martillo@csd2.UUCP (Joachim Martillo) (08/25/85)
Normally, I do not reply to this type of article but Julie Harazduk has claimed to be Jewish. Generally, I consider the Jewishness of Ashkenazim suspect unless they are acting in a recognizably Jewish way by Sefardi standards. Most of what most Ashkenazim consider Jewishness is basically some barbaric customs picked up from German and Slavic peasants over the past couple of centuries. Also many of the ideas which Ashkenazim consider Jewish religious ideas in fact come from Christianity. We just had a good example in net.religion.jewish where the shma` was related to the word `ed (meaning witness) via some really dubious analysis and this was then related to matyrdom. This idea is fairly easily traceable to primitive Christian concepts and was basically unknown among Sefardi and oriental Jews who were isolated from contacts with Ashkenazim. Sefardim have generally been much less into random self-immolation than Ashkenazim. Likewise the style of Ashkenazim is clearly Christian. For example, for my parents a hakam whether from Morocco or from Greece or from India is basically recognizable as such while an Ashkenazic rabbi and in particular a Hassidic rebbe is basically totally off the wall in style. The style of the hakam is clearly normatively Jewish if only because over such great distances and in contact such diverse non-Jewish communities, the style of a hakam can only be originally Jewish. The hassidic rebbe, however, really originates in one small region of Europe. A Hassidic rebbe is most clearly like Russian Old Believer clerics and I suspect there was much exchange between Orthodox Schismatics (many of whose leaders were in fact Ashkenazim) and Ashkenazi religious groups. Lately I have begun to suspect that perhaps the Lubovitcher rebbe was accused of treason in Tsarist Russia because Russian Old Believers were finding refuge from persecution among the Lubovitchers. The enemies of the Lubovitcher Rebbe seem to have made this charge. Anyway, there can be no doubt that at least 90% of Ashkenazim find aspects of the Ashkenazi shitah repugnant (otherwise they would be practising) and that almost all Sefardim find some aspects of the Ashkenazi shitah repugnant. Generously granting the Jewishness of Ashkenazim, I would prefer to believe the Christian accretions in the Ashkenazi shitah have driven away Ashkenazim from Yahudut rather than believe that over 90% of Ashkenazim are resha`im. Therefore, granting her Jewishness, Harazduk can be partially excused for converting to Christianity simply because the Ashkenazi community was so contaminated by Christian ideas anyway. Of course, in view of the long history of Christian mistreatment of Jews and recent almost extermination of Jews by the foremost European society, accepting European religion and assimilating into European society as Ashkenazim have done in droves is simply contemptible. Such a conversion is particularly contemptible because Christianity as a strong-proselytizing religion encourages hatred of all other cultures (otherwise missionaries would not be sent out to wipe out the religions and cultures of other peoples). Jews should have a particular aversion to supporting such hatred. Also, four generations or more ago, Harazduk's ancestors steadfastly and courageously maintained their Jewishness in the face of heathen mistreatment and persecution. Now when living Jewishly is easy, Harazduk adopts the culture of the European barbarian persecutors and accepts a religion which damns her more courageous ancestors for all time. And on such ridiculous evidence! >/* csd2:net.religion.christian / jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) / 10:38 am Aug 14, 1985 */ >>In article <326@aero.ARPA> homeier@aero.UUCP (Peter Homeier (MISD)) writes: >>>Although the nature of the Trinity is most clearly expressed in the New >>>Testament, there are an abundance of references to this in the Old Testament >>>as well, beginning in Genesis 1:26, at the very beginning: "Then God said, >>>'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;'". >> I was taught that in this verse God is speaking to the earth. Let us >>(God and the earth) make man. Which is just what God did. He made man >>from the earth, and then breathed his spirit into him. This explanation >>always seemed to make more sense to me. >I can't picture God talking to the dust before he breathed life into it. >The only acceptable explanation, outside of evidence for the Trinity, that >I have heard is that He was talking to the host of angels in heaven. Rashi >(a renowned Jewish Old Testament commentator) suggests this possibility. But >I don't believe this is true, even though it makes sense to me. Harazduk makes a fundamental error about Rashi. Sometimes Rashi enlightens difficult points (sometimes when there is no obvious difficulty but that is because Rashi had ruah haqodes and could see difficulties which most of us today could not). Othertimes he shows how scripture teaches proper behavior. The royal use of the plural is so obvious that Rashi does not comment. The next verse says wayibra' (and he made). Therefore, Rashi learns here proper conduct. If Harazduk still insists that here is a clear reference to plurality of divinity, I must point out na`aseh is pretty flimsy evidence. This word is qal 1st person plural future but it is also nif`al masculine singular present participle. Nif`al sometimes serves as simple passive but othertimes carries connotation worthy or suitable. The verse could be translated: And God said Man is suitable to be made in our image after our likeness ... But this diverges rather radically from the traditional understanding. But such a possible translation is important because the verse could easily have been: wayomer 'e-lohim na`aseh 'et ha'adam besalmenu kidmutenu ... in which let us make would have been the only interpretation. There is a reason for the ambiguity. The verse is basically an editorial comment of a sort which was not made when anything else was created. Why is this editorial comment made? God has two aspects: justice and compassion. So far in creation only justice was operative but in the creation of man both justice and compassion were needed because man has intelligence hence "let us make" and this is one way to interpret in our image after our likeness. Since both aspects were operative in man's creation man himself has and reflects these aspects and is able to perceive them in the Lord and thus was suitable to be made in our image after our likeness. Later Israel becomes the new Adam. And Israel synthesizes Abraham's chief aspect (compassion) and Isaac's chief aspect (justice). Yizhaq of Troqi refutes the ridiculous Christological interpretation directly. (I take no responsibility for this translation). Chapter X. Genesis i. 26, "And God said, We will make man in our image according to our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea," etc. From the words, "We will make man," the Christian expounders of this verse infer, that an allusion to a plurality of divine persons is made. Refutation: -- If the verb na`aseh, we will make, related to a divine plurality, why do we find immediately afterwards the singular form, "And God created man in His image?" or why not, "And they created man?" The same explanation which we have given in the preceeding chapter on the employment of the plural form [represents authority and power], holds also good in regard to the present passage. To bring to mind the manifold powers of the Almighty employed in the creation of the noblest of His creatures, the plural is employed by way of high distinction. We will point out some other passages which contain the verb in the plural for the sake of emphasis, although they indicate a strict unity of person. Genesis xi, 7, "Go to, let us go down and let us confound their speech," instead of "let me," etc. Job xviii. 2, "Ye shall understand, and then we will speak" (instead of I will speak). The words of the Almighty, "We will make man in our image," may have been addressed to the Angels, for "He maketh known his will to his servants." Thus we find in Genesis xviii, 17, "Should I conceal from Abraham what I am doing?" In the same chapter occurs a parallel expression to the above-mentioned passage in Genesis xi.7; but there the singular number is used, "I will go down and see." If a doctrine of plurality of personages were to be enforced by the grammatical form of words, the very alternations which occur between the singular and the plural would frustrate such a doctrine, and suggest doubt and uncertainty instead of confidence and conviction. Our Holy Scriptures contradict in the most direct terms every opinion which departs from the belief in an immutable unity, or ascribes corporeity to Him in whose spiritual likeness the soul of man is created with the object of acknowledging, obeying, and adoring the eternal One God.. It is remarkable, that Christians are desirous to make us believe in the doctrine of the trinity, which is totally unauthorised by our Holy Bible, and even by their own New Testament. Our Divine Law tells us expressly in Deut. vi. 4, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." Ibid. iv 35, "Thou hast been shewn these things, in order to know that the Lord is God, and there is none besides Him." And again, ib. (ver. 39) "Thou shalt know to-day and take it to heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and on earth beneath, and there is none besides." Isaiah xliii. 2, says, "I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no savior besides me." Ibid. xliv. 6, "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel and his Redeemer, I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." Ibid. lv. 5, "I am the Lord, and there is none else besides me." Again (ver. 6), "In order that they shall know, from the rising of the sun [east] unto the west, that there is no one besides me; I am the Lord, and there is none else." Ibid. xl. 18, "And to whom will you liken God, and what likeness have you to compare with him." Jeremiah x. 6, "There is none like Thee, O Lord. Thou art great, and thy name is great in power." Hosea xiii. 4, "I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no God but me; and there is no Savior besides me." Psalms lxxxvi. 10, "For thou art great and doing miracles; Thou alone art the Lord." Nehemiah ix. 6, "Thou alone art the Lord, Thou has made the heavens of the heavens, and all their hosts," etc. 1 Chronicles xvii. 20, "There is none like unto thee, and there is no God like unto thee, and there is no God besides thee, according to all we have heard with our ears." We might adduce numerous other similar corroborative passages, were it needful. In order to counteract the dangerous effect of the belief in a good and evil principle (a belief prevailing in Persia, etc.), our Divine Instructor tells us, "Behold now that I even I am ever the same, and there is no God with me; I kill and I bring to life; I crush and heal again." Isaiah xlv. 7, "He formeth light and createth darkness, maketh peace and createth evil; I the Lord am doing all these things." The Deity, who calls into being conditions and events of totally opposite natures, and who, by mere power of will brings things into being, or reduces them into annihilation, is, according to all scriptural testimony, the most absolute Unity, and as such without the slightest shade of mysticism. This Unity can alone be comprehended by our finite understanding. He who alone possesses absolute power, and is the first cause, is the Creator of Beings who depend on His will, remain ever, and in every respect, subjected to His Supreme Mandate, and are liable to change and decay. Hence, also, human reason subscribes to the doctrine that God is an absolute and a perfect Unity. This absolute Unity cannot, under any logical view, be divided into a Duality or a Trinity. If such division is to be forced upon the faith of man, reason remonstrates against it; the faculty of though given to us by the Almighty protests against a false representation of the Divine Being, and proves that God has constituted the mind in such a manner as to worship Him in accordance with His true attributes. From the moment that a divisibility of essence is attributed to God, we should be compelled to maintain, with the Polytheists, that He is deficient of omnipresence, and that He is comparable with created matter. How can we, then repudiate such clear testimonies of God's unity, as are contained in passages like the following, Isaiah xl. 18: "And unto whom will ye liken God, and what likeness have ye to compare unto Him"? We cannot even grant that God from His own resolve would reproduce, and double or treble Himself. Such an assumption could only spring from the narrowest views of a sophistical or a perverted mind but it could not emanate from a faith which commands veneration and rational obedience. Even the authors of the New Testament have given opinions which disprove the untenable position of the Christians who make belief in the Trinity an indispensable portion of their creed. Matthew xii. 32, says, "And whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." The same is repeated in Mark iii. 28, 29 and Luke xii. 10. These authorities of the Christians have their data here clearly averred that there is no identity between the true Deity and the personages subsequently added to the name of the Divine Being. In Mark xiii.32, we have also a proof of the want of identity between the son and the father: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the father." Nor do we find throughout the New Testament, any evidence to shew that the belief in a Trinity constitutes a part of the code of Christianity, or that Jesus and God are to be held as One and the same being. On the contrary, Jesus himself is made to profess, in Matthew x. 40, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and He that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." Here Jesus puts himself merely as a messenger of God. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans v. 15, also says, "The gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ" etc. Matthew xx. 18, again says, " Behold, we go to Jerusalem, and the son of man shall be betrayed," etc., and in verse 28 he states, "Even as the son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister etc. In the very prayer instituted by Jesus, and denominated after him "The Lord's Prayer," his disciples are taught to invoke the Father who is in heaven, but are not told to use the combination subsequently made of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We see clearly that the New Testament affords not a single evidence, to authorize a change from the pure belief in Divine Unity to the complex and unintelligble dogma of the trinity. >> In short - I see no evidence for the trinity in the Old Testament. >How about Isaiah 7:14 or Isaiah 9:6 or Psalm 110 where the Son is called >God but distinctly a separate person? Especially in Psalm 110, "The Lord >said to my Lord...." I think this is evidence enough. And there is numerous >mention of patriarchs and prophets being filled with the Spirit of God (in >some translations it is capitalized and in others it is not). I am not even going to bother with Isaiah 7:14. `almah does not mean virgin in Biblical or any other Hebrew. Parthenos does not mean virgin in Homeric Greek. Since parthenos has other meanings in Greek beside virgin, since the word is being used to translate `almah, parthenos in Alexandrian Judeo-Greek simply does not mean virgin. Isaiah 7:14 refers to contemporary events. Likewise Isaiah 9:6 makes perfect sense referring to contemporary events. To get the desired prophetic Christological sense the passage would have to be: ushmotaw yikar'u pele' yo`es 'el gibor 'abi`ad sar-salom. In other words you need a disjunctive waw and plural verb. For reasons I have never understood Ashkenazim work hard at grammatical ignorance and are proud of it. The Jewish reading of the actual text is: And he who is Wonderful, a Counsellor and Omnipotent God, a Father of Eternity, he called his (the child's name) Prince of Peace. The child is Hezekiah son of Ahaz and "is entitled the Prince of Peace, because of the peace granted to Israel in the days of Hezekiah." From Yishaq of Troqi: The preceding epithets are applied to the Almighty as indications of marvellous occurrences accompanying the life of Hezekiah, "God showed Himself Wonderful," causing for his (Hezekiah's) sake, the shade of the sundial to recede; as "Counsellor," the Lord established His own designs, and frustrated those of Sennacherib; as the "Omnipotent God," He evinced His divine attribute by suddenly destroying the immense army of the invading king; as "Father of Eternity," and Ruler of time, who, according to His pleasure, adds to and diminishes from the life of mortals, He manifested His power by prolonging the life of Hezekiah for a period of fifteen years. Psalm 110 is even easier to explain. This is a song of David. How does one go about interpreting it? Well, if unlike Julie Harazduk, you can read the commentaries, you read the psalm and the commentaries at the same time. Poetic biblical Hebrew is simply hard to understand. But suppose you are not competant to read the commentaries which are typically in Rabbinic Hebrew. ne'um h' la'doni seb limini Who does dawid melek yisra'el call my lord? Several possibilities suggest themselves. Moses or perhaps the patriarchs. In fact the patriarchs are the better candidates because 'adoni seems to have been a normal form of address to the pater familias in patriarchal times. `ad-'asit 'oyebeika hadom leragleika This suggest a battle in which the Lord intervened. Immediately the rebellion of the five kings comes to mind especially because Melkisedeq blesses ubaruk 'e-l `elyon 'aser migen sareika beyadeika. Later we find explicit reference to Melkisedeq so that this is a good interpretive path. There are some more battle references which in fact could apply to either 'Abraham's or Dawid's triumphs. I find the line behadrei qodes merehem mishar leka tal yalduteika. a little harder. I would prefer yalduteika be less abstract a noun so that this could be a reference to the promise 'im yukal 'ish limnot 'et `afar ha'ares gam zar`aka yimaneh but in fact poetic biblical Hebrew does use abstract nouns in this way. But this could just be a way of referring to the Dawid's achievements and tying these achievements in as continuing fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. nisba` h' welo' yinahem 'atah kohen le`olam al dibrati malki-sedeq. Malki-sedeq had a shot at being a patriarch but he blessed Abraham first and then the Lord second and so his position was supplanted by 'Abraham. Likewise Dawid in his capacity as king of Israel acted as a priest. Once again Dawid's reign is tied into the continuing fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. Now comes the movement from the far and near past into the future to give hope to the people of Israel during the suffering to come. The Lord at your right hand (in war -- as he was with Abraham and Dawid) has crushed kings on the day of his anger: Switch to the future and generalize -- He *will* judge among the nations, he has made full of corpses, crushed the head throughout the land: From the river in the way he *will* drink and will lift up his head. (Last line obscure nowadays -- though Sharon might not think so -- ye'or in Hebrew means Nile but it is in ancient Egyptian the translation of nahal). Now if you do not like this way of looking at the psalm, Yishaq of Troki handles as follows: Psalm cx. 1, "The Lord said unto my lord, Sit thou at my right side, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." I heard once a Christian scholar plead that this passage can only have reference to Jesus, who was the combination of divinity and humanity; for of whom else could David have spoken as "my Lord" sitting at the right hand of the Almighty. Refutation. -- To this I made the foloowing reply:-- We attribute to David the composition of the 137th Psalm, commencing, "On the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept," a Psalm obviously treating of the Babylonian Captivity, which took place about four centuries after the death of David. An allusion to so distant a period could only have been made by a holy and an inspired writer. There are also many passages in the book of Psalms which relate to the poet himself, as for instance, Psalm ii.7, "I will declare it as a law. The Lord spoke unto me, Thou art my son, to-day I have begotten thee." In the same light must be considered many other subsequent Psalms. There are Psalms of another character, the object of which is to describe the period of the Jewish exile; to this class belongs the above-mentioned Psalm cxxxvii. Of the like prophetic character is Psalm lxxix. 1, commencing, "O God, the heathen have come into thine inheritance, they have defiled thy holy temple." In a similar sense we take Psalm lxxiv.10, "Wherefore, O God, hast thou for ever forsaken us?" All such Psalms were composed for the captives of Israel through inspiration. We find other Psalms which have a still more remote bearing, and take within their range the gathering of the captives, and the days of the Messiah. See, for instance, Psalm xcvi. 1, commencing, "Sing unto the Lord a new song," etc. This and other Psalms were dictated by holy inspiration, and originated most likely from some occurrence which urged the mind of the poet to enlarge upon the future restoration of Israel. Sometimes the cause of the production of such Psalms is recorded and pointed out by expressions more or less definite. See, for instance, Psalm xx. 1, "The Lord shall answer thee on the day of trouble," in which David spoke first of his own sorrow, and then passed over to those awaiting the children of Isreal while engaged in hazardous warfare. In the same category stands the Psalm, "God said unto my Lord (master), Sit thou at my right-hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Firstly, David speaks concerning himself, perhaps taking occasion to treat on this subject when his men had sworn "that he should no longer go with them to battle," on account of the danger to which he had so repeatedly exposed his life in conflict with the Philistines. See 2 Samuel xxi. 17, "The the men of David swore unto him, saying, Thou shalt no longer go out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel." The psalm in question seems to have emanated from the impression made on the poet, while his men were anxious to prevent him from exposing his life any more in battle, and speaking, as it were, in their name, he makes them utter an appeal to himself in the following words, "God saith to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Now, whether David was or was not the author of this appeal, we must allow that in any case this emphatic exhortation was well calculated to work a powerful effect on the mind of a man so pious as King David. Being thus assured of the protection of God, as confirmed by the words, "The Lord shall send the rod of they strength from Zion," which is, that "He will send thee help from his sanctuary, He will support thee from Zion," as that holy city was the distinguished locality which "the Lord chose for his abode;" the words which follow, "Thy people shall be willing on the day of thy power," mean, Thy subjects, O king, will freely offer their lives to spare thine, while thou keepest away from danger. The passage, "Thou art my priest for ever according to the word concerning Melchizedek," means, Thou shalt, during all thy life, be unto me like Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, who was denominated king and priest of the most high God. See Genesis xiv. 18, "And Melchizedek, king of Salem, caused bread and wine to be brought out, and he was apriest of the most high God." That David's sacred compositions rendered him worthy to be adorned with the title of priest appears evident enough from Scripture, as is exemplified in the Second Book of Samuel, where we read, that David built an altar, offered up burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, which accompanied by prayer and entreaty, "were accepted by the Lord, and the plague was stayed in Israel." The words `al dibrati in the passage in the psalm in question mean "according to." We find it in the same sense in Job x., "according to thy knowledge. The letter yod in dibrati is paragogic as the yod in rabati (Lamentations [Threni] i.1). [I would say poetic use of the old construent genitive.] We must mention here, by way of digression, a misinterpretation given to the passage, "And Melchizedek brought out wine and bread." The Christians believe, that the bread and wine were offered as articles of sacrifice, but plain sense compels us to believe that the presentation of these things was merely for the entertainment of his guests. The tenth part given by Abraham to Melchizedek, qualified that latter to be denominated priest of the Most High God. Hence we see that the Psalmist meant none but himself, in the composition we have been treating of, while, on the other hand, he alluded to the future condition of the dispersed people, when in his inspiration he proclaimed (Psalm xciv. 6), "Sing ye unto the Lord a new song, let the whole earth sing unto the Lord." Thus he says also in the subsequent psalm, "The Lord reigneth; let the earth be glad, many isles shall rejoice." Those psalms, as we said above, allude to the still unfulfilled ingathering of Israel. It appears to be a most unjustifiable assertion of the Christian expounder of the psalms to maintain that the phrase, "To sit at the right hand of God," applies to an actual son of God, for the Bible contains numerous proofs that the metaphor, "the right hand of God," solely signifies "Omnipotence of the Deity." What other interpretation could be assigned to the following sentences (Ps. cxviii. verse 16), "The right hand of the Lord is exalted, the right hand of the Lord worketh mighty things." Exodus xv. 16, "Thy right hand, O Lord, is glorified in strength; thy right hand, O Lord, crusheth the enemy." Even when speaking of man, "the right hand" implies strength and exertion. See for instance Psalm cxliv. 7, "And their hand is the right hand of falsehood." To take the word in a narrow and literal sense, must involve the expounder in the glaring fallacy of applying corporeality to one whom he believes to be the Son of God. To a Jew, it would almost appear blasphemy literally to ascribe a right or a left hand to the Deity, a spiritual being to whom no attribute of corporeality can be absolutely ascribed. When the believer is urged to place himself on the right hand of the Lord, he can only understand that it is his duty to seek the protection of the Omnipotent. The more we read of Scripture, the more proofs we find that many parts of the Bible have been misinterpreted in order to favour a certain religious dogma. The psalm we are treating of has the expression, "The Lord hath sworn, he will not repent," which phrase has been considered as alluding to a new dispensation by which the sacrifices of flesh and blood should cease, and be substituted by oblations of bread and wine. But it has not been borne in mind that the Deity never changes his views. "He is not a man that he should repent." Ordinances once given must be binding upon us, and upon all succeeding generations. We have already disposed of this subject in chapter xix., to which we refer the reader. >If we didn't have the New Testament, then I could see explanations really >varying to extremes. But now that we've been enlightened, it's hard to >overlook the distinct persons of God. >>>Jesus is also the One who will come again >>>to establish His kingdom here on earth, and to sweep away all evil forces in >>>the battle of Armageddon. >> The last sentence is incredibly debatable, but the only thing that I >>would like to discuss less than the trinity is prophesy. >A debate on this could be fun. I think it is important to believe that >Jesus is coming again, but beyond that, I don't think that it should be >a doctrinal concern. It doesn't alter one's salvation any, I believe. >The fact that Jesus is coming back does appear to be very important to >the New Testament writer's and, especially, to Jesus Himself. So I'm sure >this is not debatable. >> My advice is don't get too wrapped up in >> the doctrine of the trinity. Believing in it, or not believing in it, is >> not going to save or damn you. Although I do know people who would >> disagree violently with that. >Actually, I think it is advisable to search the Scriptures and seek God >on this issue. I believe the three persons of God are very much as Peter >has described and that he has based his article on the Scriptures. >God Bless you and Enlighten you, >Julie A. Harazduk Julie A. Harazduk basically typifies all the nasty things Sefardim have been thinking