| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1381.1 | questions re: .0 | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in JERUSALEM! | Mon Jan 31 1994 20:16 | 37 |
| Obviously, the document in .0 from the Jersualem Post is going to
contribute to ongoing debate. For me, it raises a number of questions I am
hoping the readers of this file will be willing to discuss. These are
serious, pointed, but not sarchastic questions that I realize are likely to
be provacative, but they are not at all meant to be offensive. My aim is to
have a rational discussion about this announcement.
1) Within the Lubavitcher movement, is there a feel for the percentage
of those who believe Schneerson is the Messiah as well as a the
percentage of those who do not believe Schneerson to be the Messiah?
2) Outside of the Lubavitcher movement, is there a feel for the same
percentages of those who do/don't believe him to be Messiah?
3) If it is true that Rabbi Schneerson was not born in Beit Lechem
(as I understand it from a Moment magazine a year or so ago, he has
not yet been to Israel itself), how is he able to be seen as a
possible candidate for Moshiach? It would seem that on the grounds
of Micah 5:2 alone, he can not be the Messiah. Has he addressed
this issue, and if so, how?
4) As you know, Jews (perhaps most notably the Beresfords) who
believe Yeshua (Jesus) to be the Messiah are being denied
citizenship in Israel as the Israeli government interprets their
belief that Messiah has come to mean that they now "belong to
another religion". In light of the annoucement in the Post, will
Israeli citizenship now also be denied to those Jews who believe
Schneerson to be the Messiah? Are such Jews now part of "another
religion"?
5) The notice in the Post commands the nations of the world to fulfill
the laws of the Noachide covenant. If many Gentiles begin to take
up Rabbi Schneerson's cause and trust him as the Messiah, would it
be wrong for them to address him by the Anglicized word "Christ"
(from the Greek "Christos") which refers to the Hebrew "Moshiach"?
Would it be wrong to address Rabbi Schneerson's followers (Jewish
or Gentile) then as "Christians"?
|
| 1381.2 | What's the reaction in Israel? | TLE::JBISHOP | | Tue Feb 01 1994 16:38 | 17 |
| Doesn't look like lots of debate is going on.
I suspect that readers here don't believe for one second
that Schneerson is the Messiah. It's hard for me to believe
that anyone would be convinced enough to pay for an
advertisement. But I'm glad to see the Jersualem Post
is willing to post such an ad rather than reject it.
Out of idle curiosity, I'd like to know whether this is
the first such announcement since Sabatai Zvi (or whatever
his name was) in the 1700s?
I know my first reaction was a feeling of pity for his evident
loss of his mental faculties, and for his followers' coming
great disappointment when he dies.
-John Bishop
|
| 1381.3 | | METSNY::francus | Reeves, Slasher & girly-mon football | Tue Feb 01 1994 18:56 | 17 |
| re: .1
There is a split within Lubavitch on this issue. They have no successor
lined up and a power struggle is going on between 2 groups. One group
includes Rabbi Krinsky who has been the Rebbe's secretary for many
years and does not want such statements made. The other faction is led
by the head of their educational division. There are accusations back and
forth on whether the Rebbe is getting appropriate treatment. Te group led
by Krinsky controls access, the other faction is complaining.
Outside of Lubavitch there are likely very very few Jews who subscribe
to the idea that the Lubavitch Rebbe is Moshiach.
As far as I know this is the first "widespread" Messianic movement since
Shabtai Tzvi.
|
| 1381.4 | My view | HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Feb 02 1994 16:26 | 34 |
| I agree with the views expressed in .2 and .3.
> 3) If it is true that Rabbi Schneerson was not born in Beit Lechem
^^^^^^^^^^^
"House of bread"? Can someone verify this?
> It would seem that on the grounds of Micah 5:2 alone, he can not be the Messiah.
It is easy reinterpret any biblical passage. If he rebuilds the Temple in
Jerusalem, I suspect this passage will not be an obstacle. Not that I give
any credence to his claim.
> ... will Israeli citizenship now also be denied to those Jews who believe
> Schneerson to be the Messiah?
I doubt it. The problems with Xtianity are:
1. The claim that Jesus was divine.
2. The cancellation of halacha.
3. The abandonment of the mitzvah system.
I very much doubt that Schneerson nor his followers plan to stop eating kosher
in the near future. If the Lubavitchers claim _divinity_ for their leader, then
possibly they have started a new religion. Messiahship is not "divinity".
> ...would it be wrong for them to address him by the Anglicized word "Christ"...
You are right in the sense that that is the meaning of the word. However, the
capital "C" (and the word itself) carry so much baggage that I doubt the term
would catch on.
Dave
|
| 1381.5 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in JERUSALEM! | Wed Feb 02 1994 19:05 | 105 |
| re: .4
Hi Dave,
>"House of bread"? Can someone verify this?
I understood the English word "Bethlehem" to refer to "Beit Lechem". I may
be wrong...
>It is easy reinterpret any biblical passage.
Yes it is. However, am I wrong in understanding Micah 5:2 to say that the
Messiah would indeed come from Bethlehem?
>> ... will Israeli citizenship now also be denied to those Jews who believe
>> Schneerson to be the Messiah?
>
>I doubt it. The problems with Xtianity are:
Before getting into these problems, I am hoping to discuss a train of thought
that supports the notion that Jews who believe Yeshua to be the Messiah are
still Jews - regardless of whether or not other Jews agree or disagree with
their belief that Messiah has come. I maintain that Yeshua didn't start
"Xtianity" as you call it, but that he claimed to be the *Jewish* Messiah
(a Promise made only to one people) and there were many who accepted that
claim then in its entirely Jewish context - as there are today. If 100
years from now, Schneerson's followers had deviated from Torah observance,
that wouldn't negate the fact that *today*, those who believe he is the
Messiah do so in a Jewish context.
> 1. The claim that Jesus was divine.
> 2. The cancellation of halacha.
> 3. The abandonment of the mitzvah system.
Items 2 and 3 are easier to address, so let's start there. First of all,
as in every other place in the world where Jews currently live, in Israel,
there is a spectrum of "Torah-observance" - all the way from indifference
to fundamentalism and everywhere inbetween. Jews who believe Yeshua to be
the Messiah fall into the same places on this spectrum as do Jews who do
not believe Messiah has come yet. Some are shomer Shabbat, some are not,
some keep kosher, some do not, etc. If citizenship in Israel is going to
be granted based on level of observance, who decides the appropriate level?
If it's strict observance of the Oral Torah, the population is going to
thin out quite a bit!
I also think it's important to note that neither Yeshua nor Sha'ul (Paul)
renounced Judaism or the Torah - in spite of continued contrary claims
made in this regard. Their words are clearly recorded on this very
matter in Matthew's Gospel, 5:17, and in Sha'ul's letter to the Romans,
3:31 (as well as in other areas). The question of whether *Gentiles* were
required to be Torah-observant is another issue entirely, and that was
settled as recorded in Acts chapter 15 (and not coincidentally, this issue
is also addressed in Schneerson's announcement).
What happend in the centuries since Yeshua and Sha'ul walked the planet is a
very important issue to study (especially with the incredible influx of
Gentiles who trusted Yeshua and the sad corruption of the movement as it
became the "approved religion" of the Roman Empire), but this doesn't change
the fact that they never renounced, cancelled, or abandoned Judaism or the
Torah - though it has indeed created "baggage", to which you refer in
your note.
>If the Lubavitchers claim _divinity_ for their leader, then
>possibly they have started a new religion. Messiahship is not "divinity".
Of course, this is a huge debate - you yourself say "possibly". In Raphael
Patai's work "The Messiah Texts", he cites many Biblical and other Jewish texts
where divinity is both implicitly and explicity applied to the Messiah. If
you haven't read this book, I'll be glad to cite some references for you.
>You are right in the sense that that is the meaning of the word. However, the
>capital "C" (and the word itself) carry so much baggage that I doubt the term
>would catch on.
In your view, is the baggage of the word and all it represents the key
issue in denying Messianic Jews citizenship? I don't deny there is a
tragic and shameful history associated with some of those who've called
themselves followers of Jesus throughout the centuries. Apologies seem
meaningless, but I am sincerely sorry for this - especially as I continue to
grow in my understanding of Yeshua in his own context without the anti-Semitic
baggage that's wrongly been applied to him.
I guess my point is that I don't believe Jews of any theological ilk should
be denied citizenship in Israel and the Schneerson announcement got me
thinking about the implications of denying citizenship to anyone. Those
who would seek to stand in Haman's (or Hitler's) place today are not going
to concern themselves with questions of Torah-observance, whether one
keeps kosher, whether one is shomer Shabbat, or whether one has any thoughts
one way or the other about Messiah, or whether one even believes in G-d or
not for that matter. In their minds, a Jew is a Jew and the only good Jew
is a dead one. This is a frightening reality rearing its head again all
over the world.
So there are many who don't take the Schneerson claim seriously, but
wouldn't deny those who do the right to live in the Land. Why can't it be
the same way for those who don't take Yeshua's claim seriously? Surely, if
Israel can make peace with the PLO, it shouldn't be too difficult to make
peace within its own camp - even if there is wide disagreement theologically.
Since when does everyone agree on everything?
I'd be interested to know your thoughts about this.
Thanks,
Steve
|
| 1381.6 | | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Feb 02 1994 20:50 | 4 |
| No, Micah 5:2's reference to "Bethlehem Ephrathah" refers to that
tribe which called Bethlehem home.
Ann B.
|
| 1381.7 | | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Feb 09 1994 18:22 | 104 |
| Re: 1381
>If 100
>years from now, Schneerson's followers had deviated from Torah observance,
>that wouldn't negate the fact that *today*, those who believe he is the
>Messiah do so in a Jewish context.
But if his followers were to continue to believe that he was the Messiah
after his death, they would indeed be professing a religion other than
Judaism by all accounts.
Our Messiah is one who acheives tangible results--a rebuilding of the
Temple in Jerusalem, a restoration of Israel to her land, a cessation
to warfare, the acceptance of G-d's reign by all mankind.
I am no Lubavitcher, but I have had many discussions with a
few of their scholars over the last number of years. What they all
stress is that the Rebbe in their eyes is the "potential" Messiah
(as per Yad Melachim 11:4), and of necessity not the "certain"
Messiah (ibid), since he has not rebuilt the Temple, nor caused
the ingathering of the exiles, etc. They of course do not like
to speculate about his demise (just as one does not to think about
what will be after his father dies), but it is clear that such an
eventuality would be an end to their messianic dreams vis-a-vis the Rebbe.
If not, not only would they be practicing a new religion at that
point, but it would indicate clearly *in retrospect* that all
along they had been professing a faith distinct from Judaism.
>> 1. The claim that Jesus was divine.
>> 2. The cancellation of halacha.
>> 3. The abandonment of the mitzvah system.
>Items 2 and 3 are easier to address, so let's start there. First of all,
>as in every other place in the world where Jews currently live, in Israel,
>there is a spectrum of "Torah-observance" - all the way from indifference
>to fundamentalism and everywhere inbetween. Jews who believe Yeshua to be
>the Messiah fall into the same places on this spectrum as do Jews who do
>not believe Messiah has come yet. Some are shomer Shabbat, some are not,
>some keep kosher, some do not, etc. If citizenship in Israel is going to
>be granted based on level of observance, who decides the appropriate level?
>If it's strict observance of the Oral Torah, the population is going to
>thin out quite a bit!
Christians have a hard time understanding Judaism's definition of
Jewishness, because they recognize as truly "Christian" only those
who both profess and practice the faith. Jewishness is not merely
a state of faith, but a "nationality" as well. Thus, one is a Jew
if he was born to a Jewish mother, regardless of his (or her) level
of mitzvah observance. One may also *become* Jewish by accepting the yoke
of the mitzvot. In *either case* if one neglects mitzvah observance,
or converts to another religion, he is simply a sinning Jew, not
a non-Jew.
Christianity (JfJ, Hebrew Christians...) are often engaged in
missionary activity (as are many on electronic networks such as
this) and who's main purpose in travelling to Israel is to further
this mission.
>I also think it's important to note that neither Yeshua nor Sha'ul (Paul)
>renounced Judaism or the Torah...
I don't really think this is relevant in a Jewish notesfile. Calling
Jesus or Paul by other names or using Jewish symbols or trappings
in churches, singing "hava nagila," and hosting Israeli folk-dancing
are well-known missionizing tricks used by JfJ and their off-shoots,
most of which are funded by various Protestant fundamentalist
denominations, such as the Southern Baptists and the Church of god.
>>If the Lubavitchers claim _divinity_ for their leader, then
>>possibly they have started a new religion. Messiahship is not "divinity".
>Of course, this is a huge debate - you yourself say "possibly". In Raphael
>Patai's work "The Messiah Texts", he cites many Biblical and other Jewish texts
>where divinity is both implicitly and explicity applied to the Messiah. If
>you haven't read this book, I'll be glad to cite some references for you.
I say it unequivocally--anyone who attributes divinity to anyone but
G-d is not professing Judaism. The "texts" cited are based on mistrans-
lation, misinterpretation and out-of-context quotations of Jewish
texts, as has been done since the time of Paul himself.
>>You are right in the sense that that is the meaning of the word. However, the
>>capital "C" (and the word itself) carry so much baggage that I doubt the term
>>would catch on.
>I guess my point is that I don't believe Jews of any theological ilk should
>be denied citizenship in Israel and the Schneerson announcement got me
>thinking about the implications of denying citizenship to anyone. Those
>who would seek to stand in Haman's (or Hitler's) place today are not going
>to concern themselves with questions of Torah-observance, whether one
>keeps kosher, whether one is shomer Shabbat, or whether one has any thoughts
>one way or the other about Messiah, or whether one even believes in G-d or
>not for that matter. In their minds, a Jew is a Jew and the only good Jew
>is a dead one. This is a frightening reality rearing its head again all
>over the world.
The bottom line is that followers of Jesus of any ilk are enjoined by
the Christian Bible to convert as many Jews as possible to their
religion, and Israel certainly doesn't have to go out of its way
to help facilitate such missionary activity.
Yehoshua
Israel's LOR is another matter. Ethnic Jews who have converted to
|
| 1381.8 | | MIMS::LESSER_M | Who invented liquid soap and why? | Wed Feb 09 1994 20:51 | 8 |
| History has recorded the tales of many who have claimed to be the
Messiah. These stories date back to the destruction of the first
Temple and the exile to Babalonia (sp). The most infamous in recent
history was indeed Sabatai Zvi, who claimed to be the Messiah, but
under threat of death by the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire "converted"
to Islam. Most of these4 messianic movements died with the claiment.
Mark
|
| 1381.9 | What does the rest of the world think? | TLE::JBISHOP | | Wed Feb 09 1994 21:04 | 4 |
| Can anyone report on public/media response to this advertisement,
if any? Is there follow-up other than in Bagels?
-John Bishop
|
| 1381.10 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in JERUSALEM! | Wed Feb 09 1994 22:58 | 9 |
| I remember reading about a group in California who announced something
similar about the Rebbe at least a year ago, maybe more. I'll have to
see if I can dig up the news clip. Also, there is an on-line
"magazine" of sorts out of Australia called "Moshiach" which leans
toward this position, but I'd have to look at back issues to see if the
editor has actually come out and said whether he thinks Schneerson is
the Messiah.
Steve
|
| 1381.11 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in JERUSALEM! | Thu Feb 10 1994 18:01 | 192 |
| re: 1381.7
Yehoshua,
>But if his followers were to continue to believe that he was the Messiah
>after his death, they would indeed be professing a religion other than
>Judaism by all accounts.
Last year, Moment Magazine devoted an issue to the varied thinking about
Messiah - and said that there are *still* a number of Jews (only a couple
hundred if I remember correctly) who are anticipating the return of
Shabbatai Z'vi. Are these people no longer Jews?
>Our Messiah is one who acheives tangible results--a rebuilding of the
>Temple in Jerusalem, a restoration of Israel to her land, a cessation
>to warfare, the acceptance of G-d's reign by all mankind.
That's what Z'vi's followers are awaiting...
>I am no Lubavitcher, but I have had many discussions with a
>few of their scholars over the last number of years. What they all
>stress is that the Rebbe in their eyes is the "potential" Messiah
>(as per Yad Melachim 11:4), and of necessity not the "certain"
>Messiah (ibid),
I am unfamiliar with "The World Center for Receiving Moshiach" (the group
whose name appears at the top of the full page announcement) or whether
they are affiliated with the Lubavitchers, but they certainly are claiming
more than the Rebbe's "potential" for the office; they have announced he
*is* King Messiah.
>...it is clear that such an eventuality (Schneerson's death, SM) would be
>an end to their messianic dreams vis-a-vis the Rebbe.
Then - why the early announcement in the international edition of the
Jerusalem Post? Moreover, is it possible that if he were to die soon, he
might be regarded by some as "Messiah ben Joseph" - who is expected to
preceed "Messiah ben David"?
>If not, not only would they be practicing a new religion at that
>point, but it would indicate clearly *in retrospect* that all
>along they had been professing a faith distinct from Judaism.
How do you come to that conclusion? Is it not Jewish to hope and long for
the Messiah? In your view, which of the following is more in line with
Biblical Jewish thinking:
"I believe Messiah has come."
"The whole 'messiah' thing is a fable - there never has been and
never will be a 'messiah'."
>Jewishness is not merely
>a state of faith, but a "nationality" as well. Thus, one is a Jew
>if he was born to a Jewish mother, regardless of his (or her) level
>of mitzvah observance. One may also *become* Jewish by accepting the yoke
>of the mitzvot. In *either case* if one neglects mitzvah observance,
>or converts to another religion, he is simply a sinning Jew, not
>a non-Jew.
I wish the Israeli government agreed with you. By your definition, a Jew
who believes Yeshua to be the Messiah is still a Jew (though you call
him a "sinning Jew"). Sinning Jew or not in your eyes, if he or she is a
Jew, why is he or she denied the right to live in the land as a Jewish
citizen? Other "sinning Jews" aren't denied citizenship for their
"transgression".
>Christianity (JfJ, Hebrew Christians...) are often engaged in
>missionary activity (as are many on electronic networks such as
>this) and who's main purpose in travelling to Israel is to further
>this mission.
No follower of Yeshua, Jewish or Gentile, would shy away from telling
others about his faith, this is true - but I believe your view of a Jewish
believer's "mission" to Israel is extreme.
You're Jewish. If you weren't born in the Land, your heart's desire was
probably to live in the Land because as a Jew, you've identified with it
somehow and have had a sense of belonging there. Is it so impossible for a
Messianic Jew to have those same desires? Is every move made by a
Messianic Jew suspect just because he believes Messiah has come?
For that matter, do *you* have a "mission" to ignite the land into your
particular view and practice of Judaism? Probably not. But even if you did,
so what? Some would listen to you, others wouldn't; there might be heated
debates - what's the big deal?
You want to talk about a "mission"? With the "Prepare for Moshiach"
campaign in Israel; posters, billboards, bumperstickers, bus advertisements,
radio announcements, etc., I'd say Schneerson's followers have done more
missionizing in Israel than Yeshua's followers have even dreamed of! Again
- some listen, some won't. Surely you're not suggesting that Israel isn't
able to handle theological debate...
Please understand, I'm not denying the baggage to which Dave referred
earlier. It's a valid point. However, baggage is just that...
>>I also think it's important to note that neither Yeshua nor Sha'ul (Paul)
>>renounced Judaism or the Torah...
>
>I don't really think this is relevant in a Jewish notesfile.
I disagree. *IF* either of these men renounced Judaism or the Torah for
their people, then there's a real argument for questioning the validity of
the claim. Just as if the Rebbe said, "Hey - I'm starting something new
here, Judaism is over and now we'll start this new thing called
Schneersonism", one would have to question his relevence to Judaism.
But writers like Samuel Levine ("You Take Jesus, I'll Take God") and others
of the "anti-missionary" bent have made false claims about this subject in
the name of "intellectual honesty" and the protection of Jews and Judaism.
Whether such claims are true or false (as I contend), I think they're highly
relevant in a Jewish notesfile (just as debunking the falsehoods in
"Protocols" would be relevant discussion).
>Calling Jesus or Paul by other names or using Jewish symbols or trappings
>in churches, singing "hava nagila," and hosting Israeli folk-dancing
>are well-known missionizing tricks used by JfJ and their off-shoots,
>most of which are funded by various Protestant fundamentalist
>denominations, such as the Southern Baptists and the Church of god.
More misconceptions.
As for names, when I was in grade school, I had a French teacher who told
me that my name in French would be "Etienne", but if I ever visited France,
they would call me "Steve", because that is that name given to me in my own
culture.
As for the claim of funding, I've seen the claims of Jews for Judaism to
this point, and let's just say I disagree. In point of fact, not all, but
many Gentile believers themselves are somewhat hostile toward and confused
about Jewish believers - they're not tripping over themselves to provide any
funding.
>I say it unequivocally--anyone who attributes divinity to anyone but
>G-d is not professing Judaism. The "texts" cited are based on mistrans-
>lation, misinterpretation and out-of-context quotations of Jewish
>texts, as has been done since the time of Paul himself.
Are you familiar with Raphael Patai or the book I mentioned? He is a Jewish
scholar. He does not believe Yeshua to be the Messiah. His book "The Messiah
Texts" is a collection of Jewish thought through the millenia (divergent
thoughts, not surprisingly) about Messiah as recorded in *Jewish* documents.
These documents are assorted books, songs, poems, Talmud, Zohar, Tanakh, etc.
I highly doubt you can accurately accuse Patai of poor scholarship (e.g,
mistranslation, misrepresentation, or spurious quotation), and frankly,
your subtle inference of the same against Sha'ul is equally objectionable.
>The bottom line is that followers of Jesus of any ilk are enjoined by
>the Christian Bible to convert as many Jews as possible to their
>religion, and Israel certainly doesn't have to go out of its way
>to help facilitate such missionary activity.
Yet it goes out of its way to help faciliate the missionary activity of the
Lubavitchers.
But again, so what? Some will no doubt believe the claims of his followers,
some with think they're nuts, some just won't care - but no one denies them
their right to live in the land. Why is this not the same for Jews who
think Yeshua is the Messiah?
It's no secret that there is great distrust among some toward those who
believe in Yeshua and again, I'm the first to admit that throughout the
centuries since he was here, much has been done, supposedly in his name, to
earn that distrust. But many people, Jews and Gentiles alike, are of late
recognizing the gross error of these past centuries and beginning to again
understand Yeshua in his own context. True intellectual honesty demands
viewing Yeshua as a Jew and understanding his teachings (whether or not one
agrees with them) from a Jewish perspective; not simply repeating the series
of fabrications, smokescreens and misinformation that Levine and others have
created to deflect the real issues.
You're obviously an intelligent person who can make up his own mind, as can
the rest of the Israeli population. You don't have to agree with these
people (whether they're followers of Yeshua, Schneerson, or anyone else).
What's wrong with having the discussion, and since when is everyone
expected to agree on every issue?
The announcement has me hoping that the Israeli government will get past
their own biases (perhaps influenced by minority opinion), and have some
compassion on their fellow Jews with whom they may have completely
divergent theological views. The signs of the times are ominous. I
believe that if Messianic Jewish citizenship is continued to be denied,
Messianic Jews will be easy prey for the *true* enemy of Israel; those
responsible for Jew-hatred in the world. I pray your government will not
let this happen.
Steve
ps - there are still some unanswered questions from .1 about which I'd very
much like to hear your views.
|
| 1381.12 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Feb 14 1994 22:02 | 3 |
| According to a Lubavitcher neighbor of mine, the current Rebbe is not the
first Lubavitcher Rebbe to be deemed the prospective moshiach by his
followers.
|
| 1381.13 | but announced as *the* Messiah? | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Mon Feb 14 1994 23:55 | 9 |
| Gerald,
Do you know (or can you ask your neighbor if you don't know) if any
other Lubavitcher Rebbe has had such an announcement published about
him, and how widespread a movement supported him?
Thanks,
Steve
|
| 1381.14 | Halachic status of jfj--Shmuel Golding | TAV02::JEREMY | | Tue Feb 15 1994 19:47 | 173 |
| Here is a full-length exposition of the above question:
In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a
Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism)
to change his religion. Even though a Jew undergoes the rites
of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces
the Jewish religion he remains - as far as the halakhah is
concerned - a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a). According to
Nahmanides this attitude derives from the fact that the
covenent between God and Israel was made "with him that
standeth here with us today before the Lord our God and also
with him that is not with us here today" (Deut 29.14;
Nahmanides ad loc.). For the born Jew, Judaism is not a matter
of choice and for the proselyte it ceases to be one once he
has converted. However, persons who did assume another
religion or formally renounced Judaism are treated differently
by Jewish law from Jews who, even while sinning, have not
taken such actions. These people are known in the Halakhah as
mumar (from the root meaning "to change"), or meshummad (from
the root meaning "to persecute or force abandonment of
faith"), or apikoros ("heretic"), or kofer ("denier"), or
poshe'a Yisrael ("rebellious Jew"). So even though a mumar
(and that's what a Jew for Jesus is) is still Jewish, the
question remains - "how Jewish"?
A Jew for Jesus cannot be a witness in a Jewish Court of Law
because the testimony of an apostate is considered to be
unreliable since he disavows the whole of Torah and is
therefore liable to be untruthful, even though he is still a
Jew from the point of view of his personal status.
The death of a Jew for Jesus cannot be mourned by his family.
no one sits shiva for him and he may only be buried near the
fence, the perimeter of a Jewish cemetery.
How Jewish is a Jew for Jesus when no other Jew is allowed to
eat his bread or drink his wine? How Jewish is a Jew for Jesus
when he is forbidden to be called up to the reading of the
Torah? How Jewish is he when he is not even allowed to handle
a Sefer Torah in a synagogue? How Jewish is he when we learn
that if he wrote a Torah Scroll, a mezuzah or tefillin these
items should be destroyed? The name of God written by a Jew
for Jesus has no sanctity. It can be erased and destroyed. How
Jewish is he when he cannot be counted into a minyan and pray
with fellow Jews?
A Jewish atheist has full rights in the synagogue, a Jew who
has intermarried has full rights, a forced convert to another
religion has full rights as we know from the Kol Nidra prayer,
all these remain with and are included in the totality of
Israel. But a Jew who gladly and willingly without force
embraces the Christ deity, or Allah or Krishna, such a one is
cut off from his people. To such we say, "You have no part in
Israel, no portion in Jacob".
Rambam in his work on Repentance states;
"The following have no portion in the World to Come, but are
cut off and perish, and for their wickedness and sinfulness
are condemned for ever and ever. Among those listed are those
who deny the Torah, those who cause a multitude to sin, and
those who leave the ways of the community.... He who says that
there is a ruling power but that it is vested in two or more
persons; he who says that there is one God, but that he is a
body and has form; likewise, he who renders worship to any one
besides Him, to serve as a mediator between the human being
and the Lord of the Universe.... Likewise, he who denies Torah
interpretations, that is, the Orah Law... he who says that the
Creator changed one commandment for another, and that this
Torah, although of divine origin, is now absolete, as the
Nazarenes and Moslems assert. Everyone belonging to any of
these classes is a denier of the Torah.
Only one privilege is left open to a Jew for Jesus. He can at
any time in life repent. He can return in deep contrition to
his heritage and to the God of his people. The returnee is
required to confess his sins and repent of them before three
rabbis. Some authorities require ritual immersion in a mikveh.
In answer to the question, "How Jewish is a Jew for Jesus"? we
have come to the conclusion that they are not very Jewish at
all. They are not the kind of Jews we would want in our
community. They are not the kind of Jews we would want our
young Jewish people to marry. They are not Jews who speak for
Israel and its religion.
Therefore, who are they? What are they? They are Jews who sold
their birthright for a bowl of Christian pottage.
They were ashamed to be Jewish so they looked for identity and
acceptance among the nations.
Another unsavory aspect of a Jewish apostate is how he quickly
joins the ranks of the anti-Semites. Prominent among the
apostates who deliberately set out to attack Judaism were
Nicholas Donin in France, Pablo Christiani, and Hieronymus de
Sancta Fide (Joshua Lorki) in Spain, and Petrus Nigri
(Schwartz) in Germany. These in the 13th to 15th centuries led
the attack on Judaism in the theological disputations,
preached against Judaism, and proposed coercive measures to
force Jews to adopt Christianity. Other converts who achieved
high rank in the church, like Pablo de santa Maria (Solomon
ha-Levi), who became archbishop of Burgos, did everything in
their power to combat Judaism. The most virulent
representative of anti-Jewish and anti Judaism was Abner of
Burgos, who initiated the intensified persecution of the Jews
in Christian Spain during the 14th and 15th centuries by
formulating a complete theory which claims the necessity for,
and justification of, such persecution. He advised the
abolition of jewish autonomy, arguing with vicious irony that
the Messiah would not come to the Jews "until the Jews possess
no authority, not even such petty authority as is exercised
over them by their rabbis and communal wardens, those coarse
creatures who lord it over the people like kings. They hold
vain promises to them in order to keep them under constant
control. Only with the elimination of these dignitaries and
judges and officers will salvation come to the masses"
(polemical tract, Baer, op. cit., 350). In the name of "many
discerning Jews," Abner blamed the Pope and Christian monarchs
for failing to oppress the Jews adequately. The conditions of
salvation for the Jews would come only "when many Jewish
communities are massacred and the particular generation of
Jews is thereby reduced in numbers, some Jews immediately
convert to the dominant Christian faith out of fear, and in
that way a handful are saved ... and the pain of
impoverishment will lead to an increase of shamelessness among
them, that is, they will no longer be ashamed to profess the
truth openly and convert to Christianity" (Baer, op. cit.,
353-4). By this means this apostate tried to reinforce his own
experience of Jewish weakness and convert it into a terrible
reality that would force many more Jews to relinquish their
faith.
Israel's Law of Return:
The case was conducted as follows with Judge Silberg answering
for the majority: The judge admitted that Brother Daniel was a
Jew according to halakah, but in rendering judgement stated
that the Law of Return is not based on halakhah but on the
Jewish national-historical consciousness and the ordindary
secular meaning of the term "Jew" as understood by Jews. After
referring to the "great psychological difficulty" facing the
court due to the deep sympathy and sense of obligation felt
for the petitioner, the spokesman for the majority stated: "I
have reached the conclusion that what Brother Daniel is asking
of us to do is to erase the historical and sanctified
significance of the term "Jew" and to deny all the spiritual
values for which our people were killed during various periods
in our dispersion. For us to comply with this request would
mean to dim the luster and darken the glory of the martyrs who
sanctified the Holy Name in the Middle Ages to the extent of
making them quite unrecognizable; it would make our history
lose its unbroken continuity and our people begin counting tis
days from the emancipation which followed the French
Revolution. A sacrifice such as this no one is entitled to ask
of us, even one so meritorius as the petitioner before this
court". The court stated that in order to be decalred a Jew
from the point of view of the modern Jewish secular conception
of Jewish nationality, adherence to the Jewish religion is not
essential. At the same time, apostay to Christianity removes
that person from his nationality (Jewish Encyc, Apostasy page
209-210).
In conclusion our answer to how Jewish is a Jew for Jesus is
very clear. He has no part in the Jewish community, he has no
part in the religion of Israel, and he has no place in the
State of Israel. Our advice to such people is that they
re-examine their tragic mistake, repent of their apostasy and
return to their people, their heritage and the God of our
fathers.
|
| 1381.15 | And on the other side? | TLE::JBISHOP | | Tue Feb 15 1994 21:28 | 17 |
| Hypothetical question:
Assume the real Messiah arrives, but fails to convince all Jews.
What would be the status of a Jew who did not believe in the
actual Messiah? Are they still Jews? How does the previous
analysis work in the "inverted" case?
More practical question:
What is "denying Torah"? The previous article seems to imply
that an agnostic Jew is still a Jew, or at least more so than
an atheist, and the atheist more than the apostate. There seems
to me to be no sharp breaks in the long transition from "I don't
understand this word" via "How can this be?" to "It's all baloney".
Where in this scale is denial?
-John Bishop
|
| 1381.16 | Reply to 1381.11 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Tue Feb 15 1994 22:06 | 136 |
| Steve writes:
>there are *still* a number of Jews (only a couple
>hundred if I remember correctly) who are anticipating the return of
>Shabbatai Z'vi. Are these people no longer Jews?
If they were born to Jewish mothers or were converted halachicly, yes.
Are they practicing Judaism? No. The "Frankist" sect which persisted
in believing in S.Z. after his demise sank into apostasy when they
proclaimed the divinity of their late leader.
>Then - why the early announcement in the international edition of the
>Jerusalem Post?
This question would have to be addressed to a member of that
organization.
>Moreover, is it possible that if he were to die soon, he
>might be regarded by some as "Messiah ben Joseph"
The sources regarding Mashiach ben Joseph (also referred to as "Mashiach
ben Ephraim" in rabbinic literature, and as "Mashiach d'atchalta" by
the Vilna Gaon as quoted in _Kol HaTor_) are somewhat cryptic. However,
this much is clear according to all:
1. He is responsible for starting the *physical* process of redemption,
i.e., the ingathering of the exiles, the defeat of Israel's enemies,
the reestablishment of Israel's kingship in her land.
Without G-d forbid undermining the Lubavitcher Rebbe's accomplishments,
the aforementioned are not among them. Furthermore, the movement does
not claim that he is of Ephraimic extraction, but of Davidic origin
(from the tribe of Judah). The two are entirely distinct.
Again, believing him to be the *potential* Messiah does not contradict
Jewish law; believing someone to be *the* Messiah when he is alive
and has not fulfilled the requirements has precedent, but has never
proven fruitful. Believing a *dead* person who has fulfilled none of the
prophesies is no longer Judaism. Believing a person--dead or alive--to be
divine is idolatrous.
> Sinning Jew or not in your eyes, if he or she is a
>Jew, why is he or she denied the right to live in the land as a Jewish
>citizen?
See the previous article by Shmuel Golding.
>For that matter, do *you* have a "mission" to ignite the land into your
>particular view and practice of Judaism? Probably not. But even if you did,
>so what? Some would listen to you, others wouldn't; there might be heated
>debates - what's the big deal?
I certainly do believe that Jews should be educated in their faith. I
believe as well in fighting against missionaries in every guise.
"Messianic Jews" are amongst the most insidious, because of their
pervasive use of out-and-out deception.
>I disagree. *IF* either of these men renounced Judaism or the Torah for
>their people, then there's a real argument for questioning the validity of
>the claim. Just as if the Rebbe said, "Hey - I'm starting something new
>here, Judaism is over and now we'll start this new thing called
>Schneersonism", one would have to question his relevence to Judaism.
In the case of Paul, he renounced belief in the Torah in many
of his letters (Acts 20:20-21, Romans 3:20-24, Gal 2:19ff.)
But this debate is indeed idiosyncratic in a Jewish notesfile, and
should be continued in "Religion" or "Christian" or some such.
>>Calling Jesus or Paul by other names or using Jewish symbols or trappings
>>in churches, singing "hava nagila," and hosting Israeli folk-dancing
>>are well-known missionizing tricks used by JfJ and their off-shoots,
>>most of which are funded by various Protestant fundamentalist
>>denominations, such as the Southern Baptists and the Church of god.
>More misconceptions.
Hardly. Such deception is the basic modus operandi of the Hebrew
Christian groups, as can be witnessed unfortunately by any attendee
at a jfj or "Messianic" gathering.
>As for the claim of funding, I've seen the claims of Jews for Judaism to
>this point, and let's just say I disagree. In point of fact, not all, but
>many Gentile believers themselves are somewhat hostile toward and confused
>about Jewish believers - they're not tripping over themselves to provide any
>funding.
It's really not a matter of opinion, The funding comes overwhelmingly
from denominations such as the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of G.
Much of the money is funneled through agencies such as the Messianic
Alliance and the International Christian Embassy.
>His book "The Messiah
>Texts" is a collection of Jewish thought through the millenia (divergent
>thoughts, not surprisingly) about Messiah as recorded in *Jewish* documents.
>These documents are assorted books, songs, poems, Talmud, Zohar, Tanakh,
>etc.
Please provide specific examples with citations.
> and frankly, your subtle inference of the same against Sha'ul is equally
>objectionable.
The CB is fraught with inconsistencies, mistranslations and
misquotations of the original Hebrew, bizaare out-of-context
"quotations" and sometimes out-and-out inventions of "verses." Some
examples from the book of Matthew alone: Mat. 1:14-17 vs. Luke
3:23-24 (the former lists 42 generations from Abraham to
Jesus, the latter enumerating 42); Mat. 1:22 ("Behold
a virgin"--a mistranslation of Is. 7:14); Mat. 2:14,15 ("When (Joseph)
arose, he took the young child and his mother and departed into Egypt...
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying, "Out
of Egypt have I called my son." One need but open the Hebrew Bible
[even in translation!] to see whom Hosea was actually referring to:
"When _Israel_ was young I did love him, and out of Egypt..."--
obviously referring to the Exodous); Mat 2:23 ("...to fulfill that which
was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene'..."--an
invention. No such pronouncement is made about the Messiah.)
>Yet it goes out of its way to help faciliate the missionary activity of
>the Lubavitchers.
Not exactly. The present gov't is at loggerheads with the Lubs and
is busy curtailing their activity wherever possible (the airport
and the military are two instances that come to mind).
But this is all a red-herring. The real issue is that Christian
missionaries, who believe that Jesus is the the divine incarnation
are by every measure professing an alien religion, and should be
hindered with all peaceful means from preying upon ignorant Jewish
souls.
Yehoshua
|
| 1381.17 | A question | SPEZKO::G_JOHNSON | Belonging to the L-RD; Is. 44:5 | Tue Feb 15 1994 22:53 | 50 |
| Hi,
I am puzzled. Yehoshua writes:
"...Believing a person--dead or alive--to be divine is idolatrous."
By divine, do you mean G-d appearing in the flesh? Is it so impossible to
believe that G-d, creator of all, physical and spiritual, could not appear in
the flesh?
Did not G-d appear to Abraham? In Gen. 18 we are told:
"And the L-RD appeared to Abraham...he looked up and saw three men..."
And in the rest of the chapter we are told of Abraham's conversation with "the
L-RD" concerning the birth of Isaac, the destruction of Sodom, etc.
Did not Jacob (Israel) encounter G-d in the flesh? When he wrestled all night
with the "man" who had appeared to him (ref. Genesis 34). It is written:
"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying 'It is because I saw G-d
face to face, and yet my life was spared.'"
Was Jacob being idolatrous to refer to this man as G-d? Does not the very
name "Israel" mean "He fights with G-d"?
Did not G-d appear corporeally to Moses on the Mountain? In Exodus 33:23
Moses quotes G-d saying to him:
"...then I will remove my hand and you will see my back, but my face
must not be seen."
If G-d did not appear in the flesh, how could He have hand or back or face?
Isaiah writes about King Messiah in Is. 9:
"He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, everlasting
father...", and "He will reign on David's throne...from that time
on and forever"
How can Messiah be a mere man and also be called "Mighty G-d"; if he is
to live forever?
So the main question I have is, Can G-d not appear in the flesh? And if he
can, then is it idolatrous to refer to that incarnation as G-d?
Shalom,
Greg...
|
| 1381.18 | JFJ in their own words | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Feb 16 1994 08:17 | 69 |
| Here is a letter published by The Jerusalem Post
by Israel Silverberg of the Jewish Institute of
Biblical Polemics:
Jews who believe that Jesus is their Messiah may call
themselves "Jews for Jesus," "Messianic Jews," "Believers," or
"Hebrew-Christians." Regardless of the name used, the debate
rages as to whether or not they have separated themselves from
the Jewish nation. They maintain that they are nothing more
than another branch of Judaism and should be treated as such
for the purposes of the Law of Return. On the other hand, the
Supreme Court of Israel and the vast majority of religious
authorities maintain that they have severed their ties with
the Jewish people.
Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to quote one
of their own spiritual leaders. In his book "Hebrew
Christianity: Its Theology, History, and Philosophy," Arnold
G. Fruchtenbaum makes the following statements:
"A Hebrew Christian is a Jew who believes that Jesus Christ is
his Messiah. By faith Hebrew Christians align themselves with
other believers in Christ whether Jews or Gentiles, but
nationally they identify themselves with Jews. A Hebrew
Christian therefore must acknowledge that he is both a Jew and
a Christian."
"Do Hebrew Christians believe differently from Gentile
Christians? Regarding the basic doctrines of the Christian
faith, the answer is no... While holding in common with
Gentile believers the basic tenets of the Christian faith,
Hebrew Christians, because of their background, will stress
particular aspects with which Gentile Christians would
generally agree but not emphasize."
