From: Natan Zahavi via levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Reply to Laura Manninen re: Zohar (not a repost)
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:26:05 GMT
Reply-To: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

[ I meant to post this one, rather than repost the one
  to which this post replies.  Sorry.  - RL]

Laura Manninen writes:

>> A few weeks back Ms. Manninen quoted Bruce Carlson's citation from the
>> so-called "Amsterdam Zohar." 
>
>Not true.

Oh really?  The headers and an excerpt from your message appears below:

   Newsgroups: alt.messianic
   From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
   Subject: Re: Jesus as Messiah, but not as God
   In-Reply-To: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu's message of Thu, 1 Oct 92 03:12:26 GMT
   Message-ID: <LJMORLY.92Oct4133130@polaris.utu.fi>
   Sender: news@polaris.utu.fi (Usenet News admin)
   Organization: University of Turku
   References: <rabjab.179.0@golem.ucsd.edu> <1992Sep30.000244.12290@serval.net.wsu.edu>
	   <LJMORLY.92Sep30102750@polaris.utu.fi>
	   <1992Oct1.031226.1302@serval.net.wsu.edu>
   Date: 4 Oct 92 13:31:30
   Lines: 28

   Wayne, your translation is a fake. (I checked the given verses with the
   original.) Something I'd like to comment on: the correct verb in Prov.
   8:22 is 'possessed', not 'created'. If God wouldn't have had the Wisdom,
   he couldn't have created anything.

   Here are some Rabbinic views on Ha-Shem (originally posted by Bill Carlson):

   BC>ZOHAR[TO DEUT. 6:4]: Hear O Israel:HaShem our G-d,HaShem is One. Why is
   BC>there  a need  of mentioning the Name of G-d three times in this verse?
   BC>The  First  HaShem is the Father above.The Second is the Stem of Jesse,
   BC>the Messiah Who is to come from the family of Jesse through  David. And
   BC>the Third One is the Way which is below  [meaning the  Holy Spirit  Who
   BC>shows us the way] and These Three are One.
   > ...
   - Laura
   --
   Rabbinic Judaism is a relationship with Rabbis,
   Messianic Judaism is a relationship with the Messiah Yeshua.

Sure looks like your post, no?  And that's not the Zohar; it's a fake.

>> It turned out that text was not the Zohar
>> at all but rather a doctored text produced in the 1700's by a follower
>> of the false messiah Shabbatai Zevi.
>
>Rubbish. When are you going to start refuting R. Tzvi Nassi's _The Great
>Mystery, How Can Three Be One ?_ ?

I invite all readers to look at the sources for themselves.  You'll see
the so-called "Amsterdam Zohar" is a fake written by a follower of
Shabbatai Zevi.

Isn't Nassi's book the source of all these deceptive quotes?  If so, as
they appear here, I will be happy to refute all that are quoted out of
context, mis-attributed, or mistranslated.

>>  Now she uses Carlson's quote of
>> Rabbi Eliyahu Vidash, attempting to use his words to support her
>> Christian messianic missionizing.  Note that she doesn't provide the
>> context of the quote nor does she provide adequate references so that
>> one could look it up for one's self.  These are common missionary
>> tactics.
>
>I got the quote from Bill Carlson and provided all the quotes he gave.
>Accusing me of deliberately avoiding to give references is shear 
>slandering, and even if I wouldn't have given any, one only need to 
>ask.

No excuse.  If you use a quote, you must be prepared to support it.

So perhaps Mr. Carlson should take over for you here and defend his
deceptive quote?

>> Rabbi Vidash lived in the late 1600's and was a student of the reknowned
>> Rabbi Moses Cordovero of Sefad.  Both teacher and student rejected all
>> claims that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.  Using his words to promote
>> such a belief goes completely against everything that he held sacred.
>> Moreover it is clear from Rabbi Vidash's writings that he would be
>> appalled at Ms. Manninen's use of his words to promote anti-Jewish
>> missionary activity.
>
>As far as I know R. Vidas was one of the last Rabbis to interpret Is 53
>as referring to the suffering Messiah (note: Messiah in general totally 
>apart from the Christian view), which was the accepted view before Rashi.

As I showed from Rabbi Vidash's own context, your Christian concept of
the suffering Messiah has nothing in common with his.  He would be
appalled at your use of his words to support Christian messianic
missionizing.  Personally, I just find it deceitful and typical of
evangelical Chritian missionaries.

>If you claim it's wrong to quote Rabbis who don't accept Yeshua as the
>Messiah, is it OK then to quote Rabbis who do, as Jewish sources ?

You can quote whomever you please.  But when you misquote or
misrepresent, expect to be called upon to defend your words.

>When you've made up your mind, could you provide the original ?

I've provided the source which is a heck of a lot better than what you
or Mr. Carlson provided with your deceptive posts.  Go do your own
research.

>Try first quoting Is 53:5 correctly. 
>
>       "But he was PIERCED (/killed; 'mecholal') for our transgressions,
>        he was crushed (/oppressed) for our iniquities; [the punishment
>        that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are 
>        healed]."

There's no reference in that verse to piercing.  The translation I
provided was from the Soncino edition (Soncino is a Jewish publishing
house).  Where's yours from?

Thank you.

--
Natan Zahavi
Newsgroups: alt.messianic