From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: An Old Question For Robert A. Levene
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 04:12:50 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <LJMORLY.92Nov14132428@polaris.utu.fi>, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov05.220613.27513@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> > 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:
|> > [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.

|> 
|> This is not a question of different religions but what is based on 
|> Tanach and what isn't, and according to Tanach Yeshua is the Messiah, 
|> so every belief system that doesn't acknowledge him as the Messiah and 
|> the Son of God is not based on Tanach. (And please stop sticking words 
|> into my mouth and then claiming I don't "defend" them.)
|> 

The lines labeled "Laura" are your words.  "Then" means "subsequently".

Now you're playing word-games when you say different religions
have nothing to do with it.   The different interpretations of
the Tanach are exactly what accounts for different religions.

The Tanach does not mention the name Yeshua at all --- at least
not *your* Yeshua.  So you are wrong to say that Tanach says
that "Yeshua" is the Messiah.  What is more correct is to
say that Christians accept a definition of Messiah according
to which Jesus fits the definition, and is also "Son of God".
(And that "Son of God" has a meaning beyond "human being" or even "king".)
Jews today accept a definition of Messiah according to which
Jesus doesn't fit the definition.

To argue *your* point, which mentions a specific temporal
sequence, you need to show that Jews used to use the
Christian definition, and *then* rejected Jesus (for some
reason), and *then* changed their definition of Messiah
to the one we use today.  Reread the lines labeled "Laura".
They're not my words; they're yours.

|> I've edited the parts of Mike Brown's article to make them easier to read.
|> 
|> MB> 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.
|>  
I don't see how this quote helps your point.  It actually
undermines it, since it shows other discrepancies between
Jewish and Christian beliefs beyond simply the definition
of who Messiah is.  For example, Jews don't believe that
the "sole authority for faith and practice is the Bible",
and they don't believe that the "New Covenant" is
authoritative at all, notwithstanding its having been
written mostly by Jews.  

|> > |> > 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.
|> 
|> ...because they *are* the word of God. Religions have nothing to do with 
|> this.

When one person says "X is the word of God" without proof,
and the other says "I don't believe X is the word of God",
that is *exactly* what a difference of religion is.

|> 
|> > |> >  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?
|> 
|> Just a Finnish way to say "How should I know ?" (not an attempt to promote
|> avodat zara). To reply to your former question anew, the compilers of Brit
|> haChadasha probably used same methods as the compilers of Tanach, i.e. 
|> included in material that was considered reliable and giving a correct 
|> picture of God.

Catholicism is avodat zara?????

Anyway, I was hoping you'd see from your own answer that the compilers
were human beings, and that you are trusting these human beings.
I trust a different set of human beings.  That's why we have two
separate religions.  How certain are you that these compilers
were knowledgeable enough in Jewish tradition to give a correct
*Jewish* picture of God?  This is important to your claim that
a tradition based on the NT is a Jewish tradition.



|> 
|> > |> > 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.
|> 
|> Wait a moment ! Where did you get that Is. 53:10 quote ? Last time you
|> said it was from your wife's bridal Bible...
|> 

It was.  You see, my wife's bridal Bible belongs to my wife.  It's at home.
Home is there, where her Bible is.  Work is here, where the computer is.
I look things up *there*, write them down, and then take my notes *here*.
Got it?

|> > ...  Would it hurt to post
|> > three *verses* from Psalms?  I'll look those verses up tonight.
|> 

I.e. at *home*, where my Bible and my wife's Bible, and my kids' Bible are.

|> Here's something I wrote to Rob Levene on 4 IX 1992. The quote within the
|> quote is Ps.40:7-9 (probably from the LXX translation).
|> 
|> 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.'"
|> 

OK.  I copied the translation in my Bible --- it's close:
"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire:  mine ears
hast thou opened:  burnt offering and sin offering hast thou
not required.  Then said I here I am -- in the volume of the
book it is written of me.  I delight to do Thy will, O my God;
Yea, thy law is written in my heart."

Regardless of which translation you use, remember what this
was about.  You offered this verse in answer to the question:
Where did it say God wanted a substitute?  Neither translation
says a thing about a substitute, so why did you offer this verse?

This verse says that God's delight is in our righteous
actions, not in our rituals.  A very Jewish message,
quite the opposite of what Christians teach.

|> First he said, "Sacrifices, and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings
|> you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law 
|> required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your
|> will. "He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, 
|> we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Yeshua the 
|> Messiah once for all."
|> 
|> > As to Isaiah 53, this has been posted many times on this newsgroup
|> > and the word substitute does not appear at all.
|> 
|> So what ?
|> 
So you offered this verse as well as answer to the question:
Where did it say God wanted a substitute?  If you say
it says so in such-and-such a place, I should expect
to see the word "substitute" or some synonym of
"substitute".  

|> > |> > 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.
|> 
|> So you admit that your translation (whereever you get it) is a fake.
|> 
I told you where I got it.  Why do you think I admit my translation is 
a fake?  You are the one changing the topic.  I switched to your
translation so that we could stop arguing about the translation
and get back to the point of whether either translation says
what you claim.  If his life (or "soul") is a guilt offering,
then his physical body isn't a substitute sacrifice.  By the
way, how do you translate "nafsho"?

|> > (b) There is no indication that the s-s's "offering" substitutes for
|> >     the temple sacrifices or for teshuvah and acts of righteousness.
|> 
|> There is a clear implication that it substitutes the sacrificial system;
|> as for tshuva/repentance -- it is still needed, and acts of righteousness
|> have nothing to do with atonement.

Which words contain the implication that sacrifices are no longer needed?

And to say that acts of righteousness have nothing to do with atonement
is to ignore the main theme of the books of the prophets.

|> 
|> MB> 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?
|> 
|> Can't you see ?
|> 
|> MB> 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.
|> 
No, I can't see, because the above paragraph doesn't say anything about
Abraham, so it doesn't explain why Mike Brown brought Abraham's words
into this discussion.

|> > |> 
|> > |> > 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.
|> 
|> Read Bill Carlson's postings.
|> 
Can you narrow this down *just a little?*

|> > 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.
|> 
|> Just a reference to Ps. 40:7-9. Ps. 110 says David's Lord is also a
|> priest forever, according to the order of Malki-Tzedek.    
|> 
Psalm 40:7-9 says nothing about human sacrifices.  Your reference
to Psalm 110 is obscure.  Are you claiming that "the order of Malki-Tzedek"
refers to human sacrifices?  If not, what does your answer have to
do with my question?



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