From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Response to Rob Strom and Introduction
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:35:28 GMT
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Swarthmore College


I'm gonna edit out as much as I can from this ongoing conversation to keep
the volume down.  Y'all can look back at our previous messages for the full
picture.
> > Stuff said by me (Daniel Pedersen)
> stuff said by Laura (Laura)  :->
 Laura says sacrifices are an essential part of Judaism, I say it's not.
I said:
> >The fact that Judaism has
> >survived for so long _without sacrifices_ refutes your claim that it is
> >central  and essential.
Laura said:
> The only reason for that that sacrifices are not presently made is 
> that there is no temple. And I wouldn't count it to Judaism as a 
> religion that it has survived until now. (One could ask, has it? Is 
> Orthodox Judaism the same as Reform?) The reason why Jews have 
> preserved is that they are God's chosen people.
> 
> Deut.4:31 'For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not 
>      abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your 
>      forefathers, which He confirmed to them by oath.'(NIV)

so Judaism hasn't survived 'till now?  what am I, a spud?  The reason that
the Jews have survived for so long is that they learned to deal with the
absence of the Temple, and learned to evolve the tradition with the changing
times.  Look around you.  Judasim has definitely survived, although it isn't
(and no-one claims that it is) the same as the Judaism practiced at the time
of the Temple.  No, O.J. is not the same as R.J, but they are both Judaism
(and I'm not going to discuss the merits or lack thereof of either of them).

> 
> >The current system of repenting for sins...
> Are there a new system for each era?
> 
> >                                     ...is that of personal Teshuvah
> >(Atonement)
> Oops. You meant 'repentance', not 'atonement', right?

Oops, yourself.  I'm using the current usage of the term, as appears in the
phrase "Day of Atonement", but you can call it whatever you want.  Since I
grew up in Israel, the English definitions are moot as far as I am
concerned.  However, repenting for the sin is only part of the process of
Teshuvah.  Especially in cases of sins committed against another person, hte
person must ask forgiveness from the wronged party, and make amends.  that
is the payment for the sin.  

About the "current system" I mentioned:  Yes, when the era of the Temple
came to an end, Judasim had to deal with the fact that the Temple was no
longer available as a focus for ritual and observance.  So a new system of
practice had to be adopted, so there was a new system for atoning for sins,
among other things.

> >simple:  no sacrifices, no need for outside interference, no need for anyone
>                                                                        VVVVVV
> >else to pay for the sins.
>  VVVV
> Are you paying for your own sins? How?

I didn't say that I am "paying for my sins."  I was pointing out that
sacrifices are no longer needed for the Jewish process of having sins 
forgiven.  I was responding to the claim that it is consistent with Jewish
belief that we should accept that Jesus has paid for our sins, and that it
could be backed up by some refernce to the Tanach.  I was saying that in
Judaism, the concept of sin is a private one, and does not lend itself (if
you'll pardon the pun) to analogies with bank accounts where Jesus can
transfer others' sins to his account.

> Don't forget that the first three commandments (Deut. 5:6-15) deal with
> direct responcibility to God, not to other people. You can't get your
> sins against God forgiven without a sacrifice. What you say above, is 
> not based on Tanach.

That's true; it's not based _entirely_ upon the Tanach.  But Judasim is not
based entirely on the Tanach.  there are many layers of interpretations
(Mishnah, Gemarah, Shulchan 'Aruch, commentaries, Shu"t =questions and
answers, and so on and so forth. . .) that have aquired the weight of law,
and sometimes supersede or reinterpret the Tanach.  So you cannot say that
if something is not based on Tanach, then it is not Jewish.
> 
> >So what is your basis for concluding that sacrifices are essential to
> >Judaism?
> God. (See Numbers 28,29)

So what is your basis for concluding that sacrifices are essential to
Post-Temple Judaism?  Now that we've established that Judaism is not based
_only_ on the Tanach, but mainly on the established interpretation of Tanach.

**Discussion about "Son of God"
I said that david and Solomon were adopted sons of god.

> OK, but David and Shlomo didn't heal people or walk across Yam Kinneret
> like Jesus. (BTW you are admitting that Jesus is 'son of God'...)

You are putting words in my mouth.  I was just pointing out that just
because someone is referred to as "SoG" doesn't mean that he is, or claims
to be, the "biological" SoG.  The Children of Israel are referred to as the
Children of God; since Jesus was a Jew, that would make him a SoG.  What
matters is what you try and derive from this claim.

So David and Shlomo were not miracle workers and JC was.  so what?  There
were miracle workers in Palestine of the time aside from JC.  He was not
unique in that way, and that doesn't invest him with any divinity.
> >> 
> >> If you don't accept the deity of Jesus, then what is your definition 
> >> of messiah? Could any ordinary man be a messiah? Someone like Rabbi
> >> Menachem Mendel Schneerson, maybe? (Chabadnikim seriously think he is.)
> >> Could an ordinary man make all the Jews to obey the law of God? 
> >> (Christians believe Yeshua haMashiach will come back and take the 
> >> whole world under his reign, although some think he already is reigning
> >> the world.) And when this "messiah" dies when becoming old... That was
> >> your messianic age.
> 
> >Messiah comes from the Hebrew word "Mashiach" which comes from the Hebrew
> >root "To annoint".  Yes, anyone who is annointed becomes a Mashiach
> >according to the technical sense of the word, even an ordinary man.  All of
> >the Hebrew Kings were annointed, as was Jesus.  Being a Messiah does not
>                                   VVVVVVVVVVVVV 
> >impart any connotation of divinity upon the title-bearer, and does not
> >necessarily imply any supernatural powers.  In first century Palestine, the
> >Messiah was not seen as a miracle worker - that was not part of the job
> >description for a Messiah (although it didn't hurt. . .)
> 
> >So in Judaism, the Messiah is not a divine figure, or necessarily a prophet,
> >but rather someone who is annointed, and is a kingly figure - a warrior
> >king, perhaps, or a political leader figure (No I don't think that Shamir or
> >George Bush are the Messiah).