"The Law of Moses has been annulled and we are now under a new
law. This new law is called the Law of Christ ... and the Law
of the Spirit ... This is a brand new law totally separate
from the Law of Moses."
"There are certain advantages for a Hebrew Christian or a
Hebrew Christian Fellowship in keeping some or all of the
feasts. First, they are good opportunities to share the faith
with unbelieving Jewish people, showing how the particular
feast points to the Messiahship of Christ. Secondly, they
present a good way of identifying ourselves with the Jewish
people."
"However, there is a danger that must be avoided. We cannot
celebrate these Holy Days in strict accordance with Judaism.
While we are free to copy those things from Judaism which do
not go against scripture, we are not free to use those which
do. Many of the services of Judaism cannot be used in their
entirety since there are sections which clearly go against the
teachings of the New Testament. The prayer book for Yom Kippur
and the Haggadah for Passover are examples of this. ... Unlike
Judaism, Hebrew Christianity cannot make the Day of Atonement
a day of seeking forgiveness of sins. Instead it should be a
memorial day of thanksgiving to God for having forgiven our
sins through the death of the Messiah."
As can be seen from the above quotations, Judaism has taken a
back seat to Christianity. Furthermore, Jewish ritual
trappings are kept solely for the purpose of making this
Christian belief more palatable for Jews and not because of a
belief in the inherent value of Judaism. Does any question
remain as to whether or not these people have separated
themselves from their fellow Jews? In reality, these people
practice a form of Christianity and not a form of Judaism.
|
| 1381.19 | pls. be patient - lots of material to absorb... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Feb 16 1994 16:59 | 8 |
| Yehoshua,
Thanks for all the postings. Other than .18 (which I didn't see before
I left last night), I brought your entries home to sort of "ingest"
them. I've written a series of replies which I will try to enter
tonight or tomorrow.
Steve
|
| 1381.20 | This discussion should probably move!! | MIMS::LESSER_M | Who invented liquid soap and why? | Wed Feb 16 1994 19:22 | 4 |
| I agree with many of the previous replys that much of this note is
"VERY" inappropriate for a Jewish notes file. Please take these to
another approate forun such as one of the christian or religion notes
files.
|
| 1381.21 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Feb 16 1994 19:57 | 19 |
| re: .20 and the call to move the discussion
I disagree, especially since it is Yehoshua who has brought in the
quotes from what is called the New Testament, he has made claims about
the truthfulness of the writers, and then says it's inappropriate for
this file. Those accusastions should not be left unanswered.
Moreover, this topic is based on an announcement in the International
edition of the Jerusalem Post which centers on the Messiah. As such, I
think it is wholly relevant to this file, as is the issue of who can or
can't live in Israel.
I don't mean to sound rude, but there is a next_unseen key for those
not interested in reading any of this.
In any event, I will leave this up to the moderators of the file. At a
minimum, I would like to address the open issues on the table that have
been brought up by Yehoshua's comments.
Steve
|
| 1381.22 | Anthropomorphism | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Feb 16 1994 21:19 | 100 |
| Re: .17
>By divine, do you mean G-d appearing in the flesh? Is it so impossible to
>believe that G-d, creator of all, physical and spiritual, could not appear in
>the flesh?
>
>Did not G-d appear to Abraham? In Gen. 18 we are told:
>
> "And the L-RD appeared to Abraham...he looked up and saw three men..."
I don't really see the problem; the L-rd indeed appeared to him
to visit him after his circumcision, as the Rabbis comment. Thereafter
"he lifted up his eyes and saw...three men..." Why would he need to
"lift up his eyes and see" what the first verse says he already saw
(if they are both referring to the L-rd)? Only someone who is convinced
that G-d is a corporeal trinity of sorts would read this strange
interpretation into this passage.
>And in the rest of the chapter we are told of Abraham's conversation with "the
>L-RD" concerning the birth of Isaac, the destruction of Sodom, etc.
This of course has nothing to do with the three angels who visited
him. The verses which mention G-d speaking to Abraham (18:13, 17, 20...)
are clearly distinct from those in which the angels speak.
>Did not Jacob (Israel) encounter G-d in the flesh? When he wrestled all night
>with the "man" who had appeared to him (ref. Genesis 34). It is written:
>
> "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying 'It is because I saw G-d
> face to face, and yet my life was spared.'"
>
>Was Jacob being idolatrous to refer to this man as G-d? Does not the very
>name "Israel" mean "He fights with G-d"?
Maimonides in his "Guide to the Perplexed" devotes a chapter (2:42) to
encounters with angels, including the two mentioned here. He says that
the encounters were actually visions. Obviously there is profound
symbolism in a vision of struggling with an angel, but if it were
merely a wrestling match it wouldn't merit much space in the Bible.
Can a man really be physically stronger than an angel? And if he
could, what on earth would that teach us? But if they are dreams
and visions (as are all prophesies save for those of Moses [cf. Mai.
Yes. HaTorah 7]) then the encounters are clearly spiritual and bear
a spiritual message, indeed, a divine message. As the Rabbis say,
"The Torah speaks in man's language," i.e. in anthropomorphisms.
>Did not G-d appear corporeally to Moses on the Mountain? In Exodus 33:23
>Moses quotes G-d saying to him:
>
> "...then I will remove my hand and you will see my back, but my face
> must not be seen."
>
>If G-d did not appear in the flesh, how could He have hand or back or face?
What is the context there? When Moses implores G-d (Ex. 33:18), "...show
me Your Glory," is he asking for a portrait? He desired with every fiber
in his his being to be imbued with G-d's spiritual light, to know His
ways. What was the "back" that G-d revealed? G-d answered that he could
not "know" G-d in his current human state, but nonetheless he revealed
to him a knowledge of His being that none had ever attained before and none
will ever know thereafter (see Yes. HaTorah 1:10).
>
>Isaiah writes about King Messiah in Is. 9:
>
> "He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, everlasting
> father...", and "He will reign on David's throne...from that time
> on and forever"
>
>How can Messiah be a mere man and also be called "Mighty G-d"; if he is
>to live forever?
Anyone who looks at the context sees that the child referred to is
none other than Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, king of Judah--*not* to the
future Messiah. "He will be called" is a mistranslation. The verse
reads, "and he called his name..." that is, Ahaz called his son by
the following name.
As to the name itself, there are several interpretations. If we
are to say that it is one long name for Hezekiah what is unusual
about it is only its length. Many, many names in Hebrew are compounds
of G-d's name, serving as a means of praising G-d and remembering
Him in our everyday interactions.
>
>So the main question I have is, Can G-d not appear in the flesh? And if he
>can, then is it idolatrous to refer to that incarnation as G-d?
Anthropomorphism is merely a tool to help us try to grasp what
is essentially ungraspable. As has been mentioned, all of the
occurences of prophesy listed were visions. Angels are messangers
of G-d; they themselves appear only in visions (see above). G-d
certainly has never appeared as a mortal, and it is therefore
pointless to speculate.
It is understandable that people wish to envision G-d in tangible
terms, because we can't grasp the greatness and the vastness that
He truly is. But this itself was the sin of the golden calf; this
is the root of idolatry.
Yehoshua
|
| 1381.23 | Introduction to next series of replies | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:42 | 24 |
| Since there has been some question as to whether this topic is worthy of
this notesfile, while at the same time, some accusations and challenges
have been made, I feel it is important to balance both of those concerns
and will attempt to do so in the following manner.
The following series of replies will each begin with a form-feed so that
no one will be forced to read my responses. Each reply will be identified
with a topic which should be informative enough for readers to choose
whether to read or not.
I do hope that minimally, Yehoshua will read and respond as I believe his
perception is clouded and in error on many of the matters he has brought into
this discussion.
I also hope that many others will respond with their views on any (or all)
the issues that have been brought up in this string. I do realize the
whole discussion has the potential to be heated. Again, if the moderators
feel this topic is unworthy, that's their decision and they can deal with
that as they see fit.
Steve
PS - no doubt there are many typo's in the following series of replies;
sorry.
|
| 1381.24 | 1 of 3 re: 1381.14 | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:51 | 112 |
|
Part 1 of 3 in response to 1381.14
Yehoshua,
Thanks for the posting. Very interesting reading.
Who is Shmuel Golding, BTW? Is he a Rabbi? Part of Jews for Judaism?
I have a number of observations, comments and questions based on Mr. Golding's
viewpoint.
Frequently in Mr. Golding's writing, he refers to "Jews for Jesus". I
think it's important to point out that not every Jewish follower of Yeshua
belongs to the organization "Jews for Jesus" (an organizational name which
itself carries some baggage, perhaps some of it rightly so). J4J is but one
of many organizations of Jewish and Gentile followers of Yeshua who are
continually seeking to know Yeshua in his own context.
> However, persons who did assume another
> religion or formally renounced Judaism are treated differently
> by Jewish law from Jews who, even while sinning, have not
> taken such actions.
Which brings up the question of whether Schneerson's followers are
"assuming another religion" or "formally renouncing Judaism". One might
immediately say, "of course they aren't" and that is *precisely* the way
in which the first followers of Yeshua were understood.
It is clear from Mr. Golding's assessment that the centuries replete with
anti-Semitism; some of which was ignited by "christians", has greatly
influenced thinking on this matter (the "baggage" to which Dave
referred...).
Again, I suggest that if Schneerson's followers were to grow in number,
and a large number of Gentiles begin to take up his cause (so large in fact
that within a century, Gentile followers of Schneerson began to outnumber
his Jewish followers), we could revisit this argument in a few centuries and
find Mr. Golding's modern equivalent denouncing Schneerson's Jewish followers
as "treif".
I applaud his diligent efforts to review history, but he didn't go back
quite far enough, IMO.
> So even though a mumar
> (and that's what a Jew for Jesus is) is still Jewish, the
> question remains - "how Jewish"?
How Jewish? Mr. Golding is obliged and/or qualified to define this for his
readers?
There are millions of Jews on the face of the earth and not all of them
view G-d, think, worship, etc., in the same manner as Mr. Golding does.
Jews who believe Yeshua is the Messiah are still Jewish according to Jewish
law, but according to Mr. Golding, they have no part in the Jewish
community, no part in the religion of Israel, and no place in the State of
Israel and he marvels at how quickly these "apostate Jews" turn to
anti-Semitism.
I ask: if these fellow Jews are indeed fellow Jews, no matter how distasteful
their theology may be Mr. Golding's eyes, are not Mr. Golding's views
somewhat anti-Semitic?
> A Jew for Jesus...disavows the whole of Torah
This simply is not true among all Messianic Jews, despite its continued
(mis-)representation as "confirmed fact".
There always have been, as there are today, many Jewish followers of Yeshua
who uphold the Torah (as did Yeshua himself). As I said before, there is a
spectrum of observance among Messianic Jews exactly like that among Jews who
don't follow Yeshua. Is it Mr. Golding's desire to question the 'level of
Jewishness' of the more secular, non-observant Jews of Israel and kick them
out if they don't meet his standards of "Jewishness"?...are these Jews any
less patriotic toward Israel, any less dedicated to the Jewish community,
somehow less worthy of the blessings of citizenship because they don't
practice as he does?
I'll say again that the next Haman/Hitler figure will not be as
discriminating as Mr. Golding is; instead, he will seek out *all* Jews,
regardless of their theological bent, "frum-ness", or "level of Jewishness"
as defined by Mr. Golding, and he will not be satisfied until they *all*
are destroyed.
> The death of a Jew for Jesus cannot be mourned by his family.
This perspective isn't news to me, but I have yet to find adequate words with
which to express my feelings about it...
|
| 1381.25 | 2 of 3 re: 1381.14 | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:53 | 127 |
|
Part 2 of 3 in response to 1381.14
> How Jewish is a Jew for Jesus when...
I don't blame Mr. Golding (or anyone for that matter) for wanting to
protect the Jewish community from some of history's examples of forced
"conversions" to "christianity", from the false teaching of the destruction
and end of the Torah, misguided and brutal anti-Semitism, etc. These
things *never* should have happened or been tolerated nor should they be
today. However, responding with a list of rules created by men to initiate
some second-class status for Messianic Jews doesn't negate the fact that they
are still Jews - Jews who Biblically have just as much right to live in the
land as any other Jew.
How true are the words of HaShem Himself who said through the prophet,
"...Their worship of Me is made up only of rules taught by men." (Is. 29:13)
> Rambam in his work on Repentance states;
>
> "The following have no portion in the World to Come, but are
> cut off and perish, and for their wickedness and sinfulness
> are condemned for ever and ever. Among those listed are those
> who deny the Torah,
Most Messianic Jews uphold the Torah. Now there are many Israeli citizens
who aren't observant or don't even believe in G-d, let alone that G-d gave
the Torah. If they are welcome in the land, why not Messianic Jews? Are
Mr. Golding's type of Jew (whatever that may mean) the only Jews who feel
called to live in the land?
> those who cause a multitude to sin,
If Messianic Jews believe they are commanded by Torah to live in the land
(as many non-Messianic Jews believe), then at a minimum, the Israeli
Government itself is causing a multitude to sin by forcing them to be
unable to observe the Torah!
Another observation here is this: Whether Mr. Golding (or anyone else for
that matter) agrees with this assessment or not, there *are* Jews who are
convinced that Yeshua is the one about whom Moshe spoke as recorded in
Devarim 18:15-19.
In your midst, G-d will set up for you a prophet like me from
among your brethren, and it is to him that you must listen.
This is a result of the request that you made of G-d your L-rd
at Horeb on the day of assembly (when you) said, "We cannot listen
to the voice of G-d our L-rd anymore! We cannot look at this
great fire anymore! We do not want to die!" G-d then said
to me, "They have spoken well. I will set up a prophet for them
from among their brethren, just as you are. I will place My word
in his mouth, and he will declare to them all that I command him.
If any person does not listen to the word that he declares in My
name, I will punish (that person)."
Of his own teaching, Yeshua (who incidentally quoted more frequently from
Devarim than from any other book in the Tanakh) said, "My teaching is not
my own. It comes from Him who sent me." Therefore, *IF* he really is the
promised Messiah and the one of whom Moshe spoke; then those who are causing
others to distrust him are themselves causing a multitude to sin.
No doubt Rabbi Schneerson's followers feel the same way about their Rebbe
and have therefore launched their extensive advertising campaign....
> Likewise, he who denies Torah
> interpretations, that is, the Orah (sic) Law...
Many Jews do not give authority to the Oral Torah. Shall they be cut off?
Are they of less value to the Jewish community than Mr. Golding? Does Mr.
Golding have an opinion of "Just How Jewish" these Jews are? This "class"
system is shamefully divisive.
> he who says that the
> Creator changed one commandment for another, and that this
> Torah, although of divine origin, is now absolete (sic), as the
> Nazarenes and Moslems assert.
The Nazarenes (and the Nazarene himself) never asserted that Torah was
obsolete; they simply asserted that Gentile followers of Yeshua should not
be forced to become Jewish converts in order to believe in the Jewish Messiah
- and they strongly opposed early (incorrect) teaching to the contrary. Would
that in the centuries that followed, the corrupt "church" leaders had paid
attention to these teachings from the reverse perspective...
> Only one privilege is left open to a Jew for Jesus. He can at
> any time in life repent. He can return in deep contrition to
> his heritage and to the God of his people.
Messianic Jews have placed their trust in Yeshua the Messiah precisely because
of their return to their heritage and the G-d of their forefathers; a G-d
who was apparently foolish enough to promise to send a Messiah and these
Jews were apparently foolish enough to take Him at His Word. For this, Mr.
Golding faults them?
No one is denying the great theological chasm between Messianic Jews and
Jews who don't believe Messiah has yet come (or believe that Rabbi
Schneerson is the Messiah). But are there not already a number of
theological chasms between Jews of every persuasion? Since when does
theological debate - no matter how distasteful to some - equate to
the right to mistreat a fellow Jew and keep him from entering the land G-d
Himself swore to give to him (Gen 12:7)?
|
| 1381.26 | 3 of 3 re: 1381.14 | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:53 | 120 |
|
Part 3 of 3 in response to 1381.14
> In answer to the question, "How Jewish is a Jew for Jesus"? we
> have come to the conclusion that they are not very Jewish at
> all. They are not the kind of Jews we would want in our
> community. They are not the kind of Jews we would want our
> young Jewish people to marry.
This is not anti-Semitic? Will you admit that at a minimum, it's rather
smug?
> They are not Jews who speak for Israel and its religion.
Is there one group of Jews who speak for all Israel and Judaism?
Is Mr. Golding the sole spokesman for Israel and Judaism?
> Therefore, who are they? What are they? They are Jews who sold
> their birthright for a bowl of Christian pottage.
> They were ashamed to be Jewish so they looked for identity and
> acceptance among the nations.
In Mr. Golding's view, perhaps. But is it not possible that in searching
for their *true* identity, Messianic Jews have become re-ignited with
the hope of Messiah - that peculiarly Jewish Promise? There is little
acceptance of Messianic Jews "among the nations", and apparently even less
among their own Jewish brethren.
> Another unsavory aspect of a Jewish apostate is how he quickly
> joins the ranks of the anti-Semites.
Here Mr. Golding errs in relying on a broad-brush approach, though he is
correct in pointing out the tragic culmination of centuries of
anti-Semitism in "the church" - the political machine that bore no
resemblance whatsoever to Yeshua, his first followers, or their teachings.
That "the church" became corrupt (as an organization, not all its
lay-people) was no excuse for anti-Semitism within its ranks; nor is it an
excuse (then or now) to ignore or distort what Yeshua himself actually
taught.
The "Dark Ages" were dark indeed. I myself was *shocked* when I began
studying the history of the Church a few years ago and learned of the men
who committed shameful acts of brutality and Jew-hatred, supposedly in the Name
of the G-d of the (Jewish) Patriarchs.
> Israel's Law of Return:
>
> The case was conducted as follows with Judge Silberg answering
> for the majority: The judge admitted that Brother Daniel was a
> Jew according to halakah, but in rendering judgment stated
> that the Law of Return is not based on halakhah but on the
> Jewish national-historical consciousness and the ordindary (sic)
> secular meaning of the term "Jew" as understood by Jews.
Even with Mr. Golding's more recent citing of "Brother Daniel", he is not
focusing his attention on the large and growing number of Jewish followers
of Yeshua who have not "become Catholic", but within their own context of
Torah-observance, believe their Jewish Messiah has come. These are Jews who
wish now to live in the land of Israel, as G-d commands them in the Torah.
Mr. Golding shifts gears and appeals to the *secular* meaning of the word
'Jew' for his attack against Messianic Jews. Is he now "denying the Torah"
that views a Messianic Jew as a Jew and seeking secular support for his
religious argument?
Regardless, I must say that the Israeli Court's opinion on their denial of
Brother Daniel's request for citizenship under the Law of Return is
absolutely *compelling* reading. Obviously, there are no easy answers to
this problem; which is why I remain convinced that denying citizenship to
Messianic Jews, while an ostensibly "easy" answer, is neither easy nor an
answer. It is not equitable nor at all the right thing to do.
> Our advice to such people is that they
> re-examine their tragic mistake, repent of their apostasy and
> return to their people, their heritage and the God of our
> fathers.
They *are* trying to return to the people, heritage and G-d of our
forefathers, but those with Mr. Golding's opinion have to date made this
impossible as far as Aliyah is concerned. Since the jury is still out
on Rabbi Schneerson, let the jury remain out on Yeshua - who promised to
return and bring with him the return of the Kingdom to Israel. Was it not
Pinchas Lapide ("The Resurrection of Jesus"), himself an Orthodox Jew who
*doesn't* believe Yeshua to be the Messiah who said, "When the Messiah comes,
I will not be surprised if he turns out to be Jesus."?
If Yeshua really does return, we'll all know for sure he is the Messiah.
Until then, Mr. Golding can continue to remain skeptical and consider
Yeshua's followers to be crackpots, misguided, confused, and a pain in the
butt - but for G-d's sake, let him consider them his brothers who, by
Torah, are as equally entitled to the land and their opinion about Messiah
as he is.
Steve
|
| 1381.27 | On 'sinning Jews', Davidic Descent, & Potential | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:55 | 56 |
|
on "sinning Jews", Davidic Descent, and Potential vs. *THE* Messiah
re: .16
Thanks for your response, Yehoshua. I can see we're both getting into
voluminous lines of text. I'm going to break these responses into major
categories as best I can so we can avoid 1000 line replies...
re: "sinning" Jew - see my 3 part response to your .14
re: Davidic descent
This too is an interesting claim. Of all the things Yeshua was accused of,
lying about his lineage was not one of them. His contemporaries (pro and
con) never disputed the claim that he was truly descended from David, and
no doubt, records existed at the Temple that would confirm this. Is it
not true that Israel's genealogical records were all destroyed in the
destruction of the Temple in 70 CE? How does the Rebbe trace his lineage
to David and ensure the accuracy of his lineage?
re: Potential vs. THE Messiah
Clearly, the announcement in the Post proclaims him as *the* Messiah. Again,
the jury is perhaps still out. As far as a "dead" person who has fulfilled
none of the prophecies is concerned, if we're talking about Bar Kochba or
Shabbatai Z'vi; sure, I agree with you. If we're talking about Yeshua, suffice
it to say I disagree on both accounts - and would point you again to Pinchas
Lapide's work "The Resurrection of Jesus".
|
| 1381.28 | On Messianic Jewish "deception" & funding | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:56 | 53 |
|
re: .16, Messianic Jewish "deception"
May I suggest that your theological disagreement with Messianic Jews does
not automatically mean they are "deceptive". Your response to my calling
much of your attack "misconceptions", is to claim deception as the M.O. of
Messianic Jews. I don't know what experiences you've had with Jews who
believe in Yeshua, but it's clear from your writing that you're predisposed
to hating the very possibility that a fellow Jew may actually be convinced
of Yeshua's claims. If you've met a few dishonest men or women within
Messianic Judaism, I'm sorry for that. There seem to be charlatans in
every expression of faith, and no doubt, there are some bad apples who wear
Jewish labels (Messianic and otherwise). I hope you won't think me to be
"missionizing" when I encourage people to take you up on your own
suggestion to attend a Messianic Jewish fellowship and see for themselves
what's really going on.
re: .16, funding of Messianic Judaism
Messianic Jewish Congregations are self-funded. Now I agree with you that as
you say, "It's really not a matter of opinion", so let me show you one example
where your opinion is not matching up with the facts. The Messianic Jewish
Alliance you referred to is an organization of dues paying members; Messianic
Jews and Gentiles. They're not on the payroll of Southern Baptists, the AoG,
or any other Christian denomination. Of course, if you have some legitimate
documentation that proves otherwise, I'd be glad to take a look at it.
|
| 1381.29 | on Sha'ul's alleged rejection of the Torah | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:56 | 107 |
|
re: .16, Sha'ul and your allegation of his rejection of Torah
By your notes, you continue to further the myth that Yeshua and his followers
declared the Torah abolished, then you claim it's not relevant to a Jewish
notesfile. I respectfully disagree on both accounts.
You quote the following: Acts 20:20-21, Romans 3:20-24, and Galatians
2:19ff
The Acts passage quoted says, "You know that I held back nothing that could
be helpful to you, and that I taught you both in public and from house to
house, declaring with utmost seriousness the same message to Jews and Greeks
alike: turn from sin to G-d; and put your trust in our L-rd, Yeshua the
Messiah." I see nothing here about rejecting Torah.
The Romans passage you quote says, "For in his sight no one alive will be
considered righteous" (see Psalm 143) "on the ground of legalistic observance
of Torah commands, because what Torah really does is show people how sinful
they are. But now, quite apart from Torah, G-d's way of making people
righteous in His sight has been made clear - although the Torah and the
Prophets give their witness to it as well - and it is a righteousness that
comes from G-d through the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah, to all who
continue trusting. For it makes no difference whether one is a Jew or a
Gentile, since all have sinned and come short of earning G-d's praise. By
God's grace, without earning it, all are granted the status of being considered
righteous before him, through the act redeeming us from our enslavement to sin
that was accomplished by the Messiah Yeshua."
This is not a denunciation of Torah, but rather, a teaching showing that Torah
observance was not intended as a method of earning G-d's favor (see Ps. 40, Ps.
51, Joel 2:13, etc.)- this could only be accomplished by trusting in Him.
This is nothing really "new" so-to-speak; keep in mind that Sha'ul says
here that the Torah and Prophets give their witness to righteousness by
faith.
In fact, if you continue on in the Romans passage you quote, you will see
in context how he explains the Messiah's role in redeeming his people, and
then he says (in verses 29-31), "Or is G-d the G-d of the Jews only? Isn't
he also the G-d of the Gentiles? Yes, He is indeed the G-d of the Gentiles'
because as you will admit, G-d is one. Therefore, He will consider
righteous the circumcised on the ground of trusting and the uncircumcised
through that same trusting. Does it follow that we abolish Torah by this
trusting? HEAVEN FORBID! On the contrary, we CONFIRM TORAH."
I ask you, Yehoshua, is this a call for the abolishment of Torah as you've
claimed?
When G-d declared Avraham righteous, why did He do that and did He do so before
or after Avraham was circumcised? You can see in Gen. 15:6 that G-d declared
Avraham righteous because he believed G-d; moreover, this declaration was made
BEFORE he received circumcision in his flesh AS A SIGN of the covenant, and
centuries before Torah was given to Moshe. So then, in Sha'ul's thinking,
Torah is not some yoke of requirements by which man hopes to be made righteous
- since that would be like leaving one form of slavery in Egypt only to be
bound to another. No - his view is that righteousness is by faith and faith
alone - HOWEVER, the Torah is upheld as G-d's unique gift to His chosen people
and is, in his own words "confirmed"; making us free to observe the Torah
as "tzaddikim" if our trust is in Him who made the Promise and made good on
that Promise.
Your Galatians quote is directed at Gentiles who were receiving the false
teaching that in order to believe in the Jewish Messiah, they had to become
Jews first. It's somewhat long so I didn't post it here, but I will if you
like.
Here Sha'ul writes in the strongest language against those who taught such
things and calls the Galatian Gentile believers "stupid" for allowing
themselves to be taken in by such arguments. Or is it not true that G-d
told Avraham that through him, all nations (goyim) would be blessed?
Finally, these are the words of Yeshua as recorded in Matt. 5:17,18:
Don't think I've come to abolish the Torah or Prophets. I have
not come to abolish but to complete. Yes indeed! I tell you that
until heaven and earth pass away, NOT SO MUCH AS A YUD or a stroke
[of the pen, S.M.] will pass from the Torah - not until everything
that must happen has happened.
(Quotes taken from "The Jewish New Testament", translated by David Stern, ISBN
965- 359-003-0)
|
| 1381.30 | on Raphael Patai's "The Messiah Texts" | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:58 | 104 |
|
re: .16, The Messiah Texts, by Raphael Patai
Your reaction to my referral to Patai's book was that he was taking quotes out
of context, misapplying them, etc. You can judge for yourself by reading the
book, its ISBN number is 0-8143-1850-9.
You claim that "deifying" anyone is alien to Judaism and I referred to
Patai's book. You asked for some specific references from the book. First,
let me quote from the back cover so you may know more about Patai:
"Following a detailed introduction to the world of messianic ideology
and its significance in Jewish history, The Messiah Texts traces the progress
of the messianic legend from its biblical beginnings to contemporary
expressions. Renowned scholar Raphael Patai has skillfully selected passages
from a voluminous literature spanning three millennia. Using his own
translations from Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Latin, and other original texts,
Patai excerpts delightful folk tales, apocalyptic fantasies, and parables of
prophetic power. All are central to the understanding of a magnificent
heritage. Patai also investigates the false messiahs who have appeared
throughout Jewish history, the modern Messiah-influenced movements such as
reform Judaism and Zionism, and the numerous reasons put forth by the various
branches of Judaism as to why the Messiah has not yet appeared. Raphael
Patai is an internationally regarded anthropologist, Orientalist, and biblical
scholar. He has written over six hundred articles and two dozen books,
including Ignaz Goldziher and His Oriental Diary: A Translation and
Psychological Portrait - and The Arab Mind."
From Chapter 2, Preexistence and Names of Messiah (starting at page 17)
The names by which the Messiah is called are revealing. In the First Book of
Enoch he is called, first of all, "Head of Days," and epithet alluding to his
Preexistence, or to the emergence of his name before G-d prior to the creation
of the world. In the same source he is also called "Son of Man," an old
Biblical appellation heavy with theosophical symbolism.....Others applied to
him the name of G-d, a daring procedure in the Jewish context. Most remarkable
is the opinion according to which the Messiah's name is "The Leprous of the
House of Study," on the basis of Isa. 53:4, "Verily he hath borne our diseases,
etc....
(he then quotes some texts...S.M.)
R. Shim'on ben Laqish explained: "and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face
of the water (Gen 1:2) - this is the spirit of King Messiah, as it is written,
And the spirit of the L-rd will rest upon him (Isa. 11:2).... (Gen. Rab. 2:4)
R. Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said,
Everlasting Father, Prince Peace (Isa. 9:5)...(Pereq Shalom, p. 101)
What is the name of King Messiah? R. Abba bar Kahana said: "L-RD (Adonai) is
his name, for it is written, I will raise unto David a righteous shoot....In
his days Judah shall be saved...and this is the name whereby he shall be called:
The L-rd is our righteousness [Adonai Tzidkenu, S.M.] (Jer. 23:5-6)."...
(Lam. Rab. 1:51, p. 36, ad Lam. 1:16)
The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele ["Miracle"], Yo'etz
["Counselor"], Mashiah ["Messiah"], El ["G-d"], Gibbor ["Hero"], and Avi 'Ad
Shalom ["Eternal Father of Peace"]. (S. Buber's note, Mid. Mishle, ed. Buber,
p. 87)
(from another section, around pages 167 ff, S.M.)
And whosoever is delivered from the predicted evil shall see My wonders. For
My son, the Messiah, shall be revealed,...and shall gladden the survivors four
hundred years. And it shall be after those years, that My son, the Messiah
shall die, and all in whom there is human breath..... (4 Ezra 7:27-30)
The rabbis have taught: The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to Messiah ben
David, may he be revealed soon in our days!: "Ask of Me anything, and I shall
give it to you, for it is written, 'The L-rd said unto me, Thou art My son,
this day have I begotten thee, ask of Me and I will give the the nations for
thy inheritance (Ps 2:7-8)'". (B. Suk 52a)
....And when Israel comes out from the exile, the Holy One, blessed be He, will
return with them, as it is written, 'And the L-rd thy G-d will return (Deut
30:3), He Himself will surely return. (Zohar 3:115a)
This is just a sample. The book is fascinating, no matter what your
perspective on Messiah.
|
| 1381.31 | on Yeshua's followers "bizarre quotations" | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 18:59 | 80 |
|
re: .16, Misquotations of Hebrew, bizarre out-of-context "quotations" and the
like that you claim exist in the writings of Yeshua's followers....
re: lineages which appear different in two gospel accounts.
That Messiah can be called both "Ben Yoseff" and "Ben David" should itself be
sufficient to address the manner in which Hebrew genealogies are sometimes
recorded to emphasize an author's point.
re: the infamous Almah/Betullah argument from Is 7:14
We're talking about a *sign* here. Young girls getting pregnant was nothing
out of the ordinary and wouldn't have been seen as a "sign" of anything
special. This particular prophecy had (as do many others) a dual fulfillment -
the immediate plain meaning (p'shat) for Ahaz and the Messianic hint (remez)
which is applied by the writer (Matt.) to Yeshua.
These methods of understanding and interpreting the Tanakh aren't likely
foreign to you and they are to be expected among the writings of Yeshua's
Jewish followers. If you refer back to the quotes from Patai's book, you see
plenty of evidence of Jewish writers discussing either the plain meaning of
a text, or what that text might be hinting at, or perhaps its moral
application, or even a mystical approach. That Yeshua's followers do the
same only lends credibility to their own Jewish views of the Messiah.
Case in point. You claim the the prophets do not prophesy about Messiah's
being called a "Nazarene" - and you are right! However, in what must be a
familiar practice to you about plays-on-words and again, 'remez', it is
understood that the "Nazarene" (Natzratti in Hebrew) prophecy is a
wonderful play-on-words with his city and the Messianic Branch spoken of
in Is. 11:1-5
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots
a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the L-RD will rest on him --
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and
of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the L-RD --
and he will delight in the fear of the L-RD. He will not judge by
what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;
but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will
give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth
with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay
the wicked. Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the
sash around his waist. (NIV)
This "Branch" is of course the Hebrew word "netzer" whose Hebrew letters (nun,
tzadie, resh) appear likewise in "Natzratti". It's a play-on-words which was
applied by one who believed he was writing about the Messiah - not unlike the
Scriptures used by Schneerson's followers as applied in their descriptions of
him who they believe to be the Messiah.
You haven't pointed out anything devious or, for that matter, anything out of
the ordinary mainstream practices of Judaism.
|
| 1381.32 | on Arnold Fruchtenbaum | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Feb 17 1994 19:00 | 36 |
|
re: Arnold Fruchtenbaum (.18?)
As I said, there is a spectrum of Torah observance among Messianic Jews. I
personally do not agree with everything Mr. Fruchtenbaum teaches and he has
not set himself up as the sole spokesman for Messianic Judaism. If you are
interested, I will post a listing of books on this subject from a more
Torah-observant perspective.
|
| 1381.33 | Let's use the same arithmetic! | GRANPA::AFRYDMAN | | Thu Feb 17 1994 23:01 | 32 |
| Am I missing something here? My understanding is
Rule 1: Belief that Jesus (AKA Yeshua) is the Messiah = Christianity
Rule 2: Judaism is NOT EQUAL TO Christianity
Therefore:
People who believe in Christianity are not practicing Judaism
Steve,
Are you telling us that people who might be "halachically Jewish" and
who also believe that Jesus is the Messiah are practicing Judaism.
If so, you have redefined "Judaism". Further discussion makes no sense
unless we agree on definitions.
If, on the other hand, you are under the impression that our normative
Judaism (which does NOT believe that Yeshua AKA Jesus was the Messiah)
is not the"real" Judaism but some kind of "Rabbinic" interpretation
(as is the feeling of some Messianics/J4Js) that is insulting!
I have no doubt that there are "halachically Jewish" people who also
are now practicing Mormons, Buddists, Hindus, Moslems, etc. I don't
think that what they believe can be called Judaism.
I anxiously await the coming of the True Messiah. If it is the
Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shlita, even the Satmar would be happy :^)
Av
|
| 1381.34 | Response to Avi... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Fri Feb 18 1994 00:02 | 158 |
| re: Note 1381.33
Shalom Avi,
> Am I missing something here? My understanding is
> Rule 1: Belief that Jesus (AKA Yeshua) is the Messiah = Christianity
> Rule 2: Judaism is NOT EQUAL TO Christianity
>
> Therefore:
> People who believe in Christianity are not practicing Judaism
Yes, I think something is lost in the translation. I agree with your
desire to use the same "arithmetic", so let me offer this:
My argument is that Rule 1 as you've stated it is incorrect, though
clearly, with the tremendous numbers of Gentiles who put their trust in
Yeshua, something called "Christianity" eventually surfaced. But in
Yeshua's historical context (1st century CE), he never began "Christianity"
or anything like it. He was understood by a number of Jewish people in his
day as the promised Messiah and he and his Jewish followers continued
attending local Synagogues and were to be found at the Temple (minimally
during the Feasts of Pilgramage). Of course, there were then, as there are
now, many who do not believe him to be the Messiah...
No question that over the centuries, there was a clear (and tragic, IMO)
break between "The Nazarites" and the rest of Judaism. I think that four
events within a hundred year span really made the "split" complete. These
are:
1) Yeshua's life, death, and resurrection (still controversial)
2) the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE
3) the Council at Yavneh (c. 90 CE) and the "19th Benediction"
added to the Amidah
4) Rabbi Akiba's proclamation (later recanted) that Bar Kochba
was the Messiah (c. 135 CE). At this point, Jews who believed
Yeshua to be the Messiah certainly couldn't recant and follow
another - with all that had happened in the past century, this
was surely the final straw...
While those are specific events one can point to, I also believe that the
HUGE influx of Gentiles into this movement began to be a very confusing
thing for all concerned - especially in the next couple of centuries that
followed with misunderstanding upon misunderstanding; leading eventually to
a renouncing of anything Jewish as "heretical" by (Gentile) Church leaders.
That being said, Rule 2 is somewhat non-sequiter in that if Rule 1 is
understood in the context in which I just presented it, there is no
"competition" between two diverse faiths, rather, one Jewish perspective
(with very few Gentile adherants) that says the Messianic Promise is yet
unfulfilled, and another Jewish perspective (with very many Gentile
adherants) that says the Messianic Promise is fulfilled in Yeshua.
> Therefore:
> People who believe in Christianity are not practicing Judaism
Oddly enough, even though our math is different, your conclusion matches
mine! :-)
Let me explain:
As I said earlier, I disagree with Dr. Fruchtenbaum's perspective on
Torah-observance and feel that his influence from Gentile believers has
somewhat clouded his sense of Jewish identity (not a value judgement on
Gentile or Jewish believers, just an observation). I am not sure, but
assume from his writings that he may be a "dispensationalist",
believing that G-d dealt with people one way pre-Yeshua, and another
post-Yeshua - and I just don't agree with that perception at all.
He seems to come from a school of thinking that claimed believers were free
*from* the Torah (i.e., salvation by grace through faith and throw away the
Torah since it can't make you righteous), rather than believers (esp.
Jewish ones) being free *to observe* the Torah in its proper context (i.e.,
salvation by grace through faith, *expressed* by observing the Torah - much
like when James/Ya'akov, Yeshua's brother said [roughly], "you *show* me
this 'faith' of yours - but I'll show you my faith *by* my works").
Now of course, Gentiles are not required to observe Torah's commands (as
Rabbi Schneerson would agree based on the announcement I posted here).
Over the centuries, Jews who became believers in Yeshua and were rejected
by their communities had nowhere to turn but to the Gentile dominated
Church, who themselves, not being Torah-observant, erroneously taught Jewish
believers that they were no longer required to either.
This is getting long, let me move on.
> Are you telling us that people who might be "halachically Jewish" and
> who also believe that Jesus is the Messiah are practicing Judaism.
I'm saying they *can*. They don't always nor was it always done historically,
but if you look far enough back (to the 1st century CE for example), you'll
see that they did....just as today's other Messianic Jews (those who believe
Schneerson to be the Messiah) are practicing Judaism (as was Rabbi Akiba
when he believed Messiah had come, etc.). This is happening today in a
growing manner.
> If so, you have redefined "Judaism". Further discussion makes no sense
> unless we agree on definitions.
Though we no doubt disagree on the *theology*, can the above be used as
agreeable *definitions*?
> If, on the other hand, you are under the impression that our normative
> Judaism (which does NOT believe that Yeshua AKA Jesus was the Messiah)
> is not the"real" Judaism but some kind of "Rabbinic" interpretation
> (as is the feeling of some Messianics/J4Js) that is insulting!
No. And please, if you or anyone reading my replies is insulted, please
forgive me. Unlike Mr. Golding, I do not think one can judge the quality
of someone's Jewishness by what they believe, don't believe, observe, don't
observe. Herschel Shanks recently said in Moment magazine (and he's not
the first to make this observation, I believe Ben Gurion and others have as
well), that a Jew is anyone who would choose to identify himself as a Jew,
(e.g., Ruth). No doubt that definition isn't shared by everyone, but I think
it's important.
I believe *real* Judaism is as G-d gave it in the Bible which is clearly
full of examples of the spectrums of Jewish understanding among Jewish
people. Some were highly Torah-observant, some weren't. Some loved the
Temple cult, some thought it had become corrupt - some loved it and still
thought it was corrupt! As has been said in this notesfile (and elsewhere)
more than once, ask two Jewish people a question, get three opinions.
There should be lots of discussion.
Now, I would be dishonest if I denied the fact that I believe Yeshua really is
the Messiah, but that doesn't mean that Jews who disagree with that perspective
are "fake Jews" in my view, anymore than they should feel that Messianic Jews
are "fake Jews".
> I have no doubt that there are "halachically Jewish" people who also
> are now practicing Mormons, Buddists, Hindus, Moslems, etc. I don't
> think that what they believe can be called Judaism.
Agreed, though they are still Jews, what they practice is distinct from
Judaism, as opposed to a Jew who believes Messiah has come; since Messiah
is a Jewish promise...
What I don't understand (and have been asking continually in this string)
is why, for example, a Jewish person who practices another faith or claims
no connection to the Bible is allowed citizenship in the land of Israel,
but Jews who believe the Messiah has come (and for the most part, wish to
continue to observe the Torah) are not? And FWIW, I'm not suggesting the
former be denied citizenship either...I'm saying that *no* Jewish person
should be denied citizenship in Israel, no matter how distasteful his or
her theology or lack thereof may be to others.
> I anxiously await the coming of the True Messiah. If it is the
> Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shlita, even the Satmar would be happy :^)
Shlita - this must be the Hebrew writing in the announcemnt in .0. Forgive
me, I'm unfamiliar with the word. What is it? And please, forgive me
again (asking a lot, I know ;-), but who is the Satmar (he said, displaying
his ignorance)?
Thanks,
Steve
|
| 1381.35 | promises unfulfilled | ITAI::LEVI | L. Rosenhand | Fri Feb 18 1994 20:27 | 29 |
| Steve,
You say that you believe in Yeshua/Jesus as Messiah. OK.
What does that mean to you and how do you express this day to day?
Specifically, from what you write, I sense you conceive yourself
as a Jew circa 30CE or thereabouts, a believer in Yeshua as the
Messiah and you are now juxtaposing your situation with the
believers of the Habad messiah.
You can't move the clock back. And no, I don't agree that the
jury is still out on Jesus. Nearly 2000 years and countless tears
have testified that this 'netzer' was anything but fruitful.
From your writing I think you agree on the brutal facts.
Chabad as an off-shoot of Judaism is only speculation.
There is no comparison of Chabad's deeds with the (mis)deeds
of the Church in the name of Jesus.
As for "the Messianic Promise .. fulfilled in Yeshua."
(Jews certainly do not believe this. Jews also do not
practice other faiths. What you practice is what you
are. Not what you or someone else labels you.)
I'm inclined to believe that most Jews understand
the arrival of the Mashiach as a loftier concept than
a man riding on a donkey through the Eastern Gate.
It is not we who are waiting for the Mashiach -- the
Mashiach is waiting for us.
|
| 1381.36 | In reply to the replies | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 20 1994 09:59 | 54 |
|
I don't have time to read, much less respond to, the flood of Steve's
replies right now. When I do reply, it will be in private email, since
this is not a place for Christian missionizing.
A teacher of mine once told of how he was approached by missionary shortly
after graduating from rabbinical seminary. He asked the missionary one
question (I won't repeat it here because I don't want to renew the deluge
of polemics), to which the missionary replied, "that's an excellent question--
let me research it and I'll send you an answer in the mail." The naive young
rabbi provided his address, and has been inundated with missionary material
in his mailbox ever since.
P.S. He never got an answer to his question.
One thing which we've seen often in our history are missionaries who believe
they have found a new approach to converting Jews. Martin Luther himself
appeared to be refreshing in his philo-Semitic writings and pronouncements--
until he realized that Jews were still not accepting (even his form of)
Christianity. He believed that all the Jews really needed was some
patronizing "love" and they'd fall all over themselves to convert. When it
became apparent that Jewish "obstinacy" was not limited to eras of crusades,
pogroms, autos-da-fe, blood-libels...but there were even Jews who refused
to abaondon there faith in the face of "loving" missionizing, his mood
surprisingly changed. The great champion of the Jews suddenly became "more
Catholic than the Pope" when it came to Jew-hatred.
To summarize: Jews who adhere to Judaism await the arrival of the Messiah.
In terms of the Lubavitcher Rebbe shlit"a (she'yich'ye le'yamim tovim amen=
may he live long, amen), I have no theological objection to saying that he
is the potential Messiah, and he may well be, as well as several other
outstanding scholars and righteous individuals. After his demise, however,
he would have no claim whatsoever to messiahship, unless he accomplished
those tasks prerequisite to the title, none of which have been realized yet,
obviously. Other "messiahs" who have been dead for centuries have had their
pretentions buried with them.
Missionaries have lately begun an obfuscation campaign by quoting rabbinic
passages about Messiah ben Yosef (aka, ben Ephraim, d'Atchalta, Mashiach
Milchama, as I mentioned in an earlier note). This Messiah has very
clear and limited tasks, all related to the physical reinstatement of
Israel's kingship, the ingathering of the exiles, and the rebuliding of
the Temple. He is a warrior who leads the battle against Gog and Magog
(in the event of a _ge'ula be'itah_ (see end of Is. 60 )), and is killed
in that war having accomplished the above tasks. This sets the stage for
the arrival of Mashiach ben David after the war has ended, whose job it
is to bring about a general repentance amongst the Jews, among other things.
Once again, the two Messiahs are entirely distinct, coming from different
lineages and having utterly different purposes. In any case, anyone who
does not accomplish these tangible results is simply not the Messiah.
We pray for his imminent arrival!
Yehoshua
|
| 1381.37 | Shalom | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 20 1994 11:54 | 3 |
| BTW, hi everybody...in case you haven't guessed I'm the old Jem, and I'm
back, and I'm in the holy city of Herzeliya-on-Mediterranean. Glad to see
a few of you are still around...
|
| 1381.38 | re: .36 | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Mon Feb 21 1994 20:04 | 44 |
| re: Note 1381.36
Why is it that questions about Messiah must of necessity equate to "Christian
missionizing" in your view? Do you sincerely think there is even one
reader here who has become convinced of the Messiahship of Yeshua based on
my writing in this string? You're either giving me too much credit, or
your (other) friends not enough...(at least, I don't think you consider us
enemies, Jem...).
Besides, my intent in this string is not to convince anyone of anything
(though I have felt it necessary to respond to your arguments; but even there,
I am not expecting to convince you of anything). My intent is to understand
what views may exist regarding the implications of the announcement in the
Post.
The announcement (in my mind) has obvious implications and raises
legitimate questions which I posted as the first reply in this topic;
acknowledging that they would be provocative, but that I hoped to have a
rational discussion about these issues. That was happening, frankly, until
your entry into the topic which included (among other things) your referal
to "missionary tricks", unsupportable doubts cast against the scholarship of
Raphael Patai, and untruths about letters written by Sha'ul. Fair enough -
you are entitled to your opinions, but they are not based in fact and if you
will find the time to read my replies, you'll understand why I'm saying that.
After making these spurious statements, you then claimed this wasn't the
appropriate forum in which to discuss such things. Well, I don't think
it's appropriate for someone to make a series of questionable accusations
and say "now don't talk about it".
Be that as it may, you say you want to avoid "polemics". Fine. Let's do
that. If you'd like to address the questions in .1 on their face, please
feel free. But if in doing so you feel compelled to continue *your*
mission (which appears to be that of discrediting Yeshua and his
followers), please don't ask or expect me to remain silent on the facts.
Steve
PS - I feel somewhat 'snubbed' since you didn't return my off-line e-mail
from a couple weeks ago welcoming you back to DEC :-) Well anyway,
thanks for confirming that you're really you, and truthfully, in spite
of our disagreements, it is *good* to see you back again! I trust you and
your family are doing well in the Holy Land. Shalom.
|
| 1381.39 | Moshiach .ne. Messiah | CARAFE::isdnip.lkg.dec.com::goldstein | Resident ISDN Weenie | Tue Feb 22 1994 04:25 | 33 |
| Disregarding the rather outrageous missionarizing going on in this topic,
the whole "moshiach" and "messiah" thing raises sematic questions that
the JFJs & their ilk seem to miss.
Somebody Jewish please correct me if I' m wrong, but it's my understanding
that "Moshiach" means "anointed king", and refers to someone who rules on
Earth by the pleasure of God. I also understand that there have been six
Moshiachs listed in the Jewish tradition, but I don't remember the list. Cyrus
of Persia was one, so you don't even have to be Jewish. (Was Xerxes?)
Anybody remember?
Christianity, on the other hand, is derived from the Hellenic tradition, and
focuses on death, not life. So its "messiah" is one who rules the dead. Since
"Jesus" didn't do what a moshiach must do, he couldn't be one in the Jewish
sense, but he could become a saviour-character in a Hellenic death cult.
Had it not been for the Hellenes and Romans who promoted Christianity out of
the ashes of a failed Jewish movement, we'd never know about Jesus. He is
utterly irrelevant to Judaism. He plays a somewhat larger role in Islam, where
at least he's one of the early prophets (if I understand right). Of course,
Christianity contains, in some strains, a notion of "The Jewish Problem", in which
their dead salvation depends upon the abolition of Judaism. Hence the push to
create "messianic Judaism" as another tool.
Sabbateans remained around for a long time. I recently saw a story in, I
think, the Jewish Advocate, in which a Sabbatean group remained intact in
Ottoman lower Macedonia during the 19th century. One of its descendants
became a Turkish politician and didn't talk much about his religious heritage;
he adopted the name Kemal Attaturk and founded modern (secular) Turkey.
Interesting story but his Jewishness is fuzzy at best.
Schneerson's a sideshow, and irrelevant..
fred
|
| 1381.40 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Feb 22 1994 08:28 | 29 |
| It appears to me that the questions in .0/.1/.2 are completely relevant to
the charter of this conference as set out in note 1.0.
I am not convinced that some of the direction it has taken since then are
in line with what should appear in this conference. And I'm not sure that
Steve alone is responsible for the direction the replies have taken.
I especially think such completely false statements as the following have
no place here, primarily because no adequate discussion is appropriate here.
Fred Goldstein wrote:
>Christianity, on the other hand, is derived from the Hellenic tradition, and
>focuses on death, not life. So its "messiah" is one who rules the dead.
This is a completely false understanding of everything about Christianity;
Christianity's focus is on radical change of heart towards God and his
commandments in order to get the most out of life in both this world and
the next. But I will have no further comment on Fred's statement in this
conference. I would be willing to discuss it in some other conference Fred
and I might mutually agree upon -- only if he wishes.
If I correctly understand some other notes Fred has written in this conference
about death and "hello" versus "goodbye", Fred seems to imply that individual
resurrection is a Hellenic concept foreign to Judaism. Are there still two
major schools of thought within Judaism on the existence/non-existence of life
in a world to come ?
/john
|
| 1381.41 | different source of tradition | UPSAR::isdnip.lkg.dec.com::goldstein | Resident ISDN Weenie | Tue Feb 22 1994 16:52 | 53 |
| re:.40
The point in dispute here is slightly tangential to the main topic, which is
the meaning of "moshiach" vs. the Christian notion of "messiah", but that
is in turn derived form the differnet emphases of the respective religious
traditions.
>>Christianity, on the other hand, is derived from the Hellenic tradition, and
>>focuses on death, not life. So its "messiah" is one who rules the dead.
>This is a completely false understanding of everything about Christianity;
>Christianity's focus is on radical change of heart towards God and his
>commandments in order to get the most out of life in both this world and
t>he next. But I will have no further comment on Fred's statement in this
>conference. I would be willing to discuss it in some other conference Fred
>and I might mutually agree upon -- only if he wishes.
I am not looking for a long digression here or elsewhere! There are, of
course, many different forms of Christianity. John's tradition, I understand,
is one of both "justification by faith" and "justification by acts", and has dual
emphases on this life and the afterlife. Other traditions believe only in
"justication by faith"; this caused some major schisms within early
Protestantism, for instance. As I understand it, and this is from a Jewish
perspective (starting from different norms), all forms of Christianity have a
strong emphasis on the afterlife. Whether it's by faith or acts, a key goal, if
that's the word, is to go "up" rather than "down". There may also be a goal
within this life, but death is always an important time. The notion of
(Christian) Messiahhood is tied into this. SInce Jesus didn't rule on
Earth as a Jewish-style Moshiach, he can only rule the afterlife or after a
second coming. This is not what Schneerson's followers have in mind.
Pre-Christian Hellenic traditions and modern Christianity are, of course,
different. But I don't think it's accurate to consider Christianity to be a
descendant of Judaism more than of Hellenism. It's a blend of both.
The resurrection part isn't Jewish. (Baptism, however, is. We call it
"mikveh", and it's part of our conversion ritual.)
>If I correctly understand some other notes Fred has written in this conference
>about death and "hello" versus "goodbye", Fred seems to imply that individual
>resurrection is a Hellenic concept foreign to Judaism. Are there still two
>major schools of thought within Judaism on the existence/non-existence of life
>in a world to come ?
Judaism has many diverse views on many subjects. I know of no Jewish group
that considers the afterlife to be a major issue. The general belief as I learned it
(again not as "you should belive this" but as "this is our tradition") is that Judaism
accepts that there may be an afterlife, but it's to be treated as unimportant. I
don't know of an exact Christian analogy -- perhaps the issue of angels dancing
on the head of a pin? Some discussion took place but nobody now considers
it terribly important.
No offense intended, John. But Steve's arguments about "messiah" just don't
square in a Jewish context.
|
| 1381.42 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Feb 22 1994 17:17 | 7 |
| The resurrection of the dead (t'chias ha-maisim) is the last of Maimonides'
13 principles. As such, its primacy in Jewish tradition is not debatable.
The form that it will take *is* debatable.
The Christian concept of a messiah who is divine (but nevertheless fails
to accomplish those things that Moshiach is supposed to do) is totally
foreign to Judaism.
|
| 1381.43 | Although he may tarry... | TAV02::JEREMY | | Tue Feb 22 1994 17:54 | 20 |
| Re: .39
I've replied off-line. As to the questions about Lubavitch and JFJ (used in
the broad sense, not just for that particular organization), I believe all
of the questions in .1 have been addressed by Yossi in .3 and Dave
in .4. At this point, we seem to be going over the same points again.
Succinctly:
Belief in Jesus as the Messiah, much less as a divine incarnation, is not
consistent with Judaism, because he fulfilled none of the tasks the
mashiach is prophesied to fulfill, and because Jews don't believe G-d
is human, and because he's dead.
Belief in the Lubavitcher rebbe as the Messiah is not inconsistent with
Judaism because he still may fulfill the prerequisite prophesies, since
he is still alive. I question the wisdom of their campaign, but there is
no basis for accusing them of apostasy at this point.
Yehoshua
|
| 1381.44 | From Josephus on Sheol (Hades) | KALI::EWANCO | Eric James Ewanco | Tue Feb 22 1994 18:05 | 166 |
| The following is from a work by Josephus, a first century C.E. Jewish historian.
Note in particular his expression of the Jewish belief of the Resurrection of
the dead and the deity of the Maschiach. Also note the concepts of Heaven, Hell,
and Purgatory.
AN EXTRACT OUT OF JOSEPHUS' DISCOURSE TO THE GREEKS CONCERNING HADES
1. Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are
detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not
regularly finished; a /subterraneous/ region, wherein the light of this world
does not shine; from which circumstance, that in this region the light does not
shine, it cannot be but there must be in it perpetual /darkness/. This region
is allotted as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as
guardians to them, who distribute to them /temporary punishments/, agreeable to
everyone's behavior and manners.
2. In this region there is a cerain place set apart, as /a lake of unquenchable
fire/, whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared
for a day aforedetermined by God, in which one righteous sentence shall
deservedly be passed upon all men; when the unjust and those that have been
disobedient to God, and have given honor to such idols as have been the vain
operations of the hands of men, as to God himself, shall be adjudged to this
/everlasting punishment/, as having been the causes of defilement; while the
just shall obtain /an incorruptible/ and never-fading /kingdom/. These are now
indeed confined in Hades, but not in the same place wherein the unjust are
confined.
3. For thee is one descent into the region, at whose /gate/ we believe there
stands an archangel with a host; which /gate/ when those pass through that are
conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way;
but the just are guided to the /right hand/, and are led with hymns, sung by
the /angels/ appointed over that place, unto a region of /light/, in which the
just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity,
but ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see, and rejoice in the
expectation of those new enjoyments, which will be peculiar to every one of
them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is
no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor are any briers there;
but the countenance of the /fathers/ and of the just, which they see always
smiles upon them, while they wait for that rest and /eternal/ new /life in
heaven/, which is to succeed this region. This place we call /The Bosom of
Abraham/.
4. But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the /left hand/ by the
angels allotted for punishment, no longer going with a good will, but as
prisoners driven by violence; to whom are sent the angels appointed over them
to reproach them and threaten them with their terrible looks, and to thrust
them still downwards. Now those angels that are set over these souls, drag
them into the neighborhood of hell itself; who, when they are hard by it,
continually hear the noise of it, and do not stand clear of the hot vapor
itself; but when they have a nearer view of this spectacle, as of a terrible
and exceeding great prospect of fire, they are struck with a fearful
expectation of a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby: and not only
so, but where they see the place [or choir] of the /fathers/ and of the just,
even hereby are they punished; for a /chaos/ deep and large is fixed between
them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them cannot be
admitted, nor can one that is unjust if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass
over it.
5. This is the discourse concerning Hades, wherein the souls of all men are
confined until a proper season, which God hath determined, when he will make a
resurrection of all men from the dead, not procuring a transmigration of souls
[reincarnation--EJE] from one body to another, but raising again those very
bodies, which you Greeks, seeing to be dissolved, do not believe [their
resurrection]: but learn not to disbelieve it; for while you believe that the
soul is created, and yet is made immortal by God, according to the doctrine of
Plato, and this in time, be not incredulous; but believe that God is able, when
hath raised to life that body which was made as a compound of the same
elements, to make it immortal; for it must never be said of God, that he is
able to do some things, and unable to do others. We have therefore believed
that the body will be raised again; for although it be dissolved, it is not
perished; for the earth receives its remains, and preserves them; and while
they are like /seed/, and are mixed among the more fruitful soil, they
flourish, and what is /sown/ is indeed sown /bare grain;/ but at the might
sound of God the Creator, it will sprout up, and be raised in a /clothed/ and
/glorious/ condition, though not before it has been dissolved, and mixed [with
the earth]. So that we hve not rashly believed the resurrection of the body;
for although it be dissolved for a time on account of the original
transgression, it exists still, and is cast into the earth as into a potter's
furnace, in order to be formed again, not in order to rise again such as it was
before, but in a state of purity, and so as never to be destroyed any more; and
to everybody shall its own soul be restored; and when it hath /clothed itself/
with that body, it will not be subject to misery, but, being itself pure, it
will continue with its pure body, and rejoice with it, with which it having
walked righteously now in this world, and never having had it as a snare, it
will receive it again with great gladness: but as for the unjust, they will
receive their bodies not changed, not freed from diseases or distempers, nor
made glorious, but with the same diseases wherein they died, and such as they
were in their unbelief, the same shall they be when they shall be faithful
judged.
6. For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before /God
the word;/ for to him hath /the Father committed all judgment;/ and he in order
to /fulfill the will of his Father/, shall come as judge, whom we call
/Christ/. For Minos and Rhadmanthus are not the judges, as you Greeks do
suppose, but he whom /God even the Father hath glorified;/ *concerning whom we
have elsewhere given a more particular account, for the sake of those who seek
after truth.* This person, exercising the righteous judgement of the Father
towards all men, hath prepared a just sentence for everyone, according to his
works; at whose judgment seat when all men, and angels, and demons shall stand,
they will send forth one voice, and say, *just is thy judgement;* the rejoinder
to which will bring a just sentence upon both parties, by giving justly to
those that have done well an /everlasting fruition/; but allotting to the
lovers of wicked works /eternal punishment/. To these belong /the unquenchable
fire/, and that without end, and a certain fiery /worm never dying,/ and not
destroying the body, but continuing its eruption out of the body with
never-ceasing grief; neither will sleep give ease to thse men, nor will the
night afford them comfort; death will not free them from their punishment, nor
will the interceding prayers of their kindred profit them; for the just are no
longer seen by them, nor are they thought worthy of remembrance; but the just
shall remember only thei righteous actions whereby they have attained /the
heavenly kigndom/, in which there is no sleep, no sorrow, no corruption, no
care, no night, no day measure by time, no sun driven in his course along the
circle of heaven by necessity; and measuring out the bounds and conversions of
the seasons, for the better illumination of the life of men; no moon decreasing
and increasing, or introducing a variety of seasons, nor will she then moisten
the earth; no burning sun, no Bear turning round [the pole], no Orion to rise,
no wandering of innumerable stars. The earth will not then be difficult to be
passed over, nor will it be heard to find out the court of Paradise; nor will
there be any fearful roaring of the sea, forbidding the passengers to walk on
it: even that will be made easily passable to the just, though it will not be
void of mosture. Heaven will not then be uninhabitable by men; and it will not
be impossible to discover the way of ascending thither. The earth will not be
uncultivated, nor require too much labor of men, but will bring forth its
fruits of its own accord, and will be well adorned with them. There will be no
more generations of wild beasts, nor will be substance of the rest of the
animals shoot out any more; for it will not produce men, but the number of the
righteous will continue, and never fail, together with righteous angels, and
spirits [of God], and with his word, as a choir of righteous men and women that
never grow old and continue in an incorruptible state, singing hymns to God,
who hath advanced them to that happiness, by the means of a regular institution
of life; with whom the whole creation also will lift up a perpetual hymn from
/corruption to incorruption/ as glorified by a splendid and pure spirit. It
will not then by restrained by a bond of necessity, but with a lively freedom
shall offer up a voluntary hymn, and shall praise him that made them, together
with the angels, and spirits, and men now /freed from all bondage/.
7. And now, if you Gentiles will be persuaded by these motives, and leave your
vain imaginations about your pedigrees, and gaining of riches and philosophy,
and will not spend your time about subtilties of words, and hereby lead your
minds into error, and if you will apply your ears to the hearing of the
inspired prophets, the interpreters, both of God and of his word, and will
believe in God, you shall both be partakers of these things, and obtain the
good things that are to come, you shall see the ascent into the immense heaven
plainly, and that kingdom which is there; for what God hath now concealed in
silence [will be then made manifest] /what neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath
heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man the things that God hath
prepared for them that love him./
8. /In whatsoever ways I shall find you in them shall I judge you entirely;/ so
cries the *end* of all things. And he who hath at first lived a virtuous life,
but towards the latter end falls into vice, these labors by him before endured,
shall be altogether vain and unprofitable, even as in a play, brought to an ill
catastrophe. Whosoever shall have lived wickedly and luxuriously may repent;
however, there will be need of much time to conquer and evil habit, and even
after repentance his whole life must be guarded with great care and diligence,
after the manner of a body, which, after it hath been a long time afflicted
with a distempter, requires a stricter diet and method of living; for though it
may be possible, perhaps, to break off the chain of our irregular affections at
once, -- yet our amendment cannot be secured without the grace of God, the
prayers of good men, the help of the brethren, and our own sincere repentance
and constant care. It is a good thing not to sin at all; it is also good,
having sinned, to repent, -- as it is best to have health always; but it is a
good thing to recover from a distemper. /To God be glory and dominion for ever
and ever. Amen./
|
| 1381.45 | The Suffering Servant. | KALI::EWANCO | Eric James Ewanco | Tue Feb 22 1994 18:31 | 35 |
| > Belief in Jesus as the Messiah, much less as a divine incarnation, is not
> consistent with Judaism, because he fulfilled none of the tasks the
> mashiach is prophesied to fulfill, and because Jews don't believe G-d
> is human, and because he's dead.
The Mashiach is spoken of in Isaiah 53 as the Suffering Servant.
"See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly
exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him -- his appearance
was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human
likeness -- so he will sprinkle many nations ... He had no beauty or majesty
to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He
was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
. . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we
considered him stricken by God, smitted by him, and afflicted. But he was
pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, and by his
wounds we are healed... he was led like a lamb to the slaughter ... And who can
speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for
the transgression of my people he was striken. He was assigned a grave with
the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence..."
The Servant cannot be Israel itself, because it is quite clearly a man who is
spoken of, and it is preposterous to say that Israel will die or be entirely
cut off, for Israel must remain forever, correct?
So you see the Servant -- who I suggest can only be Mashiach -- must die, and
must die an ignoble death. He will not, when he comes, be a worldly leader.
Only after his death -- and because of it -- will he save Israel.
Here's a question, which reminds me: Was Lubavitch born in Bethlehem according
to Micah 5:2, "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means last
among the rules of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the
shepherd of my people Israel"?
|
| 1381.46 | overreacting? | CUPMK::STEINHART | | Tue Feb 22 1994 20:14 | 24 |
| In response to the allegation that Steve is "missionizing" (I assume
you mean proselytizing?), I didn't read his notes that way at all.
Granted, he clearly expresses his beliefs and has amply buttressed them
with arguments and research. But I don't see why that's proselytizing.
How do you arrive at this evaluation of his statements?
I can understand Jews having a strong gut reaction to the whole
discussion. Maybe I'm not put off in this case because I know Steve
well over a period of several years, have worked closely with him, and
know him to be a kind, gentle person who never proselytized me or any
other Jews. Maybe I too would be upset if I didn't know him.
As for this topic's appropriateness in BAGELS, I don't have a problem
with this particular string. My understanding of Steve's motives are
that he's fascinated by the subject, wants to learn more and share
ideas, and is intrigued by its implications for Judaism. I get
uncomfortable when Christians come here briefly to get "proof" for
their beliefs, and I get angry when they try to tell us we're wrong.
But I don't hear Steve doing that. Given the strong emotional reaction
we have to any such discussions, it takes some effort to discern a
person's motivations.
Laura
|
| 1381.47 | how I feel about this string | CUPMK::STEINHART | | Tue Feb 22 1994 20:24 | 18 |
| I'm following the string read-only because I don't have the interest to
follow all the various arguments and historical assertions. I'm a
rather traditional (though not frum) Jew and don't find any temptation
in other positions, though they have a mild intellectual interest to
me. I get a lot of spiritual insight and value from other religions,
not only Christianity but those of Asia, but my fundamental beliefs and
practices are Jewish.
That's the other reason I can't see getting all worked up about Steve's
writings. I think the number of Jews in BAGELS who might be persuaded
that Jesus was (is?) the Messiah is miniscule to nonexistent.
I'm responding here solely to this particular string in this notes
conference. My response to JFJ and other Christian missionaries is
much more intensely negative, for the usual reasons others have stated
here.
Laura
|
| 1381.48 | /what *is this* stuff/? | TLE::JBISHOP | | Tue Feb 22 1994 20:31 | 6 |
| re .44, quotes from Josephus
What is the meaning of the use of /slashes/, and of
*stars*? Variant sources?
-John Bishop
|
| 1381.49 | Slashs=italic, stars=bold | KALI::EWANCO | Eric James Ewanco | Tue Feb 22 1994 21:21 | 4 |
| > What is the meaning of the use of /slashes/, and of
> *stars*? Variant sources?
Slashes indicate italic font in the original; asterisks indicate bold font.
|
| 1381.50 | one theory on "hell" origins | CARAFE::GOLDSTEIN | Global Village Idiot | Tue Feb 22 1994 21:34 | 27 |
| Josephus, of course, is not what you might call a major leader in
Jewish though. Rambam he ain't.
Josephus was, if I recall, a Roman of Jewish descent, which put him
right in the same assimilationist millieu as Saul of Tarsus. Such
hybrid Hellenic-Jewish beliefs were common then, but were not the
dominant and surviving JEWISH tradition.
I personally prefer the Garner Ted Armstrong version of Hell. Garner,
as you may recall, was a radio preacher (took over from his father Ted,
but the two later split) whose views were a weird melange of British
Israelitism (a somewhat anti-Semetic movement that took on some Jewish
hoidays as part of Christianity) and other American protestantism. But
he was always entertaining. In his magazine "The Plain Truth", he
debunked the whole "hell" thing. In his view (btw he was virulently
anti-Catholic if this means anything) "Hell" was a church legend made
out of the Hebrew word "Gehenna", which was a reference to the Valley
of Gehenna near Jerusalem. Yes, it was a place of stinky fires,
because at the time of the writings in question, Gehenna was the town
dump.
So by that reckoning, the old Jewish writings about "Gehenna" were a
poetic way of saying "disbelievers are full of trash", not "fire and
brimstone".
Even the weirdest preachers sometimes make a good point.
fred
|
| 1381.51 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Feb 22 1994 21:51 | 1 |
| Nit: Garner Ted's father was Herbert W.
|
| 1381.52 | Josephus and his times | HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Feb 22 1994 22:30 | 18 |
| My recollection of Josephus was that he was some kind of middle-aged
politician put in charge of the military defense the Gallilee (sp?)
region against the Roman invasion. When the Romans arrived he laid down
his arms and welcomed them in. He went on to a prosperous life in Rome.
The only reason Jews don't consider him a complete traitor is that he
wrote a history from which we gain most of our knowledge of the Jews of
that era.
Judaism was badly split at the time of the destruction of the 2nd Temple.
The Zealots were particularly upset that an incompetant person would be
put in charge of so important a military position. I recall that the
Sudducees were (mostly?) Greek-speaking assimilated Jews. The Pharisees
(the ancestors of Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. us) were another party. I think
there were at least 2 more parties besides these three. Josephus's
religious views do not necessarily reflect the views of today's main-stream
Judaism.
Dave
|
| 1381.53 | Meaning, please | TLE::JBISHOP | | Tue Feb 22 1994 23:19 | 18 |
| re .49
And what is the import of the use of italics and bold face
in the original?
I'm asking this because I doubt Josephus used either and often
a different type face is significant of something in the text.
For example, in some English Bibles, italics are used for words
not present in the source text but required for English grammar
(e.g. "is", "was", "his").
Josephus exists, as far as I am aware, in two quite different
versions--one through Arabic sources and one through Christian
(I think Byzantine) sources. The two differ slightly in some
areas and greatly in others, particularly when matters close
to Christianity's origin are discussed.
-John Bishop
|
| 1381.54 | Italics and bold | KALI::EWANCO | Eric James Ewanco | Wed Feb 23 1994 00:50 | 22 |
| > And what is the import of the use of italics and bold face
> in the original?
> I'm asking this because I doubt Josephus used either and often
> a different type face is significant of something in the text.
Excellent question. The same thought came to my mind. I do not know the
answer, except that I did not add them. :-)
Josephus was certainly no theologian, nor was he an exemplary Jew by any means.
But he demonstrates that certain ideas are by no means foreign to the theo-
logical traditions of Judaism. As far as I know, Judaism permits a wide
latitude in which to specular concerning eschatology; even in Jesus's day, some
parties believed in the resurrection (the Pharisees) and some denied it (the
Sadducees).
If Josephus's description of "Hades" is a correct expression of the ideas of
certain Jewish parties at the time, it demonstrates that Jesus's teaching was
much less revolutionary than it appears on the surface, and very much consistent
with Judaism at the time.
Eric
|
| 1381.55 | Keep talking (and listening)! | ICS::WAKY | Onward, thru the Fog... | Wed Feb 23 1994 17:46 | 20 |
| re: .46
> In response to the allegation that Steve is "missionizing" (I assume
> you mean proselytizing?), I didn't read his notes that way at all.
I have to agree with Laura wholeheartedly. I feel like I've been here before,
saying this, but I think this notesfile is a place for all to learn and
teach (not preach). Intolerance comes from ignorance. We can all do well by
coming to a better education about each other's religious beliefs and
observances. I can't believe there is so much fear of missionizing that we
are afraid to hear another's point of view - is this insecurity? I am
fascinated to hear about all these different perspectives from all places in
the Jewish continuium, and also from Christian/Islamic, etc folks. I
personally believe that JFJ are Christians because they believe Jesus is/was
Christ, but I hate to think we cannot listen to each other without the calls
for verbal holy war.
Keep the communication open and coming!
Waky
|
| 1381.56 | Thanks & summation... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Feb 23 1994 19:05 | 87 |
| Shalom,
I want to publically thank Laura for her understanding of me and her caring
defense of my motives. As she mentioned, we know eachother fairly well
through work and she wrote me off-line soon after I opened this topic
to ask if I had gone off the deep-end :-)
Perhaps...
At any rate - *thank you*, Laura.
I'd also like to thank Yehoshua for sending me a note off-line (sorry to
"guilt" you like that in my last reply ;-) I do know you're busy). I have
no animosity towards you either, Jem, though we clearly seem 180 degrees
from one another theologically. You feel a need to fight against my
thinking and I understand that (and no, my feelings aren't hurt - thank you
for your concern). I'm sure you can appreciate my similar desire to set the
record straight in light of your accusations; and I too hope your feelings
aren't hurt either. In spite of the chasm between us, I believe you know that
I have a tremendous amount of respect and affection for you and am truly glad
to be able to speak with you again.
As for the rest of the topic, please allow me to make this very plain - I
am *not* here to convince *anyone* one way or another about Yeshua. Is it
not obvious that many people's minds are already made up on the issue? I
*myself* would have to be Moshiach to convince you!
Surely, the announcement in the Post is significant, no matter your opinion
on Rabbi Schneerson. Where would such an announcement be better addressed?
The long and short of all this is that I didn't come in here to tear apart
anyone's beliefs and yet, when what I personally hold dear was torn apart
with false accusations and unfounded polemics, I was expected to just keep
quiet about it. Well I didn't - and when I rationally defended these
accusations, I was emotionally accused of "missionizing".
And I do understand this to a degree. Some 1880+ years of so-called
"christian love" has frayed Jewish nerves worlwide; those facts can't be
ignored. I have continually recognized this sad fact and while mere words
can't fix what has happened, I have hoped that my repeated acknowledgement of
the historical truth and apolgies for it can perhaps serve as a small
starting point for healing.
I'm not foolish - I do understand why my writing can be misinterpreted as
"missionizing", but it isn't, and I'm sorry if it feels otherwise for any
of the readers here. I acknowledged from the start that my questions
concerning this announcement were provocative, but I also shared my hope
for having a rational discussion about these issues.
I want to say that the saddest part of this whole experience for me has been
the issue of Mr. Golding's views, though I think it is important to understand
his thinking.
Does history teach us anything? The very things for which I've apologized
to you, the thinking that fueled the inquisitions, pogroms, and shoah is the
same kind of thinking Mr. Golding has employed toward Messianic Jews. It
is no less vile, no less anti-Semitic, and no less founded in ignornance
than that of those who twisted Yeshua's words for their own twisted motives.
Against a backdrop of centuries of misunderstandings which served as a
foundation for the dehumanization of Jews on the part of some who bore the
Christian label, a backdrop of which Mr. Golding is clearly aware, how can he
possibly justify *his* dehumanization of his fellow Jews, no matter how great
their theological differences; no matter how repugnant their faith is in his
view?
And I would suggest that Mr. Golding's thinking isn't limited only to
Messianic Jews, but it's clear from Jem's posting that Mr. Golding would
feel free to question "just how Jewish" a Conservative, Reform, or
unaffiliated Jew is as well. From where does he get such 'authority'?
Mr. Golding's views should (IMO) be challenged just as strongly as those held
by any Gentile who thinks Jews are of lesser value than anyone else.
I should get off this soapbox....
Overall, I've appreciated everyone's contributions to the string. I still
do not believe I've seen a solid and logical argument for denying the
Beresford's and other Messianic Jews their Biblical right to live in the
land, but my other questions have been addressed somewhat. I won't press
the issue any further though if someone does want to address that open
issue, I'd be glad to read whatever you have to say about it.
Thank you all for your participation.
Shalom
|
| 1381.57 | J4J ne. O,C,R,R, etc | GRANPA::AFRYDMAN | | Wed Feb 23 1994 22:06 | 25 |
| Steve,
Mr. Golding does not question the Jewishness of Reform, Conservative,
or unaffiliated Jews. He states that clearly in his article. What he
does say is that people who are Jewish and practice a religion that is
not Judaism should not be treated as Jews by the Jewish community. The
grouping of "Messianic Jews" and non-Orthodox versions of Judaism is
one of the typical points of arguement of missionizers who are
attempting to legitimize "Messianic Judaism" as only one of the
variations of Jewish belief. The belief in Jesus as the Messiah who has
in any way fulfilled Biblical promises is not part of normative Jewish
belief.
To discuss the issue as if it is really a question to Jews may confuse
the vast majority of Jews who know very little about the theological
and historical basis of our faith.
What is difficult for many Christians to understand is that we can live
very fulfilled spiritual lives without recognizing Jesus as a Messiah.
It is also difficult for many to understand that our faith grants "the
world to come" to all righteous non-Jews.
Avi
(P.S. Welcome back, JEM.)
|
| 1381.58 | My $.02 | MSBCS::MSD623::Glickler | Sheldon (Shelly) 293-5026 | Sat Feb 26 1994 01:16 | 21 |
| After quietly following this string I feel I have to put my $.02 in.
I am a reform, strongly affiliated and, rather, non-observant Jew so you
can see where I come from.
Somehow this string makes me feel like Tevyeh. In the end he says that
if I bend that far I will break. JFJ is that limit. Anyone, and I
repeat ANYONE, who believes in Jesus as the messiah (or any sort of
divinity) is definitely not a Jew. He may be a wonderful person or a
terrible person or anything in-between -- but he is not a Jew. That is
crossing the line.
That is my strongly held opinion. If that has legal ramifications in
Israel then so be it. (BTW, I am in the USA).
I do not believe that a JWJ should be called to the Torah or anything
else reserved for Jews.
As an aside, please convert he to she as the case applies. Being a
reform Jew I firmly believe in equality between the sexes.
Shelly
|
| 1381.59 | response to Avi | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Mon Feb 28 1994 16:38 | 98 |
| re: Note 1381.57
Hi again, Avi,
> Mr. Golding does not question the Jewishness of Reform, Conservative,
> or unaffiliated Jews. He states that clearly in his article.
From Mr. Golding's article, quoted by Yehoshua in 1381.14 (any following
empahsis is mine):
However, persons who did assume another
religion or formally renounced Judaism are treated differently
by Jewish law from Jews who, even while sinning, have not
taken such actions. These people are known in the Halakhah as
mumar (from the root meaning "to change"), or meshummad (from
the root meaning "to persecute or force abandonment of
faith"), or apikoros ("heretic"), or *kofer* ("denier"), or
poshe'a Yisrael ("rebellious Jew").
If a non-Orthodox Jew does not observe the Oral Torah, has he or she
renounced a type of Judaism which *does* give authority to the Oral Torah?
Is such a Jew a "kofer" - one who denies? Consider Mr. Golding's appeal to
the Rambam in supporting his own view:
"The following have *no portion in the World to Come*, but are
*cut off* and perish, and for their wickedness and sinfulness
are *condemned* for ever and ever. Among those listed are those
who *DENY THE TORAH*, those who cause a multitude to sin, and
those who *LEAVE THE WAYS OF THE COMMUNITY*........ Likewise, HE
WHO DENIES TORAH INTERPRETATIONS, THAT IS, THE ORAH (sic) LAW...
he who says that the Creator changed one commandment for another,
and that this Torah, although of divine origin, is now
absolete (sic), as the Nazarenes and Moslems assert. EVERYONE
belonging to ANY of these classes is a DENIER of the Torah.
Do you know of any Jews who doubt, or even plainly deny that G-d gave even
the written Torah, let alone the the Oral Torah? Doesn't Mr. Golding's
appeal indict such Jews as having no portion in the World to Come, being cut
off, and condemned? His implication seems clear to me.
But let's say for the sake of the argument that you are correct and that
I have misunderstood Mr. Golding's thinking regarding non-observant Jews.
Does that excuse his thinking regarding Messianic Jews?
The death of such a Jew cannot be mourned by his family...such dehumanization
of a *fellow* Jew (which Golding himself recognizes according to Halakhah);
this is somehow acceptable/defendable?
If a Reform rabbi suggested that the death of an Orthodox Jew was "no big
thing", no loss to the Jewish community as a whole, nothing one should go
out of his way to mourn, and in fact, that mourning such a loss was against
the Law, what would Mr. Golding's reaction be?
> What he
> does say is that people who are Jewish and practice a religion that is
> not Judaism should not be treated as Jews by the Jewish community.
Even if that were agreeable to all, he has not sufficiently established, in
my admittedly biased mind, that Jews who believe Yeshua is the Messiah are
practicing a religion other than Judaism.
Imagine for a moment that Yeshua wasn't an historical figure, but that he
shows up on the scene *today* and there is a group consisting mainly of
Israeli Jews who consider him the Messiah. Are they practicing "another
religion", or simply believing that the Messianic Hope of *their* religion
(Judaism) is now fulfilled?
That view of 'hope fulfilled' among Messianic Jews is what I am suggesting
is *no different* than the Lubavitcher's understanding toward *their*
Rebbe. There is no question that the centuries have colored everyone's
understanding of Yeshua and his followers, but in the context in which he
came, it is not accurate in my view to think that this was "another
religion; foreign to Judaism" (BTW - I have this same argument with
Christians who believe the Church has "replaced" Israel in G-d's eyes).
