From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 13 Sep 92 12:06:20

Robert, I'm very sorry if you hate me, because I myself have nothing against
you, personally. Really ! I don't have time for nicky-picky arguments on
every detail, so I'll leave some issues aside. 

In article <9209111137.AA03544@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi writes:

> Laura's claim:
> >  Tanach also says that all men are sinners
> > (unlike RJ which says we've got a "Divine spark" inside) and that there

> >> Laura's support:
> >
> > Quoting Rav Riskin (Jerusalem Post the beginning of May 1992):
> > "For those who believe in Original Sin, the Eastern concept of God inside
> > us may seem revolutionary. But Judaism, with a long history of pursuing
> > the ineffitable, wants us to understand that perceiving God within, though
> > crucial, is only one step in a multifacated process."
> >
> > Throwing the original sin outta window...

> I don't know the context of R' Riskin's remarks, but I don't see
> what is has to do with your assertion that having a "Divine spark"
> is incompatible with committing sins.

Tha name of the article was 'Man, beast and God', and the basic message 
that we should strive to reach the "God within"(sic.), totally leaving
out the concept of original sin, i.e. that we are separated from God 
due to the original sin. BTW I didn't say "committing sins" but that 
we are sinners.

> >> > Jer. 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.
> >> > Who can understand it ?" 

> >> Poor translation aside, this doesn't mention sin, only inclination.
> >
> > It describes the sinfull nature we have, all of us, Rabbis included.

> I think we've dug down to a first-principle disagreement, hinging on
> whether or not having an inclination to sin is itself a sin, or
> evidence of a "sinful nature."  I claim that it's not.  Ethics 
> of the fathers teaches - "Who is strong?  He who subdues his
> inclination to transgress."  I believe Christianity teaches otherwise,
> or else former U.S. President Carter wouldn't have caught all the flak
> for his "lust in my heart" confession.

> Do you agree that this distinction is based on different first
> principles?

See my discussion with Rob Strom under the title "Paradise".

> RL> That's right, insincere righteous acts are ineffective.  This
> >> contrasts with the previous verses describing those who
> >> acted sincerely righteously.

> > What's the difference ?

> Sincere righteous acts are effective, unlike insincere ones.

(Ref. Is. 64) The distinction here isn't between 'sincere' and 'insincere'
righteous acts, but living either with or without God.

[stuff about atonement deleted]
> [[**  this is further discussed in the response to Mike Brown's essay **]]

You'll get an answer for that, don't worry. But if you say there are other
means for atonement than blood, you go against both Tanach and Talmud.

[...]
> >> > IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKES ATONEMENT FOR ONE'S LIFE.
[...]
> All it says is that with properly performed animal sacrifices of this
> sort, the blood is the atonement.  You've started a new religion when
> you make the leap from this to the belief that the blood of sacrifice
> through murder/suicide of a man-god is the only atonement for sin.

Is. 53, Ps. 40:7-9  You have it backwards. 

> > it; only some examples that can be understood in different ways. Anyway,
> > what would you say about Ps. 40:7-9 ?
[...]
> Psalm 40 doesn't make any reference to bodies.

Irrelevant.

> >> > ...Filthy rags... Without atonement the wrath of Hashem lies on you.
> >> > Repentance (tshuvah) doesn't atone without a sacrifice. 
> >
> >> Already dealt with above.
> >
> > The original question was: How do you think you'll get pass that angel
> > standing in front of the paradise with a flaming sword ? Nu ?

> I said, by presenting my merits.

Yes, I remember. However that doesn't help you, since God is holy and sin
separates man from God.

[...]

> > Now, if Yeshua is the Messiah,
> > it means that RJ'ism's tenets are taken out of thin air, and/or in order to
> > "refute" Christianity.

> But Hillel, Shammai and the others of that generation lived _before_
> the time you claim Jesus lived.  How could the tenets of Judaism
> have been formed _after_ Jesus's time?

The process away from the Bible was gradual. 

[...]

> > ... And you said it's irrelevant whether Yeshua rose from the dead...
> > Anyway, here's something from Dan Juster's book _Jewish Roots_:
> > [...]
> >   is the rejection of the prophetic Spirit that forms the essence of
> >   the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Covenant Scriptures.

> Not at all.  We're well aware of the tests a prospective prophet
> must pass to be validated, once prophecy returns.

Are you implying that Yeshua rose from the dead in some other day than
the third after his death ?

> >    ...  The atmosphere
> >   of the New Testament carried on the Spirit of the Hebrew Scriptures
> >   pervasively and profoundly.

> Such as the Pauline advocacy of celibacy versus the Torah's
> celebration of marriage and family?

1 Cor. 7:2: "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have
his own wife, and each woman her own husband."

The reason for "Pauline advocacy of celibacy": I Cor. 7:26:
"Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain
as you are."

