From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:34:14

In article <9209010427.AA01196@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.92Aug31200753@polaris.utu.fi>
> 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...

> > 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.

> > Is. 64:6: "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our 
> > righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and
> > like the wind our sins sweep us away."

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

What's the difference ?

> > The bloodless sin offerings were given together with the blood, thus it
> > was the blood in any case that made the atonement. Please give me a quote
> > from Tanach that says that there is atonement without a sacrifice.

> Atonement via bloodless sacrifice or no sacrifice at all?

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

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."

> > ...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 ?

> >> You have only charged that Jewish misunderstanding of Tanach led to
> >> rejecting Jesus.  You have not demonstrated that this rejection forms
> >> the basis of Judaism.  Prove or retract.
> >
> > No. The Jews understood Tanach very well during the time of Yeshua. Only
> > later did the Rabbis start changing the meaning of Tanach in order to 
> > "refute" Christianity. What do you want me to do ? Find some RJ Rabbi
> > who says this ? Ha! That's what you are waiting for, right ? 

> 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. 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. If he isn't (which is impossible since the Messiah
had to come before churban Beit haMikdash), Christianity is avodat zara.
And you said it's irrelevant whether Yeshua rose from the dead...
Anyway, here's something from Dan Juster's book _Jewish Roots_:
 
  "First of all, I have become convinced that Rabbinic Judaism is a
   more severe departure from Biblical faith than I had ever realized
   in my early days of Jewish recovery. Although there are good things
   to be found in Rabbinic Judaism, and true wisdom from the Rabbis need
   not be rejected, I believe that the heart essence of Rabbinic Judaism
   is the rejection of the prophetic Spirit that forms the essence of
   the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Covenant Scriptures. The atmosphere
   of the New Testament carried on the Spirit of the Hebrew Scriptures
   pervasively and profoundly. The essence of Rabbinism is a severe 
   departure, replacing revelation with human reason. 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. 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." 

> >>> What makes [Rashi, Rambam, Ramban etc.] them more capable of
> >>> knowing Hashem ?
> >>
> >> Their genius in Torah, and their hard work to develop it.
> >>

> > Where does Tanach say you have to be genius in Torah ?

> It doesn't.  You don't have to be a genius in medicine
> to be a doctor, but the best doctors have to be.

Invalid comparison.

> > Or that you have to study it ?

> 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*. 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. 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 and Prov. 8:32-36.

> > Deut. 6 says you have to OBEY and TEACH it to your children; no
> > mention about studying.

> Are you seriously suggesting that one can obey and teach Torah without
> studying it oneself?  That isn't diligent teaching.

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...

> > By developing Torah I guess you mean creating new
> > laws, like that men and women should have their own busses in public 
> > transport and different times to do shopping... Where in Tanach Hashem 
> > commands to create new laws ?

> Those are "fences" to prevent transgressing a law, not laws
> themselves.

Are there also punishments for breaking these "fences" ?

> > 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 ?

> > Do you know, that since Yeshua was without sin, he wasn't under the curse
> > set on Adam (or the other way around), i.e. it was "unnatural" for him to 
> > die in the first place. No-one couldn't even have killed him unless he 
> > voluntarily would have given his life.

> You're using idioms alien to Judaism, ...

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).

> > 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; Bill has given 
the explanation for Zech. 12:10 and I've explained the distortion made in
Ps. 22:17 (22:16). And I wonder why the person I addressed the question
sent me a "leave me alone" email...

> >>>   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
> 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).

> Rabban Gamliel:
> > .... followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you:
> > Leave these men alone ! Let them go ! For if their purpose or activity is
> > of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able
> > to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
> > (Acts 5:35-39)

> 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).

> >> ... why would worshipping a dead person be the 
> >> worst kind?  What about worshipping statues or sacrificing children?
> >
> > Yes, you make a good point. And what about pretending to be tzaddik by
> > one's own, without ichud with Hashem ? 

> Pretending to be a tzaddik is A Bad Thing, but it isn't avoda zara.

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, 2 Kings 3:27 and Gen. 22). 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 ?

> R

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

Yours, Laura
--
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans 
of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from ancient, from the days of eternity." - Micha 5:1

"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing 
love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.    - Yeshaya 54:10

met b'chet, CHAI B'Y'SHUA !