From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Date: 11 Sep 1992 06:38:44 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

(I thought I sent this out on 6 September, but maybe it didn't make
 it.  Here it is again, with minor emendations. )

----------------------

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.


>> > 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?

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.


>> Numbers 31:50 describes a bloodless offering.
>> I Kings 8:33-4 describes forgiveness of sin without any sacrifice.
>
> They both talk about people requesting to forgive sins,

I thought you were the literal Bible readers.  Look at the
text.  It says "to atone for their souls" in the same
words as Lev. 17:11.


[[**  this is further discussed in the response to Mike Brown's essay **]]


>  ...  not Hashem
> commanding it as a special way for atonement. If Hashem chooses to 
> forgive sins without blood, that's his business.
> But this is not the case e.g. in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:3-5). 

Red herring.  The text says "To Cain and his offering" not to Cain's
offering alone, so you can't prove inefficacy of bloodless offerings
based on this verse.  If someone said "cheeseburgers from X are not
kosher" you don't know if the meat was kosher or not, since the
statement would be true irrespective of the status of the meat.
However, I only need one example of a bloodless atonement to disprove
the same, which I provided.


>> I Kings 8:33-4 describes forgiveness of sin without any sacrifice.

(see 35-36 also)

> And after the second
> verse given, Shlomo offers tens of thousands of animals to Hashem. Why
> bother ?

Red herring.  They weren't offerings for atonement.  


>> > and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar;
>> > IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKES ATONEMENT FOR ONE'S LIFE.
>
>> But it doesn't say it is *only* the blood.
>
> That's the commandment, and you can't find any commandment that disqualifies

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.


> it; only some examples that can be understood in different ways. Anyway,
> what would you say about Ps. 40:7-9 ?

> Rav Sha'ul (Paul) quotes it (probably from LXX translation) in Hebrews
> 10:5-7.  Hebr.10:3-10: "But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of
> sins, because it is impossible for the blod of bulls and goats to take
> away sins. Therefore, when Messiah came into the world, he said:
>
>  "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for
>   me: with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
>   Then I said, 'Here I am -- it is written about me in the scroll --
>   I have come to do your will, O God.'"

Psalm 40 doesn't make any reference to bodies.


>> > ...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.


>> You have yet to prove that Judaism is *based* on these
>> allegedly changed understandings.  You have merely asserted that 
>> some changes took place.  
>
> Actually it is quite obvious. You've been stating all the time that the
> tenets of Judaism (RJ) and Christianity are different. Yet before 2000 
> years there was only one (1) correct faith.

Two correct faiths: (1) The seven laws for gentiles
                    (2) Judaism for Jews

> 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?


>  If he isn't (which is impossible since the Messiah
> had to come before churban Beit haMikdash), Christianity is avodat zara.

Why?  There are a number of opinions that hold that gentiles (but not
Jews) can believe in a mandatory intercessor to G-d (Hebrew:
'sheetfus'), and that this does not constitude avoda zara for them.


> ... 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.

>    ...  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?

>   ... 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.


>    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.


>   ... Although God continues to love
>   Israel and will call them to himself and will restore them to their
>   Biblical roots, Rabbinic Judaism is the child of the first century
>   pharisees who added the prayer of condemnation agaisnt Jewish believers
>   and Jesus to the synagogue liturgy. This all took place long before
>   the Church became paganized  and rejected its Jewish roots." 

There is no condemnation of Jesus in the synagogue liturgy, although
a general condemnation of heretics (Sadducees, Essenes, Boethusians,
Minim, etc.) was added to alert the Jews of the danger they presented.

[re: commandment to study Torah]
>> Deut. 4:9, Josh. 1:8.
>
> Both are given to *everyone* and Josh. 1:8 says that one has to study
> it *all*the*time*.

It says "day and night" not "all day and night."

>  Obviously this doesn't mean sitting in some yeshiva
> bench 10 years, but keeping the word of God in mind all the time,
> and studying it when possible, yet working and living normally.

That's a different verse "kovea ittim laTorah" which means
"set regular times for Torah study" and "set all your time 
according to the Torah."  But this doesn't negate the obligation
to study Torah.

>  Neither
> of the verses require some mediator between Hashem and man, who says
> what Hashem says, like in pagan religions. The mediator to God is
> his Son, as is written in Ps. 2 

You're forgetting the context of Ex. 4:22.

> and Prov. 8:32-36.

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


> Of course not ! But the question was, whether there have to be people
> (rabbis) who say others what to do. In the questions of law, well, Yeshua
> himself says to do as they say but not as they do, but in everything...

Would you rather learn what the law says from someone
who doesn't know it?

[...]
>> Those are "fences" to prevent transgressing a law, not laws
>> themselves.
>
> Are there also punishments for breaking these "fences" ?

It depends on the fence.  

>>> And where he says *people* are to develop *his* laws ?  
>
>> Deut. 30:11-14, but we went through that months ago. 
>
> Was it so that because the word is here, near us, we are free
> to do whatever we want to it ?

No, since the Torah is here, near us, and not in heaven, we
have to determine the halacha in particular cases.  

[...]
> I see... The original sin is alien to Judaism (RJ), as is the concept that
> the Messiah is Son of God (thus naturally without sin).

100% Correct on two counts: (1) That the Christian view of the messiah is
alien to Judaism and (2) that "Judaism" denotes "Rabbinic Judaism."

>> > 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.

>  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.

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

another Psalm about Israel's future.

>   And I wonder why the person I addressed the question
> sent me a "leave me alone" email...

Probably because not everyone has the patience or the resources to
deal with missionaries.  Do you realize how hard it is to make
you answer direct questions?

[...]
>> 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?

[...]
>> A very prudent approach.  But Jesus' messianic aspirations failed,
>> since Jesus didn't accomplish what the messiah must do.
>
> He did. Everything that is required from the suffering servant (Messiah 
> be Yosef).

According to Christian Scriptures, Jesus' lineage is traced to Judah,
not Joseph.


[...]
> 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.


> and Gen. 22). 

Isaac *wasn't* sacrificed.


> 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.

[[** Discussed in the response to Mike Brown's essay **]]


> ... Yeah, I know the Rabbis have developed
> stories that turn the meaning of these the other way around, but at least 
> the incident of the Moabite king is clear enough. Why did the wrath come
> upon Israel instead of Moab ?

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.

[[** Discussed in the Mike Brown response.  Rashi says something
     similar to this. **]]

[[** Others say that based on the previous verse, this was
     discussing the *Edomite* crown prince, and it was the
     king of Edom's wrath for Israel's inability to protect
     him sufficiently. **]]


R

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