From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: My Heritage
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:40:03 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


 RAL> From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
 RAL> Date: 13 Sep 92 21:33:58 GMT
         -=> Quoting Robert A. Levene to Bill Carlson <=-
 RAL> But unlike your relationship with Christianity, your tenets
 RAL> *conflict* with those of Judaism, therefore it is less accurate
 RAL> to group you under "Judaism" than "Christianity."
     No.  We agree/disagree with both groups.  However, our foundations
     ARE first century AD/Ce Biblical Judaism, NOT Gentile
     Christianity.  M'shacheeym and Christianity mean aprox. the same
     thing, but they don't carry the same meaning in this day and age.
     Why should you be so bent out of shape, if we use a Hebrew term,
     since we are Jewish?  Me thinks thou dost protest too much!

 RAL> I contend that this loss of accuracy is intentional and
 RAL> deceptive, in that your adoption of the label "Judaism" 
 RAL> falsely implies compatibility with Judaism (which you call
 RAL> "Rabbinic Judaism) and obscures your true compatibility
 RAL> with Christianity.  Tom Albrecht has also rightly taken you to
 RAL> task ...
     What if I contend that certain forms of "Rabbinic Judaism" are not
     compatable with Biblical Judaism, (in particular Reform Judaism),
     and it is deceptive for them to label themselves "Judaic". -Same
     argument, why aren't you making that one?  Because it bugs you -
     that's why.  Our expression is more Judiac than anything else, so
     that is what we will continue to call ourselves, thank you very
     much.  We are not Rabbinic Judaism though, that is why we preface
     it with "Messianic".
          (Ever wonder, why if we are so "compatible" with
          "Christianity" [sic] as you proclaim, Tom Albrecht and his
          bunch, who represent ONE form of "Christianity" have so
          much problems with us?  Seem that if we agreed on all the
          "tenets", that you keep saying, there would be no argument.
          Ain't the case is it.  So..., we have to conclude then, that
          at least with Tom Albrect's "form" of Gentile "Christianity",
          there is some discord, nu?)
     Settle down Rob and take a deep breath.

 RAL> Bill correctly notes that the commandment is "circumcise" not
 RAL> "be circumcised."  The doctor in the hospital doesn't fulfill ...
     The doctors at the hospital "Circumcises" one.  Therefore, to use
     a 'southern' expression: 'You be circumcised' :-)

 RAL> Volumes have been written on this, but if you want a few
 RAL> examples, see the braisa brought down in the gemara in Kiddushin
 RAL> chaf-tes.
     Of courses, volumes have been written about Brit-Millah; now
     quote for us any passage in the halachah, (not just Rabbinic
     opinion), that states it is so.  I can't find any, and neither
     could the Orthodox that were attempting to re-circumcise the
     Ethiopian Jews, as far as I know.  So..., if you can, please
     quote it - I'm willing listen and be proved wrong.  (BTW..., I
     also have a couple of articles sent into some Rabbi's just to
     double check, but you know what?  I doubt they'll come up with
     anything solid either).  -It is a situation that just didn't exist
     that much apart from modern USA's galut.  I also asked if you
     could please limit your questions to one or two, and instead they
     seem to be increasing.  Before we continue on the Bris subject
     though - I'd like to see you quote the "halachah" specificly in
     regards to Jews who have underwent medical circumcision.  Next,
     I detect a little bit of hostility coming across rather strongly
     in your posts.  May I suggest, that this doesn't do a thing for
     your argument[s].

--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG