From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Organization: University of Turku
	<LJMORLY.92Aug31200753@polaris.utu.fi>
	<1992Sep04.200249.24904@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 5 Sep 92 11:37:53

Back from the vacation, I see.
 
In article <1992Sep04.200249.24904@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.92Aug31200753@polaris.utu.fi>, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
> |> In article <9208310418.AA20348@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> |> > In article <LJMORLY.92Aug30185025@polaris.utu.fi> writes:
> |> > >> The accusation on the table is that Judaism is characterized by or
> |> > >> based upon rejection of Jesus as messiah.
> |> > >
> |> > > But what do you say about the fact that the modern day Judaism (Rabbinic)
> |> > > ignores the parts which talk about the Messiah as being Son of God and
> |> > > his death as atonement for sins ?
> |> 
> |> > It doesn't ignore those parts, it understands them differently
> |> > than you do.  
> |> 
> |> Pick'n'choose. You can't interpret Is. 53 as meaning Am Israel, since the
> |> sacrifice for sins must be pure in itself. Other somewhat symbolic
> |> interpretations are _quite_ hard to explain, as we have seen in this forum
> |> before.
> |> 

> We've been over this before.

So what ? You got refuted, remember ?

>  By the above logic, you can't interpret
> Is. 53 as meaning Jesus either, since the sacrifice for sins must be an animal.

I guess you didn't read my latest response to RL. Anyway, here's Ps. 
40:7-8 (40:6-7):

  "Zevach umincha lo chafatzta (,) oznayim karita li (,) ola vachata'a 
   lo sha'alta. Az amarti (:) hine bati (,) bim'gilat sefer katuv alai.

  "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced
   (/opened; LXX: but a body you have prepared for me); burnt offerings
   and sin offerings you did not require. Then I said, "Here I am, I have
   come -- it is written about me in the scroll."

You said Is. 53 can't mean Jesus (Yeshua). Are you suggesting that Is. 53
is non-existent ?

> I think this whole argument about the blood is a red herring.
> Neither Jews nor Christians believe that the blood sacrifices
> described in Leviticus are the *only* means to atonement.
> If Christians did believe this, they would be sacrificing
> bulls today.

From where do you get the idea that Christians don't believe the blood
is the only thing that can atone ? Are you suggesting that Christians
should start sacrificing bulls, when the only permitted way to do it
is impossible ? The sacrifices continued normally until the destruction
of the temple. Give me one (1) verse from Tanach where Hashem says:
"Blood is not the only means to atonement."

> |> Filthy rags... Without atonement the wrath of Hashem lies on you. Repentance
> |> (tshuvah) doesn't atone without a sacrifice. 
> |> 
> But you don't believe this yourself, otherwise you'd be sacrificing
> animals today.

See above. 

>  We've discussed this before.

And you got refuted.

>  The animal sacrifices
> were performed with regularity.  Nowhere in the Bible does it
> say that you can replace multiple periodic sacrifices of animals
> with a single unique sacrifice of a human.

Is. 53, Ps. 40:7-8 (6-7)

>  The notion that
> a human can be a sacrifice is a new (Christian) idea, not
> a Jewish one.

Again, see my previous reply for RL.

> The Bible is full of discussion about repentance through
> acts of righteousness.

Give me an example.

>  The idea that we are all damned
> except through a gift given through faith is thoroughly
> Christian.

The punishment e.g. for breaking the Sabbath is death. (Ex. 31:14)

> |> > >> The reality is that rejection of Jesus as messiah follows from the
> |> > >> tenets of Judaism, not the other way around.  I.e., rejection
> |> > >> of Jesus is an effect of Judaism, not a cause.
> |> > >
> |> > > You have it backwards. The original, biblical Judaism was Tanach Judaism.
> |> > > If the rejection of Yeshua follows from the tenets of modern day RJ, that
> |> > > only prooves the fact that it isn't based on Tanach.
> |> 
> |> > 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 ? 
> |> 

> We've been through this before, too.  There were Pharisees in the
> time of Jesus --- your New Testament admits this and shows Jesus
> arguing with them.  The "changes" you talk about had already
> taken place at the time of Jesus.

So you admit that Rabbinic Judaism isn't based on Tanach ?

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

- 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 !