From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: What's In A Name?
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:45:02 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


 RAL> From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
 RAL> Date: 13 Sep 92 21:32:31 GMT
 RAL> Organization: Johns Hopkins University
 RAL> Message-ID: <9209132131.AA13399@aplpy.jhuapl.edu>
 RAL> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
           -=> Quoting Robert A. Levene to Bill Carlson <=-
 RAL> Are you suggesting that "Church" isn't a valid English word
 RAL> for a Christian house of worship?
     For those who worship in a Gentile setting it is.
 
 RAL> Then it's OK for you to use Greek terms.  Then why your objection
 RAL> to "Church" for being derive from Greek?
     It is a Gentile Greek term; Synagogue is a Jewish/Judaic Greek
     term.  We worship in a Judaic, not a Gentile form.

 RAL> Because your *beliefs* are Christian, despite the form of your
 RAL> worship. 
     No.  Some of the Gentile Christians beliefs are of Messianic
     Judaism that they derived from us in the first place, not we from
     them.

 RAL> You can't choose a term which denotes a set of beliefs different
 RAL> from yours, unless you wish to deceive people into thinking that
 RAL> your beliefs correspond to the users of that term, which is
 RAL> what you do.
     That is why we qualify it with "Messianic"; (as do even Rabbinic
     modern Scholars and even anti-missionaries!)  Our beliefs, while
     not always like "Rabbinic Judiasm", are a form taken from Biblical
     1st century Judaism.  You may not agree with the forms it has
     taken, but it's roots are there, not in Rome.  What little roots
     Rome has left that are "Judaic", are from Yerushalayim too, not
     from Greece.  But they're first from ours; not ours from theirs.

 RAL> Sorry, but the idea of not having children during crises 
 RAL> goes against Judaism.  If we held that way, there
 RAL> wouldn't be any Jews left.
     I'm sure you are really sorry; but the contention is for those
     who have a specific calling from HaShem in this regard, not for
     the Nation of Eretz-Israel as a whole.  There were several
     Prophets who didn't marry, and obviously they had a "special
     calling".  Are you saying that because one may have an unusual
     calling from HaShem - that they are wrong?
 
 RAL> It only denotes "Messianic" according to "Messianic Jews,"
 RAL> not the rest, therefore the term can't represent all of those.
     No.  "Messianic" is also the title that the majority of Rabbinic
     Jews use when they define us.  If you don't like it, why don't
     you start a counter-movement.  You can start by writing Neusner
     and the Jews-for-judaism, and suggesting they re-print their anti-
     missionary writings wherever they uses this term.
 
 RAL> See Sukkah 52.  What is your source that "ben Yosef" isn't
 RAL> literal?
     Besides giving his title in Sukk. 52; - do you see anything that
     talks about Him being from the actual "line" of Yosef? I don't. If
     you really want something to think about, look up: Midrash Pesikta
     Rabbati {Piska 36:142}/Yalkut on Isaiah 60:1-2}, where Messiah is
     called both Messiah Ben-David, Messiah ben-Yosef, and Ephraim in
     the same account!  (Goes along way to show that at times, the
     two accounts of Messiah DO overlap.  - [Would almost make one
     think it could be talking about the SAME PERSON ...hum?! :-)

... 012 Think not that I am come to annul the Torah or the Prophets: 210      
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG