees,  a  small  group  of Jews who banded together over two
> |>      thousand years ago.  These  were  the  men  who  would  not  eat  with
> |>      ceremonially  unwashed hands, the men so famous for their attention to
> |>      detail.  These were the men who even tithed on insignificant crops and
> |>      who studied every jot and tittle of God's Law.

> Your Jesus claimed every jot and tittle of God's Law was supposed
> to be preserved.  He was more Jewish than the Christians who followed him.

True. Yeshua is also the perfert standard for us how to live.

> |>      TRADITIONAL JUDAISM AS WE KNOW IT TODAY IS THE RELIGION OF  THOSE  WHO
> |>      REJECTED YESHUA.  It is a decided reaction *against* faith in Him.  It
> |>      is a system which has been  reconstructed  to  negate  and  counteract
> |>      Messiah's  real  claims.   That's  why traditional Jews throughout the
> |>      ages have stumbled over the person of Yeshua.  But in the beginning it
> |>      was not so.

> You need to demonstrate this reconstruction.

Hillel Markowitz did it already.

Yours, Laura
--
"They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and
strength.' All who have raged against him will come to him and
be put to shame. But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel
will be found righteous and will exult."       Yeshaya 45:24-25

"Achen Ata El mistater Elohei Israel Moshia."  Yeshaya 45:15