> >   ... The essence of Rabbinism is a severe 
> >   departure, replacing revelation with human reason.

> The Temple with its daily miracles was standing at the time
> of the rabbis.

Only until 70 AD. 

> >    The rationalistic
> >   decisions of a majority of the rabbis using even hellenistic models
> >   of reasoning becomes authority in the Jewish community. This development
> >   preceded the coming of Yeshua (see M. Hengel, _Hellenism in Judaism_),
> >   and came to its full fruition when the first century Jewish religious
> >   leadership rejected the witness of Jewish Apostles (sh'lichim). This
> >   witness which gave irrefutable testimony to the resurrection of Jesus
> >   and which was confirmed with extraordinary signs and wonders, made the
> >   generation of that day without excuse.

> Deut. 13:2-5.  "Signs and wonders" aren't sufficient for validation.

So you admit that the Messiah must do signs and wonders ?
Yeshua said himself he is the Messiah.

[...]

(About the Son of God being the mediator:)
> > and Prov. 8:32-36.

> which talks about wisdom, the beginning of which is
> awe of G-d (Psalm 111).  

Read the whole chapter. (Although all translations make some mistakes, 
like using the word 'created', which doesn't exist in the original.)
The Wisdom, as well as the Truth, the Salvation and the Righteousness
(ref. Jer. 23:6) are in their basic essence God himself.

The best example of the Son as the mediator is Ps. 110; during the old
covenant the priests were the mediators (which I forgot while thinking
only about the Rabbis).

[...]

> >> > I once asked here, how do you deal 
> >> > with the parts of Tanach that say the Messiah must die (e.g. Is. 53, Ps. 
> >> > 22:17, Zech. 12:10) but got no replies on the net...
> >
> >> Because they don't say that the messiah must die.  
> >
> > Want me to explain them ? At least Is. 53 is clear enough;

> I disagree.

Buy yourself a new translation.

> >  Bill has given 
> > the explanation for Zech. 12:10

> which refers to moshiach ben-Yosef.  That eliminates Jesus,
> at least if you believe the Christian Scripture's genealogies.

So do you believe it refers to "Messiah be Yosef", then ?

> >  and I've explained the distortion made in Ps. 22:17 (22:16).

> another Psalm about Israel's future.

"Ka'aru yadai veraglai" = "They pierced my hands and my feet."

The clearest verse I forgot to mention is Dan. 9:26. 

> [...]
> >> So tell your "MJ" brethren to identify themselves publicly
> >> as a Christian movement (since they share tenets with other
> >> Christian groups) instead of a Jewish movement (since their
> >> tenets differ from all the Jewish groups.)
> >
> > So is Yeshua the Messiah or not ? You can't hide behind the "tenets"
> > anymore; it's either-or, take it or leave it. Hashem is Tri-Unity;
> > if you throw the Son outta window, you can't have the Father, nor the
> > Holy Spirit (Ruach haKodesh) either, as had the Israelis during the 
> > time of Tanach (Ps. 51:13/51:11, Is. 63:11).

> I have to thank you for helping me develop patience.  I didn't ask
> whether or not Jesus was the messiah (or if Jesus was God), I asked
> with whom do "Messianic Jews [sic]" share tenets: everyone else
> who calls themselves Jews, or those who call themselves Christians?

Hmmm... Here's the part you deleted: 
---
> >>>   And how would you define what
> >>> is Christianity, if not a belief in the Jewish Messiah, the real one ?
> >
> >>   'a belief that Jesus was/is the messiah.'
> >
> > I.e. almost exactly as I said. So ?

> So tell your "MJ" brethren to identify themselves publicly ...
---

IS YESHUA THE MESSIAH OR NOT ?

[...]

> > Maybe not directly, but anyway. BTW about sacrificing children... There
> > are three stories in Tanach where Hashem accepts a human sacrifice (Judges
> > 11:30-40,

> Even if you suggest that Jephtah literally killed his daughter,
> it doesn't say that G-d accepted her as a sacrifice.

Neither it says he didn't.

> > and Gen. 22). 

> Isaac *wasn't* sacrificed.

Almost.

> > 2 Kings 3:27 

> It doesn't say that G-d accepted the Moabite king's son as a
> sacrifice, only that the king killed him as a sacrifice.  Pagan
> sacrifices take place throughout the Torah.

But if God would have rejected it, Israel would have won the battle
instead of losing it.

[...]

> What do you mean "instead of Moab?"  Moab was laid waste.  I'm not
> sure why the "ketzef-gadol" came upon Israel, but my guess would
> be from 3:3 where it says that Israel had sinned.

See above.

> R

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

Yours, Laura
--
Loving the truth is loving God.