From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby book
Date: 13 Sep 1992 14:09:06 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

LM: Laura Manninen:

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

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

Just because something is the truth doesn't mean that people
will understand it correctly.


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

RL> *Everything*
>
> Only if you forget God altogether.  

Ideas about G-d are part of the tenets.


>>   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.

Then distill what you perceive to be the word of G-d into
tenets.

>> 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.

Kindly prove your retract your accusation.


> Rambam had Aristotle as his model of forming the theology, not Tanach.

He tried to make an Aristotelian understanding of Tanach, as in
his _Guide to the Perplexed_.

>>   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, 

Deut 6:4.  Of course, Christians interpret this passage differently.


> 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.

Well, I say they don't tell it like you do.  Which makes
sense, since our religions are different.


>>   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)

It doesn't say that he saw G-d's body.

>  and that the Messiah, who 
> naturally has a body, is God. (e.g. Ps. 2, Ps. 110, Is. 9:5 (9:6)).

Only Christians understand those passages as you do.  Jews take
note of the imagery in Exodus 4:22.


>>   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. 

Yes, there are different levels of prophecy, of which Moses
reached the highest.  Christians and Muslims would disagree here.


>>   8  The entire Torah, written and oral, is given by G-d to man
>
> Impossible, since they partially contradict each other. 

You mean "since I [LM] view them as contradictory" which is a
view not shared by Jews.



>>  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.

Correct.  Prayer and repentance are also necessary.

Christians believe otherwise.


>>  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.

Kindly prove or retract your accusation.


>> 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 ? 

Then because Tom and I seem to agree on nomenclature, you should
stop using the term "Messianic Jews[sic]" and call yourself
"Messianics" or "Christians."  We must have truth, right?


>> 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.

Then do you disagree with Bill Carlson's opinion:

---
RAL> You have never proved that rejection of Jesus was the cause rather
RAL> than effect of the principles of Judaism.

BC>    I think you are reading more into what I said than I did.  I do not
BC>    conclude that the "starting" principles of Judaism were to reject
BC>    Y'shua.  That would be silly, as the starting premises of Judiasm
BC>    are the Tanakh, and earlier Rabbinic lit. that goes back before
BC>    even Y'shua's time {Hillel and Shammai}.  Messianic Judaism,
BC>    Rabbinic Judaism, and even Gentile expressions of Christianity
BC>    all sprung out of this same mainstream.  They all went somewhat
BC>    different directions to be sure.  Reform, Conservative,
-----


>> 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...

Why is it invalid?  (Perhaps some of your American colleagues
could fill you in on the abortion debate, or respond to the analogy.)

>> 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."
[...]

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

Because it's tenets are those of that belief system known as
"Christianity," not that belief system known as "Judaism."


> I retract of calling RJ'ism of today 'Judaism'.

I find it highly offensive that you wish to deny Jews
our identity as Jews, yet still claim to be our friends.

This type of revisionist use of language is very Orwellian, and
ignores the reality that Jews call our religion "Judaism."  Blurring
the meaning of words to create confusion and maintaining unique
definitions of common words are profoundly anti-intellectual acts
which all computer users and intellectuals should abhor.


> 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 ? 

Very deceptive quotation.  I meant "compatible with
the tenets of Christianity."


>> 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.

Half the issue is whether or not you are a correct
form of the Christian religion.  The other half
is whether or not you are a correct form of the
Jewish religion.

I think Harvey Smith answered the part about Christianity:

# 5. We relate to many different denominations and fellowships, some MJ
#   congregations are Baptist, some Pentecostal, some Charismatic, some
#   Lutheran etc..  Being an Evangelical is the covering that we best
#   relate to.


Comments?


Rob

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