From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: An Old Question For Robert A. Levene
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:06:13 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <LJMORLY.92Nov5110125@polaris.utu.fi>, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov02.193250.25838@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
     [The context of this discussion is Mike Brown's theory that modern Judiasm is revisionist]

[Laura]
|> > |> 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.
|> > |> 
|> 
[Rob S.]
|> > 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.
|> 
[Laura]
|> 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"...
|> 

You're not being responsive.  Maybe that's why I repeat the question
so many times.  

If the Pharisaic beliefs predated Jesus as you agree, that undercuts any claim
that they were invented as an antidote to Christianity.  You really
can't support (1), since the Pharisees already believed in good works.

And in your last paragraph, you don't support (2), since you fail
to show that the Pharisees rejected Jesus for any other reason
than the religious beliefs they had prior to Jesus.

And you don't defend (3) at all.  So while you may think
your defense of Mike B. has been stated many times, you
in fact fail to make the case.



[discussion of what's "standard-issue Christian dogma" deleted]

|> > |>      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.

I was looking for some reason that would make sense to
a Jew who hasn't already accepted your new religion.

|> 
|> >  Let's
|> > start with Paul's Epistles.  Why do you include them in the
|> > Bible?
|> 
|> Ask those who compiled Brit haChadasha.

Now you sound like a Catholic instead of a Protestant.
You believe that they are alive too?



|> 
|> > 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)
|> 

One point of procedure during these discussions.  I don't have a Bible
or other references (except UNIX documentation) here at work.  So
if you have a short quote, it would speed things up if you included
the text rather than the reference.  Remember you posted hundreds
of lines of Mike Brown's commentary at least twice, and Bruce posted
those same lines at least twice as well.  Would it hurt to post
three *verses* from Psalms?  I'll look those verses up tonight.

As to Isaiah 53, this has been posted many times on this newsgroup
and the word substitute does not appear at all.


|> 
|> > 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)
|> 

Even in your translation,
(a) the suffering servant isn't the guilt offering.  His *life* is the guilt offering.
(b) There is no indication that the s-s's "offering" substitutes for
    the temple sacrifices or for teshuvah and acts of righteousness.

|> > |>      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.

Then why did he bring Abraham's words into this dicussion?

|> 
|> > |>      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).

I don't know the writings of R. Moshe Cohen Ibn Crispin, et al.
A reference and a quote would help.
I am confused by your parenthetical statement, however.   Do you
claim that *King David* said that a human sacrifice or execution,
performed once, (1) atones for sin, and (2) substitutes for
the repetitive animal sacrifices????  If you claim this, please clarify.


|> 
|> > |>      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.
|> 
I doubt that he'd agree.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598