about Ashkenazim over the past couple of centuries. When Ashkenazim got into pravoslavie and imitating Christian ways, the Torah lost its immediacy to the Ashkenazim. Then the Ashkenazim made the error of considering Europeans civilized rather than merely technically competent. Yet when Europeans demonstrated their animalistic barbarism in World War II, Ashkenazim could not break their fossilized mind-set and reject European ideas and return to normative Jewish ways but instead went forward directly to even more assimilation and in fact in order to be even more European would even adopt this silly European religion even when the slightest study of the sources shows the absence of any foundation for these religious beliefs. In fact with a little work the limitations of Ashkenazi background can be transcended and the return to normative Judaism can be made. Even if one is unwilling to make the effort, hordes of decent Jewish literature in acceptable translation is available even at ordinary Jewish bookstores. Merely perusing such literature would probably prevent more people falling prey to the silly ideas of which Julie Harazduk is a victim.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/27/85)
> Normally, I do not reply to this type of article but Julie Harazduk > has claimed to be Jewish. Generally, I consider the Jewishness of > Ashkenazim suspect unless they are acting in a recognizably Jewish way > by Sefardi standards. Most of what most Ashkenazim consider > Jewishness is basically some barbaric customs picked up from German > and Slavic peasants over the past couple of centuries. Also many of > the ideas which Ashkenazim consider Jewish religious ideas in fact > come from Christianity. [MARTILLO] If I were to say to Martillo that the Jewishness of Sefardim is questionable at best because what Sefardim consider Jewishness is basically some barbaric set of customs picked up in a variety of countries over the last couple of centuries, and that I would not refer to his actionsas "Jewish" unless he was acting in a recognizably Jewish way by Ashkenazic standards, he would probably call me a name like "vusvus". -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
martillo@csd2.UUCP (Joachim Martillo) (09/06/85)
/* csd2:net.religion.jewish / rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) / 12:42 pm Aug 27, 1985 */ >> Normally, I do not reply to this type of article but Julie Harazduk >> has claimed to be Jewish. Generally, I consider the Jewishness of >> Ashkenazim suspect unless they are acting in a recognizably Jewish way >> by Sefardi standards. Most of what most Ashkenazim consider >> Jewishness is basically some barbaric customs picked up from German >> and Slavic peasants over the past couple of centuries. Also many of >> the ideas which Ashkenazim consider Jewish religious ideas in fact >> come from Christianity. [MARTILLO] >If I were to say to Martillo that the Jewishness of Sefardim is questionable >at best because what Sefardim consider Jewishness is basically some barbaric >set of customs picked up in a variety of countries over the last couple >of centuries, and that I would not refer to his actionsas "Jewish" unless >he was acting in a recognizably Jewish way by Ashkenazic standards, he would >probably call me a name like "vusvus". In the original article I unfortunately used Jewishness in two senses: Jewish lineage and the inheritance of the assembly of Jacob (Jewish faith and tradition). As for the second usage, Sefardi Jewish customs are fairly homogenous over an extremely wide geographic area among an extremely diverse group of non-Jews. Except in a few specific cases borrowing from non-Jews is extremely unlikely origin for Sefardic Jewish custom; therefore, when Sefardi and Ashkenazi custom differ, a Christian or pagan origin for the Ashkenazi custom can usually be found. As for lineage, strong evidence exists that the Ashkenazi population in Europe absorbed many Karaites, Orthodox, and pietist protestants. Therefore, Ashkenazi rabbis like Haim Druckman should be the last to run around casting doubt on the lineage of Ethiopians Jews (at least they don't look slavic like many Ashkenazim). As long as Druckman and his ilk continue this rude, crude and immature behavior (which Sefardim outgrew over a century ago), I will continue to point out the dubious Jewish lineage of Ashkenazim. Psychology, Druckman et al. worry so much about Ethiopian Jewish lineage in order to convince themselves of the purity of their own dubious lineage. Rosen should be pleased. He was upset when I said he was Jewish because his mother was Jewish. Now I can logically consider him non-Jewish. Rosen is such an ignoramus that there must have been a tradition of his ignorance. Such a tradition of ignorance I take as prima facie evidence of the Rosen family's non-Jewish origin.