Those who accepted him as the Messiah could do so *only* in the context of
their Jewish thinking! "Will you at this time restore the Kingdom to
Israel?" they asked him. Is that question an alien thought to Judaism?
> To discuss the issue as if it is really a question to Jews may confuse
> the vast majority of Jews who know very little about the theological
> and historical basis of our faith.
To cloud the issue of Yeshua's true context is what is confusing for
*anyone* regarding the historical record. You can say his followers were
misguided, say they "backed the wrong horse", say they were nuts - fine,
that's opinion which we can debate for another two millenia, but it is not
historically factual to suggest that those Jews who did believe in him were
doing something foreign to Judaism.
I think Schneerson's followers are "backing the wrong horse" WRT Moshiach,
but I give them a lot of credit for having faith in G-d who made a Messianic
Promise nearly 6 millenia ago in Eden; a Promise that was remembered
through the Patriarchs, the 12 Tribes, King David, etc... They're doing
something *entirely* Jewish, though, in many people's view, their faith is
ultimately misplaced. At least they haven't given up hope...
Steve
|
| 1381.60 | I shy away from this 'Love' | SQGUK::LEVY | The Bloodhound | Mon Feb 28 1994 22:51 | 37 |
| Hello Steve,
No matter how you like to gloss over it, your arguments
will never wash because:
- Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah
- Anyone who believes in Jesus in Jewish eyes is a Christian
(and we have the right to define who we are after all).
- Christianity includes too many non-Jewish concepts to be considered
Jewish. The 'trinity' and Jesus being part of G-d are included
here.
You cannot wipe out 2000 years of history. The psychological impact
of this period is not easily forgotten - and nor should it be.
'Christian love' comes in many forms, and the one practiced by
JFJ or 'messianic Jews' is no less dangerous that that of the pogroms
and inquisitions. For this reason alone Israel, as the refuge of Jews,
has every right to bar these groups from entry.
If you try to roll back history as part of the denial that
Christianity is these things, (and that they were added on latter)
then you are left with a hollow sounding claim that is patently
not fulfilled from a Jewish perspective.
Regarding Schneerson, he has not founded a new religion.
His followers have not changed the Jewish beliefs or Laws.
They have not added non-Jewish ideas into their faith.
They have not made Schneerson into part of G-d.
Regards
Malcolm
|
| 1381.61 | Yes! | MSBCS::MSD623::Glickler | Sheldon (Shelly) 293-5026 | Mon Feb 28 1994 23:54 | 6 |
| >> - Anyone who believes in Jesus in Jewish eyes is a Christian
>> (and we have the right to define who we are after all).
This is what I was trying to say in .58
Shelly
|
| 1381.62 | no more moshiach than, say, Buddha | CARAFE::isdnip.lkg.dec.com::goldstein | Resident ISDN Weenie | Tue Mar 01 1994 07:34 | 36 |
| re:.59
But, for grins & chuckles, let's follow on one of Steve's arguments.
>Imagine for a moment that Yeshua wasn't an historical figure, but that he
>shows up on the scene *today* and there is a group consisting mainly of
>Israeli Jews who consider him the Messiah. Are they practicing "another
>religion", or simply believing that the Messianic Hope of *their* religion
>(Judaism) is now fulfilled?
First off, Jesus (was it really Yeshua in Hebrew, or is that just the JFJ
backformation from the Greek translation of Joshua? Any Jewish
scholarship on that trivia?) would in that case be alive. That's a
prerequisite to being a Jewish moshiach. Then if anyone felt him
to be moshiach, he would probably be viewed in about the same way
as Schneerson is, that is to say, with narrow support and widespread
ridicule or at least "profound" skepticism. But if they did not deny Torah,
they'd be Jewish.
Contast that with Christianity or its trojan horse, "Messianic Judaism".
Here you have someone who was briefly thought to be, perhaps, a
Major Figure by a narrow group of Jews who, in desperate times, wanted
an anointed king (moshiach) to rescue them from Rome. He died, and
Rome won the war, and the diaspora occurred. In that context, Jews
did not continue to remember him. But there was much assimilation,
and some followers turned to the Gentile instead. They transformed
him from a failed claim of moshiach into a non-Jewish saviour of the
afterlife and, perhaps, of a resurrection to come.
For 1900 years his memory was kept alive in an entirely non-Jewish
context. Now someone reasserts him as being a Jewish moshiach? The
Jesus called "Yeshua" by JFJ is probably far removed from the historical
person. He's a central figure from a non-Jewish religion which happened,
along the way, to plagiarize and mistranslate some Jewish literature
along the way. All of the O-C-R-Recon-Humanist-Lubavich-Satmar-
etc. arguments among Jews are trivial compared to this gap. That's
what Golding said so well.
|
| 1381.63 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Mar 02 1994 17:29 | 136 |
| re: Note 1381.60
Hi Malcom,
> No matter how you like to gloss over it, your arguments
> will never wash because:
>
> - Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah
I wasn't aware of "glossing over" anything - I think I've been rather
up-front about things and I doubt anyone here would accuse me of lacking
detail in this string! :-) If I'm glossing over something, please point it
out to me and I'll see what I can do to address it.
To your point above, clearly in your view, he is not the Messiah and you
no doubt feel you have good reason to think that way. I understand that.
I disagree with you, but I understand your view. Some people disagree with
your view; but do so with good reason from their perspective.
> - Anyone who believes in Jesus in Jewish eyes is a Christian
> (and we have the right to define who we are after all).
Do you also have the right to define who others are as well? Does a Jewish
person who follows Yeshua have the same right to define who he/she is as you
have the right to define yourself? In his/her eyes, he/she is a Jew.
Even Halakhah (according to Yehoshua's postings here) considers such a person
Jewish (though a "sinning Jew").
> - Christianity includes too many non-Jewish concepts to be considered
> Jewish.
Oddly enough, by the 4th century CE (Nicean Council), they thought there
were too many *Jewish* concepts to be considered Christian - which is
rather non-sequitur. How they rejected their roots is a fascinating thing
to study.
>The 'trinity' and Jesus being part of G-d are included here.
"Trinity", as a handy-word to describe a concept which is somewhat difficult
to describe to begin with, has its own baggage. "Unity/Echad" or
"Tri-Unity" is perhaps more to the point, but I doubt this is something
you want me to describe in detail, so let's move on ;-)
As to whether the Messiah could be alluded to as (or even be called) divine,
and whether or not that's a non-Jewish concept; I certainly won't argue
that popular opinion exists in contrast to this point. However, I would refer
you back to Patai's book on the subject. Though he clearly says that
assigning the Name of the L-rd to the Messiah was "a daring concept in
Judaism", he later quotes many *Jewish* sources (including the Tanakh itself!)
who "dared" to do exactly that.
> You cannot wipe out 2000 years of history. The psychological impact
> of this period is not easily forgotten - and nor should it be.
I hope it is fully clear from my writings that I acknowledge this fact. You
and I *agree* on this point.
But let me say that the tremendously grevious acts committed against Jews
by some who called themselves "Christians" are thoroughly incompatible with
the teachings of Yeshua - they are actions which I can not and will not
defend, actions of which I am ashamed and embarrassed to even have to
acknowledge, actions contrary to all that I believe, and actions for which
I have repeatedly apologized.
They are the actions of mad-men which no more represented the true faith
than did Baruch Goldstein's recent deplorable actions represent the true
faith. While I've perhaps not expressed myself as eloquently as has Juan
regarding Goldstein's insane actions, I fully identify with his passion,
viewing from my perspective those who throughout the centuries have done
the same and worse against Jews in the name of their perversion of the true
message. Their sin leaves a deep and painful wound on many.
Words can't describe it, but I truly *abhor* the inexcuseable history of
those who carried out such acts in *complete* opposition to the teachings of
the one whom they professed to serve.
> 'Christian love' comes in many forms, and the one practiced by
> JFJ or 'messianic Jews' is no less dangerous that that of the pogroms
> and inquisitions. For this reason alone Israel, as the refuge of Jews,
> has every right to bar these groups from entry.
I'd like to understand your thinking regarding the dangers you're
addressing above. And again, if Israel is indeed the refuge of Jews, what
will she say to those Jews whom she excludes from her safe refuge on the basis
of theological differences and a history replete with actions that are not a
reflection on the true teachings of Yeshua?
> Regarding Schneerson, he has not founded a new religion.
Nor did Yeshua or his immediate followers; that is historical fact.
> His followers have not changed the Jewish beliefs or Laws.
It is certainly clear from history that within a short period of time (and
certainly by the 4th century CE), especially as Gentiles began to
outnumber Jews in that "Messianic Movement", that the true teachings of
Yeshua were beginning to take on a different meaning among many of the
leaders to the point where all things Jewish about him and his teachings
were completely misunderstood, even ignored or hated.
> They have not added non-Jewish ideas into their faith.
Yet.
Again my argument is to look at the history of Yeshua's followers and
extrapolate that to Schneerson's followers. *IF* Gentiles began following
Schneerson in droves (as might be expected if Schneerson's followers take
seriously the call to be "a light unto the Nations"), and if the same
factors which faced the Nazarenes were faced by Schneerson's followers, I
would very much like to be able to revisit your argument a couple centuries
from now. My theory is that you'd see the same exact kinds of things we can
see happened historically with the Nazarenes.
> They have not made Schneerson into part of G-d.
Again - see Patai's work; I'm really not making this stuff up.
If you're talking about a Moshiach whose "origins are of old", who will be
called "Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father", who will reign for all eternity on
David's throne (and these are *directly* from the Tanakh, see Micah, Isaiah,
Psalms, etc.), can you at least see how someone *could* come to the
conclusion that Moshiach is more than just a man? I'm not asking you to
agree with that view, I'm just asking if you can understand how some have
come to this conclusion...
You may not agree with the view that Rabbi Schneerson is the Messiah, but
can you understand how some might come to that conclusion?
Therefore, the question I asked in .1 re: citizenship is based on the
notion that one doesn't need to agree with another's theological view to
accept them as a fellow Jew (whether he believes Yeshua or Rabbi Schneerson
or anyone/no one else to be Messiah) with full Biblical rights to
citizenship in the land.
Steve
|
| 1381.64 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Mar 02 1994 17:29 | 132 |
| re: Note 1381.62
>But, for grins & chuckles, let's follow on one of Steve's arguments.
Ok, but just for grins & chuckles :-)
>>Imagine for a moment that Yeshua wasn't an historical figure, but that he
>>shows up on the scene *today* and there is a group consisting mainly of
>>Israeli Jews who consider him the Messiah. Are they practicing "another
>>religion", or simply believing that the Messianic Hope of *their* religion
>>(Judaism) is now fulfilled?
>
>First off, Jesus (was it really Yeshua in Hebrew, or is that just the JFJ
>backformation from the Greek translation of Joshua? Any Jewish
>scholarship on that trivia?) would in that case be alive. That's a
>prerequisite to being a Jewish moshiach.
(tangent on "Yeshua" - at a minimum, it wasn't "Jesus", that's for
sure. The "j" sound, even for "Joshua" to my knowledge doesn't
exist in Biblical Hebrew; but I'm no scholar...)
I'm going to assume that since you're picking up one of my agruments you've
followed this string somewhat. Did you read my reference to Pinchas
Lapide's work "The Resurrection of Jesus"? Here is an Orthodox Jewish man
(Lapide) who does not believe Yeshua to be the Messiah, yet is convinced
that his resurrection from the dead is a historical fact to which there
were over 500 credible witnesses whose testimony can not be ignored or
denied. Lapide doesn't believe that resurrection is a requirement of the
Messiah, therefore, the historical fact of Yeshua's ressurection doesn't
prove his Messiahship in Lapide's eyes (which is tangental to your
question, sorry).
I bring this up because if indeed he did factually rise from the dead, he
is most definitely alive.
Again, like the rest of my arguments in this string, I'm not asking you to
believe the argument; I am asking if you understand why there are some who,
with logical reasoning, can hold a view completely different than yours and
not at all be in conflict with their faith.
>Then if anyone felt him
>to be moshiach, he would probably be viewed in about the same way
>as Schneerson is, that is to say, with narrow support and widespread
>ridicule or at least "profound" skepticism.
An apt description of much of the current view of Messianic Jews ;-)
>But if they did not deny Torah, they'd be Jewish.
So the argument would be that there are a number of Jews who consider Yeshua's
resurrection an historical fact (therefore he is alive), they believe him
to be the promised Messiah (having fulfilled the role of Ben Joseph, coming
again [according to his promises] to fulfill the role of Ben David), and have
not denied the Torah.
Of course, There are many others who don't think this way at all, and in
fact, think 180 degrees from what I've just stated. Fine, but by your
own definition, you've still got Jews, who just happen to view Moshiach
differently than you do.
And please, I hope I've sufficiently addressed history to indicate that I
am not suggesting the past be forgotten - only properly understood as it
relates (or rather; *doesn't* relate) to his teachings.
>He died,
As was spoken by the prophets (see Ps. 22, Is. 53, etc.).
>and Rome won the war, and the diaspora occurred.
As was spoken by the prophets (see Deut. 28, Jeremiah, etc.).
>In that context, Jews did not continue to remember him.
Some did, some didn't. But again, whether you personally subscribe to this
thinking, there are Jews who *do*, and who understand the Tanakh to have
spoken about such things centuries before he came on the scene.
>But there was much assimilation,
>and some followers turned to the Gentile instead. They transformed
>him from a failed claim of moshiach into a non-Jewish saviour of the
>afterlife and, perhaps, of a resurrection to come.
That is one popular view. Another, no doubt less popular, is that what
looked like a crushing defeat was indeed victory because, "it pleased the
L-rd to bruise him," and "By his knowledge shall My servant justify the
righteous before many and he shall bear their iniquities. Surely I will
divide him a portion with the great and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong because he hath laid open his soul unto death and was numbered with
the transgressors. He took off the sin of many and made intercession for
the transgressors." (from Is. 53, The Jewish Bible, Mt. Sinai Publishing)
There is a popular view that Messiah won't die, no one pays for another's
sins, he can't be an intercessor between G-d and man, etc.; but the Bible
itself contradicts that popular view, not me.
Now, to be sure, there are many interpretations of all of Scripture. I've
offered one here with which I suspect there is little or no agreement among
the readers. But I don't think that what I'm suggesting here is so far
fetched; and while you may not support it, I should think you could at least
understand why another might.
>For 1900 years his memory was kept alive in an entirely non-Jewish
>context.
I'm sad to say I have to agree with you on this point for the most part.
While it is marvelous to think that G-d's Salvation was offered to all
nations, I wish the context in which Yeshua came was not rejected.
>Now someone reasserts him as being a Jewish moshiach?
Re-discover is more like it. In the end, if he is Moshiach, all you say
against that fact doesn't matter. If he isn't, all I say against that
notion doesn't matter. He either is or isn't - it's on or off. There are
those who believe he is (with unfaulty logic, whether you agree with their
conclusion or not) and over the past century have slowy begun to
rediscover, apprecate, and embrace him in the context in which he came.
Beacuse of this, they've begun to realize that they need not act like
Gentiles to believe in the Jewish Messiah - though historically, that was not
taught (or even allowed to be discussed post 4th cenutry). This is an
interesting contrast to the question of whether Gentiles needed to behave
like Jews to believe in the Jewish Messiah (as was the argument of some of
Yeshua's Jewish followers in the first century CE).
>All of the O-C-R-Recon-Humanist-Lubavich-Satmar-etc. arguments among Jews
>are trivial compared to this gap. That's what Golding said so well.
Whether such arguments are trival can be debated. Like I said, for the
sake of argument, let's say they're a complete "non-issue". The question
remains; does it make Golding's view of Messianic Jews acceptable?
Steve
|
| 1381.65 | | SQGUK::LEVY | The Bloodhound | Wed Mar 02 1994 20:21 | 20 |
| Hello
> - Anyone who believes in Jesus in Jewish eyes is a Christian
> (and we have the right to define who we are after all).
Do you also have the right to define who others are as well? Does a Jewish
person who follows Yeshua have the same right to define who he/she is as you
have the right to define yourself? In his/her eyes, he/she is a Jew.
A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah.
They should be honest about this to themselves and other Jews.
>But let me say that the tremendously grevious acts committed against Jews
>by some who called themselves "Christians"
As you say, do they not have the right to define themselves as
"Christians" ?
Malcolm
|
| 1381.66 | Again | MSBCS::MSD623::Glickler | Sheldon (Shelly) 293-5026 | Wed Mar 02 1994 20:39 | 20 |
| Steve,
I have not met you but from your writings I believe you to be an
articulate, educated an compassionate human being. However, you are
missing the main point:
> Do you also have the right to define who others are as well? Does a
> Jewish
> person who follows Yeshua have the same right to define who he/she is
> as you
> have the right to define yourself? In his/her eyes, he/she is a Jew.
A "Jewish person who follows Yeshua" is (to the overwhelming majority of
Jews) an oxymoron. To us it is like saying "salty sugar" or "cold fire".
A person HAS the right to call him/herself anything at all. That doesn't
make it so with the association to which they want to belong. The fact
that they call themselves Jews doesn't mean that the Jewish state must
automatically recognize them as such.
Shelly
|
| 1381.67 | Indeed, again | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Mar 02 1994 22:11 | 90 |
| These discussions can become quite boring after a while
because the same ground is gone over again and again.
Missionaries (most of whom wouldn't know a Hebrew Bible
if they saw it) love to quote certain Jewish texts, often
mistranslated, quoted out-of-context or simply twisted to
appear as they wish. They also ignore the texts which are
not a comfortable fit for their beliefs.
I now find even my own statements being quoted in this way:
>Even Halakhah (according to Yehoshua's postings here) considers
>such a person Jewish (though a "sinning Jew").
There was a lot more said than this. He remains a Jew in the
same way an American can retain his citizenship though convicted
of treason. A Jewish convert to Taoism or Hinduism or Christianity
is a Jewish apostate. They can repent and return to the faith
without any ceremony according to most authorities. But a "Jew
for Krishna" or a member of "Hebrew Shintoism"...does not have
to be given automatic citizenship in Israel. Jews in Israel are
those remnants of an oppressed and decimated people whose ancestors
clung to their Jewish faith against the specter of martyrdom in
every age, in every corner of their dispersion. The progeny of
these heros who themselves cling to their ancestral faith must
be recognized as heros themselves. A generation after the most
far-reaching and systematic slaughter of a people mankind has
ever known, they still fearlessly distinguish themselves from
the nations physically by observing G-d's holy covenant, circumcision.
After millenia of persecution for proclaiming G-d's Oneness they
still declare "...the Lord is One!" After experiencing oppression
at least as bad as that of their forefathers in Egypt, they yet
annually commemorate the Exodus and reenact, reexperience its glory
in the Passover seder. And although they've learned the consequences
the hard way, they remain as steadfast as their forebears in rejecting
false messiahs and pagan notions of divinity. These are true Jews, these
are heros, these are they who deserve to be given the hero status they
deserve in a Jewish state. Apostates do not.
>If you're talking about a Moshiach whose "origins are of old", who will be
>called "Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father", who will reign for all eternity on
>David's throne (and these are *directly* from the Tanakh, see Micah, Isaiah,
>Psalms, etc.)
Don't insult our intelligence. Please look over previous notes.
>...they believe him
>to be the promised Messiah (having fulfilled the role of Ben Joseph, coming
>again [according to his promises] to fulfill the role of Ben David), and have
>not denied the Torah.
Then "they" are absolutely ignorant of the requirements for such titles,
and this argument is getting very repetitive.
BTW, I am truly astounded that anyone would repeat this nonsense about
one Messiah "coming back" as the other. They are from *entirely distinct*
lineages, as has been pointed out in previous replies, apart from
accomplishing concrete, down-to-earth tasks, as has been repeated here
many times, none of which the pretenders have even claimed!
>Some did, some didn't. But again, whether you personally subscribe to this
>thinking, there are Jews who *do*, and who understand the Tanakh to have
>spoken about such things centuries before he came on the scene.
And there are Jews who have accepted Islam, and interpret the Bible through
the glasses of their adopted faith. They are apostates, no more and no less.