> (BTW you are admitting that Jesus is Messiah...)

Again you are putting words in my mouth.  Why is it _so_ important to you
that I admit that "Jesus is Messiah" or "Jesus is SoG"?  What do you gain
from it, especially when you twist my words around in a way that I did not
mean.  I find it annoying, and it does not lend credence to your argument.
I was merely pointing out that Messiah does not mean "divine" and by the
strict definition of being annointed, Jesus is _a_ Mashiach, since he was
annointed with oil of Nard.  But so were Saul, david, solomon, and many
others who were and were not kings.  Do I believe that Jesus will come to
redeem the world just because someone poured Nard oil on his head? No.  What
do you believe that it gives him?

> Daniel 7:13: & Zech. 9:9 deleted
> Guess where I found these verses? From 'Ma'ariv' 6.3.1992 from a story
> about chabadnikim, and these were the verses that Yossi Katz (CAF''TZADE), 
> the leader of Chabad in Zichron Ya'akov quoted when talking about
> the Messiah. 

So? what's your point here?  That the Chabadnikim have cornered the market
on definitions of the Messiah?  That they believe that JC is the Messiah?
Just because the Chabadnikim believe something, that doesn't mean that it is
a tenet of Jewish faith.

> 
> Also many songs are made of Messiah in present-day Israel. (And I'm 
> not talking only about those of Messianic Jews.) Nurit Galron has a 
> song, which refrain goes:
> 
> Ve'efshar lishmor et hab'tuliyut harigshit ad bo haMashiach
> VeHu yavo, ha'isha tihye isha, hagever gever
> 
> (In English: And it's possible to save the virginity (here:absense)
> of feelings until the Messiah comes. And (when) he comes, woman
> will be woman and man will be man.
> 
> So I'd say your opinions about the Messiah are just yours, not of
> all Jews. And they are not based on Tanach.

I was not giving my opinions about the Messiah, I was defining the biblical
term "Mashiach". And modern Judasim is not based soley onTanach.  
And "Ad Bo Hamashiach" (until the coming of the messiah) is a
figure of speech in modern, secular Israeli Hebrew, which basically means
"for a long time" or "forever and ever".  I never thought of Nurit Galron as
an authority on the messiah, although she is (debatably) the greatest
Israeli vocalist. [but that's a discussion for rec.music.israeli :->]

> 
> >> 
> >> I would like to know, how do you interpret Zechariah 12:10.
> >
> >I assume that you are referring to the " he whom they have pierced"
> >passage.  Before you say that this passage clearly refers to the crucificion
> >of Jesus, let me point out that in John (where the piercing story occurs) it
> >is a _Roman_ soldier who pierces JC with a spear, not any Jews.
> Come on, read John 19 more carefully, and check also Matt. 27:22-25,
> Mark 15:13-14 and Luke 23:20-25. And don't forget that not only the rib
> of Jesus, but also his hands and feet were pierced. (See Psalm 22:16 (NIV)
> 22:17 in Hebrew Tanach ;-)
> BTW, I didn't need to mention Jesus, you did. :-)

Come on, it was the Romans who crucified him.  Crucifixion was a Roman form
of execution of criminals, not a Jewish one.  The Jews would have had him
stoned, has they wanted to kill him.  Besides, next time you crucify someone
(:-), don't put the nails through his hands; they aren't strong enough to
support the weight of the body.  The nails were put through the forearms
(there is archaeological evidence for this).
** next topic **
> >It's not OK to _forget_ god, but if you don't believe in him, it's better to
> >follow the Law, even if you do not see the use, rather than forsake both God
> >and tradition.
> I stay in my position that those who don't believe in God,
> don't care his commandments. (They may have their owns instead.)

That is not necessarily true.  They can follow the laws without believeing
in their source.  The point I was making is that Judaism says that it is
better to follow the Law without belief rather than throw out everything.
Judasim does not say that everyone _will_ do so, but rather that they
_should_.
** about kibbutznikim and hatred **
> When Jews don't have a true relationship with the living God, which
> can only be achieved through Jesus, they can never forget and forgive
> Holocaust, Inquisition, Crusades etc. So, they have hatred in there
> hearts (I admit I overdid a bit when saying that there hearts are filled
> with it.) Hatred towards Germans, Arabs, English (from the time of the
> mandate)...you can choose. In general, hatred towards all others but 
> Jews, i.e. towards "Christians". Only God himself can take it away
> totally. And through Jesus He gives us love instead.

You will find that everyone hates someone.  Why should we forget the
Holocaust?  if we forget, then we cannot fight to ensure that it never
happens again.  Even so, I think you are overdoing this hate business just a
bit.  Not all Jews, or even all Israelis, hate all Germans, Arabs, British,
etc.  Christians do not have a monopoly on love.

Kibbutznikim, and other secular jews, and other observant jews for that
matter, are not filled with hate.  Some are, but many more are not.  As you
say:
> Kibbutznikim are also warm-hearted people and loyal friends.

You're generalizing again . . . :->

> --
> b'ahavat Adonai derech Yeshua haMashiach
> Laura Manninen
>                                                                  


-->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy

	dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
======================================================================
Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"

"Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]
======================================================================