>That is one popular view. Another, no doubt less popular, is that what
>looked like a crushing defeat was indeed victory because, "it pleased the
>L-rd to bruise him," and "By his knowledge shall My servant justify the
>righteous before many and he shall bear their iniquities. Surely I will
>divide him a portion with the great and he shall divide the spoil with the
>strong because he hath laid open his soul unto death and was numbered with
>the transgressors. He took off the sin of many and made intercession for
>the transgressors." (from Is. 53, The Jewish Bible, Mt. Sinai Publishing)
Every missionary I've ever met has assumed that they would be the first
to introduce the Jew to Isaiah's "suffering servant." A few words about
Isaiah 52 and 53: namely, Isaiah 41:8, 43:10, 44:1-2,21, 45:4. Just a
sampling of the times Isaiah calls the *Jewish people* (Israel, Jacob)
G-d's servant, not to mention the dozens of times in other books of the
Bible.
Oy--my wife just reminded me that I've got to do guard duty. To be
continued. Hopefully the Messiah will have arrived by then, and then
we'll all be happy!
Yehoshua
|
| 1381.68 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Mar 02 1994 23:54 | 65 |
| Hello again, Malcolm,
re: .65
> A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah.
Fine. :-)
"C/christ"; Anglicized from the Greek "christos", used for the Hebrew
"moshiach" meaning "anointed one".
"Christian"; meaning, "follower of 'Christ/Moshiach'"
That's all "Christian" means; in English - it's one who follows
Moshiach/Christos/Christ/insert other translations here.
If you want to get technical about it, Rabbi Schneerson's followers are
(in English) "Christians"; though when I asked earlier if this label would
apply, I believe Dave Gross said it probably wouldn't stick. ;-)
> They should be honest about this to themselves and other Jews.
I'll admit, the wordplay really isn't very helpful and I'm sorry to appear
to be making sport of all this. But really, the word "Christian" has many
associations. In reality, the world doesn't consist of Jews and Christians,
the world consists of Jews (today, any of the descendants of Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob/Israel and his children - not only the tribe of Judah) and
Gentiles (any who are not Jewish by that definition).
Gentiles who follow Yeshua call themselves "Christians" (see above
definitions). Since a Jew doesn't cease to be Jewish if he believes Messiah
has come there is nothing dishonest about his continued participation in the
Jewish faith and identification as a Jew; case in point, the Lubavitchers.
So it is (and should be) with Yeshua's Jewish followers as well.
>>But let me say that the tremendously grevious acts committed against Jews
>>by some who called themselves "Christians"
>
> As you say, do they not have the right to define themselves as
> "Christians" ?
Touche! :-)
However, there is an important distinction. One can be born into the world
as a Jew, but one can not be born into the world as a follower of the Messiah
(or a "Christian" if you prefer that word) as one has to come to the point
where he can decide for himself whether Messiah has come or not, and if so,
to trust in him.
Since the promise of Messiah is central to Judaism, to believe he has come
is not (in and of itself) outside the realm of the faith. Since the
Messiah is Jewish; it *is* totally non-sequitur (and outside the realm of the
faith) for one to identify himself as a follower of one who claimed to be
the Jewish Messiah and then commit anti-Semitic acts supposedly in his name.
I believe your argument might be that for a Jewish person to view Yeshua as
the Jewish Messiah is *itself* non-sequitur; therefore, you call him a
"Christian", which may actually mean "non-Jew" depending on its useage (and
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, you can enter your definition if
you like). I think I've written much in this string that clearly shows why
a person can logically say otherwise.
Unless you wish to discuss it further, I'm content to agree to disagree.
Steve
|
| 1381.69 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Mar 02 1994 23:54 | 55 |
| Hello Shelly,
Thank you for your very kind words.
I understand the thinking that makes the phrase "Jewish follower of Yeshua"
appear oxymoronic. I really do! What I've been "noodling" since the
announcement in the Post is whether or not such a perception is
intellectually honest or even fair. I can't change that perception for
anyone, but I think it's important to poke at it, especially in light of
Rabbi Schneerson's followers proclaiming him to the be promised Jewish
Messiah.
Admittedly, Schneerson doesn't have centuries of history with which to
contend (some of it blackened by those who may have "jumped on his bandwagon"
but were ignorant of what he really taught), so getting at the essence of
what he teaches is a much easier task than it is to wade through centuries of
mishandling of Yeshua's teaching to appreciate what he *really* said.
As I said to Malcolm, I think (hope!) I've documented well enough the reasons
why it is neither oxymornic nor non-sequitur for a Jewish person to believe
in Yeshua and remain Jewish to the core; with or without the recognition of
Halakhah (which they have) or fellow Jews (which for the most part, they
don't have). It's a lot to read through, and though it barely scratches the
surface, I'm not sure much more detail is necessary. (Having read up to .67
at the time I'm typing this reply, I'm sure Jem would agree ;-)
Again, this isn't a debate to convince anyone that I'm right (I'm confident
enough about that to not be worried whether others agree or not; pardon the
immodesty there ;-).
>The fact that they call themselves Jews doesn't mean that the Jewish state
>must automatically recognize them as such.
Understood, however, I would argue that since they are indeed Jews (with
admittedly distasteful theology in the eyes of many other Jews) the Israeli
government has no right, nor should they desire to automatically deny them
citizenship either (as they do today).
However, I will say again that the most compelling and thought-provoking
portion of Mr. Golding's article was the excerpt from the Court's decision
regarding "Brother Daniel". That has left a strong impression with me and
I remain somewhat troubled after reading it, and unable to respond to it.
Clearly, even if we could get past the semantics of language, history
remains what it is and those wounds have run terribly deep. This is
very sad.
There are scholarly sources who address this issue *much* better than I am
able to. For now, unless anyone wishes to pursue it further, I am (as I
said) content (though sad) to agree to disagree.
Shalom,
Steve
|
| 1381.70 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Mar 03 1994 00:04 | 19 |
| re: .67
Yehoshua,
If by "guard duty" you mean watching out for your neighborhood, may you
be safe in Him...
As for repetetive, you're right; which I why I've said what I have to
Malcom and Shelly.
Boring? I dunno. I didn't read "boredom" from .67 ;-)
I think I've addressed most (if not all) of what you're bringing up
again in .67 (I distinctly remember addressing "misquotes" and "out of
context quotes" earlier, etc.). My responses to those accusations are
already in the string.
Be well,
Steve
|
| 1381.71 | words don't mean what their radices meant | CARAFE::isdnip.lkg.dec.com::goldstein | Resident ISDN Weenie | Thu Mar 03 1994 07:05 | 31 |
| re:.68
Lessee, Steve. Now you've moved on from the misquoted scripture that Jeremy did a
good job of debunking and on to the old linguistic tricks. Can't we do better?
>That's all "Christian" means; in English - it's one who follows
>Moshiach/Christos/Christ/insert other translations here.
Well, no. That's not the _semantic_ meaning. It's the _etymology_ of the word. The two
are very different! A Christian is one who belongs to the religion started by Greeks who
picked up on a failed messianic Jewish cult and transmorgrified its central figure, whom
they named "Jesus", into a Hellenic saviour.
>If you want to get technical about it, Rabbi Schneerson's followers are
>(in English) "Christians"; though when I asked earlier if this label would
>apply, I believe Dave Gross said it probably wouldn't stick. ;-)
Another example of such semantic falsehood is the argument made by some Arabs that
an Arab _can't_ be an anti-Semite because Arabs are Semites. While the latter is true,
the term "anti-Semite", regardless of etymology (that's word study, not insect study), was
coined by an Austrian political movement to refer to its own anti-Jewish position. And
that's what the word means. So Schneersonites are no more Christian than Buddha.
The Law of Return isn't about etymology or halachic use of the word "Jew". The fact that
an apostate remains a Jew is important in part because being a Jew is largely
hereditary. If your mother took a hit and became, say, an Armstrongite, then you could
still be Jewish, because apostasy doesn't break yichus. Thus it's possible that Attaturk's
sister's sister's children could be accepted as Jews, even if their immediate ancestors
didn't know it. (I don't know if Israeli law would go that far, though!) But the apostate
loses all personal Jewish rights.
Hey, if they can't go to Jerusalem, maybe they'll be accepted in Zagreb. :-)
|
| 1381.72 | Who is the Messiah? | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | Subtract L, invert W. | Tue Mar 08 1994 01:26 | 48 |
| Greetings,
Having been a believer in G-d for 34 years of my soon to be 39 years on this
earth, I have recently had an interest stirred to study, more deeply, the ways
of what many Christians, myself included, believe to be our roots. I have found
many parts of the Old Testament to be a great comfort in my life, the Psalms of
David being most dominant. In being in read-only mode, I have gained from this
particular notesfile, some much needed insight into the ways of your culture.
I have always admired the courage of your nation throughout history. My heart
goes out to you in the many sufferings your nation has undergone in the past,
and in the struggles you encounter in the present. I often pray for the peace
of Jerusalem. I also apologize for many "so called Christians" who have caused
you pain and loss in the past. They were wrong to persecute your nation, and
peoples. If they only had seen, as David said in Pslams 100:3,"we are all his
people, and the sheep of His pasture" then wrongs would have been avoided.
The L-rd has shown me through my studies that all life was created by Him,
and we are all His children, being all descendants of Adam, and then from
Noah, after the great flood. Unfortunately, many have been deceived by the
enemy of G-d and mankind to not see we are all the members of one race, which
is commonly referred to as the human race. If all could see this, prejudice
would be a thing of the past.
My reasoning in leaving the read-only status and replying in this note is as
follows. I love the L-rd dearly for all He has done in my life. I feel a strong
personal gratitude and debt to Him, and to the nation that brought forth the
Scriptures, and my Saviour, without whom I would be lost. In my studies of
prophecy, and in watching current events on CNN, and other media which gives
information for thought, I believe the time is short. Also, it is not my desire
that when the abomination of desolation comes on the scene, anyone thinks he
is the Messiah, even though he will show great signs and wonders. It is my
understanding there are plans to rebuild the temple, and from many scholars
interpretations, he will stand there, and proclaim to be G-d.
This note is to request the participants of this conference permission to enter
a lengthy article written from a Gentile/Christians perspective based on studies
of Biblical prophecy that, in his view, supports the Messianship of Jesus. The
pamphlet has been copied word for word into files which I should like to enter
for your review, and comments. There is, at the end of it, a call to consider
the information, and make a decision within your own hearts. I understand this
is something the readers are generally not fond of, but there is much prophesy
contained that makes sense to me, and I'm very interested in hearing your
perspective on the writer's understanding of the Bible.
Shalom,
Bob
|
| 1381.73 | Please don't | SIMMNS::SIMON | Curiosier and curiosier... | Tue Mar 08 1994 06:09 | 12 |
|
>This note is to request the participants of this conference permission to enter
>a lengthy article written from a Gentile/Christians perspective based on studies
>of Biblical prophecy that, in his view, supports the Messianship of Jesus.
Please, don't!!! It should be clear to anybody by now that for the
last two thousand years we are not interested! Besides the fact that
there have been too many of those studies already posted here, BAGELS is
not the appropriate place for such discussions, there are much better
suited conferences available.
Leo
|
| 1381.74 | I second Leo's vote | TAV02::JEREMY | | Tue Mar 08 1994 15:40 | 10 |
| It has always seemed strange to me that Christians feel a
need to concentrate on "enlightening" Jews when there are
tens of millions of non-practicing gentiles who could benefit
from such education. I'm speaking of the multitudes who may
or may not attend church services on Christmas or Easter, but
who in any case consider *themselves* Christians. Don't these
people deserve to be "saved?" And if we Jews choose to believe
differently, what will it take for that choice to be respected?
Yehoshua
|
| 1381.75 | Please don't | MSBCS::MSD623::Glickler | Sheldon (Shelly) 293-5026 | Tue Mar 08 1994 15:41 | 10 |
| Make that two votes for NO!!!! Very simply -- WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY
OF THOSE MESSAGES FROM ANYONE. (Yes, I am screaming).
Now in a calm tone. You are welcome to believe as you will. If it helps
make you a better person -- great. Please, however, don't impose those
views upon us no matter how well intentioned. Doing that to us is akin
to our using a profane adjective with respect to Jesus (something we
would not think of doing). Please, please, let's live and let live.
Shelly
|
| 1381.76 | Another NO vote. Thanks for asking though. | GRANPA::AFRYDMAN | | Tue Mar 08 1994 16:11 | 7 |
| Please do not post your "proofs". If someone is interested in seeking
your answers they can find them in the Christian notesfiles. Why is it
so hard for Christians to understand that Jesus is not important to
Jews. The idea of "Moshiach" is important...but we eagarly await him
even though he may tary.
Avi
|
| 1381.77 | | SSAG::TERZA | where the eagles fly | Tue Mar 08 1994 17:47 | 18 |
|
Instead of offering to post the article, just state that you have
some article that you found highly interesting (or whatever) and that
you feel the readers would also find interesting, and that they may
contact you via such-and-such methods and you'll be more than happy to
send it to them. Then, if they wish to respond, they can feel free to
send you mail and you can have a discussion.
It's an open, honest invitation to share *with* respect for another
person's right to decide such things. It's fine to offer *with* the
fully conscious *acceptance* of another person's right to refuse or
accept such offerings. Posting the article first, though, is not
as respectful as making it available to anyone who asks.
My suggestion,
Terza
|
| 1381.78 | Just give a pointer, if you must | TAVIS::JUAN | | Tue Mar 08 1994 17:54 | 18 |
| Re: .72
Hi Bob!
Some of our fellow Bagelers, including myself, may think of your offer
as a missionizing effort, trying changing all of us, to leave the
ways and principles we think sacred.
May I suggest you to post a pointer the refferred files and thesis,
so those interested may copy them, read them and even study them, while
others, that whatever their reasons, are not interested that those files
be included in a Jewish interests conference, will not be confronted
with them?
Best regards,
Juan-Carlos Kiel
|
| 1381.79 | By your wishes | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | Subtract L, invert W. | Tue Mar 08 1994 18:11 | 25 |
| Thank you,
In reading the previous notes, it is clear this study is not wanted,
and I do understand why. It is posted in YUKON::CHRISTIAN 429, for any
interested readers.
>It has always seemed strange to me that Christians feel a need to
concentrate on "enlightening" Jews...
In the New Testament, which I know is not generally accepted among you,
Paul, in his letter to the Romans said salvation is first to come to the
Jew, then others. The only place in the Old Testament I have found in
my studies that there would be a new testament (covenant) is Jeremiah
31:31-40. Perhaps this was overlooked? It is my zeal that brought me to
the point of not being a read-only participant, as I have a great love
for you, and your nation. For that I cannot apologize, and I wouldn't
expect for you to expect me to be sorry for this love.
There is much more I would like to say, but perhaps I've already said
too much? I shall not bother you with more.
Shalom
Bob
|
| 1381.80 | how to hold a dialogue? | SQGUK::LEVY | The Bloodhound | Tue Mar 08 1994 18:53 | 22 |
| Hello Bob,
The problem here is how Jews and Christians can have a dialogue
without Jews feeling that they are being threatened by
missionary activities.
Typically this happends when a Christian wishes to share his
beliefs. This always leads to the type of exchange seen earlier
in this topic, where the Jewish beliefs are challenged and
the Jew is put in the position of having to defend his faith.
As we saw, earlier, this also leads to the Christian feeling like
they have to defend their position, and refute the alternative view
of history.
For the Jew, the whole process above is very fustrating as
Christian belief is not at all significant to him, and unrelated
to his faith.
Regards,
Malcolm
|
| 1381.81 | | TAV02::JEREMY | | Tue Mar 08 1994 19:52 | 51 |
| Re: .79 (Bob)
>The only place in the Old Testament I have found in
>my studies that there would be a new testament (covenant) is Jeremiah
>31:31-40. Perhaps this was overlooked?
Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't the first time we've seen
this passage quoted. First of all, the translation of _berit_ is
"covenant" and not "testament," as you yorself allude to parenthetically.
In fact, there are many "covenants" recorded in the Bible. For example,
multiple covenants are mentioned in regard to the Patriarchs (Lev. 26:42):
Then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant
with Isaac and also My covenant with Abraham will I remember.
Are we to infer that a special law was given to each of the Patriarchs?
Each is but a renewal of the previous one.
In truth, Jeremiah makes his point very clearly in 31:32:
But this shall be the covenant that I shall make with the house
of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put my Torah
in their inner parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will
be their G-d, and they will be My people...
That is, the "new covenant" is nothing more than a reiteration of the
original covenant Law of Moses, renewed for a Jewish people returning to
their homeland, lest they think that it is no longer needed upon their
return.
The immutability of the Torah is reiterated many times. Thus, the Torah
exhorts us (Deut. 4:2):
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor shall
you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of the
Lord your G-d which I command you.
And King David sums up the true yearning and comfort of the Jew as follows:
Unless Your Torah had been my delight, I would have perished in my
affilction. I will never forget Your precepts: for with
them You have given me life. I am Yours, save me; for I
have sought Your precepts.
>Paul, in his letter to the Romans said salvation is first to come to the
>Jew, then others.
I think it's time to move on to the others.
Yehoshua
|
| 1381.82 | Last call | MSBCS::MSD623::Glickler | Sheldon (Shelly) 293-5026 | Tue Mar 08 1994 19:54 | 23 |
| .80 said it correctly.
and Bob,
>>In the New Testament, which I know is not generally accepted among you,
please understand that it is not "generally" is is "not at all". To us
the "New Testament" is a book -- just a book. What you call the "Old
Testament" to us is the "Bible". Some of us even find the terminology
somewhat offensive (implication being that WE have the old version
whereas YOU have the new and revised version). I, for one, would rather
have Christians refer to these books (when speaking to us) as the Bible
and the New Testament.
Please don't misinterpret this as an attack of any kind. I truly
understand your motives and can appreciate them. Please also try to
understand that certain topics evoke a stong emotional reaction among us
and the, often condescending (not by you), attitude of many Christians in
this area is one of them.
Shelly
PS - unless severely motivated I won't say anymore on this topic.
|
| 1381.83 | Thank you, again | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | Subtract L, invert W. | Tue Mar 08 1994 20:27 | 16 |
| Thank you Malcolm,
This is a hard thing, nearly impossible? In any effort to converse with
a member of (insert faith here), without "attacking" the thoughts, or
beliefs of said individual, without expecting the person to become
defensive, is very difficult, perhaps impossible.
I have not replied here to incite anger, although it seems I have. I
merely wish to show facts (at least I believe they are, by this mans
interpretation) that use strictly Old Testament views, who is Messiah.
and to understand what you think of his views. I'll say no more, with
this hopefully understood.
Shalom,
Bob
|
| 1381.84 | Consider an analogy | TLE::JBISHOP | | Tue Mar 08 1994 20:35 | 20 |
| There's a possible analogy which may make things clearer for
the Christians: consider Mormonism (the "Church of Latter-Day
Saints").
Mormonism has grown out of Christianity in much the same way
that Christianity grew out of Judaism. They have another,
newer Testament; they have a new prophet (several, actually);
they do lots of evangelism; they think they are still Christian,
but most Christians think they are at least _very_ different,
more different than any other sect by a big step, and at worst
a completely different religion.
How would the Christians writing in this conference feel
about someone who quoted chunks of the "Book of Mormon",
and used New Testament quotes to prove the Book of Mormon
correct?
The analogy isn't perfect, but maybe you get the point.
-John Bishop
|
| 1381.85 | Love Me Quietly, Please | POCUS::FEINMAN | | Thu Mar 17 1994 22:48 | 28 |
| I am very impressed by the patience of those who responded to this
ersatz offer of love to be communicated via a prostelitizing essay. No
thank you, Bob, we are quite content with our beliefs and our
notesfile. If you anticipated the objections to your little missile
enough to ask before posting it, perhaps you can understand the
negative response such an offer provoked. I struggle daily with the
difficulties of living in a secular world, the appropriate response to
a well-meaning "Merry Christmas" which is not insulting or exclusionary
as much as unaware that the entire world doesn't celebrate Christmas,
anti-semitism and the ever-present assimilation issues. I don't mean
to sound ornery, but I don't expect to come to this file and feel
anything more unpleasant than ignorance when I read the insightful,
informed notes written by others.
There are, I am quite certain, many forums for discussions of interest
to Christians, even for those so overflowing with respect for "you
people" and eagerness to "understand" that they offer to show us the
proof that everything which we hold dear is really in error. Perhaps I
am unusual, but I have enough to do between my job and my personal life
and my attempts to be as informed and observant as possible to go into
notesfiles dealing with dog-lovers and attempt to spread my "love" for
them and ask them why on Earth they don't chose cats as pets.
Bob, as my Mom always says, don't go away mad, just go away.*
*I don't mean from the file, just from this topic
Sylvia
|