In any religion, there are incidents that are based on faith and faith alone. For me to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and living God, that requires faith - He isn't here for me to see today or peform miracles. For both Christians and Jews alike, the creation of the world by God is based on faith, as it was a very long time ago - over 5000 years by the Jewish calendar - therefore nobody alive can state that they wintessed the creation (and couldn't have if the account is true).
- Matt Small
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Dinowitz
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
Well, chief priest is probably the chief priest. Judaism still had one as
the temple was in existance. There are actual Jewish priests (hereditary
traced through the father).
I hate to say this but much of what your saying here is devoid of an
undestanding of Judaism, the Jewish culture of the time, etc. The 12 tribes
are a division that was mostly gone by the time we're talking about. (10 of
the tribes were in exile). The figure of a human messiah claiming to be God,
the son of God, etc. is against the Jewish understanding of what the messiah
is. A person who does not obey the Torah laws in his claim to be a messiah
is also against the Jewish understanding. There are a TON of issues like
those which basically pushes the entire Jesus incedent out of the Jewish
realm into something else. (A side note is that there are no reliable
records of the entire episode from the Roman or Jewish sides. Even the
Josephus has been altered).
For Christians, the entire episode is one that has to be based on faith and
their writings. For Jews, it's just not that important (no disrespect, but
that's the base truth).
> <cf_speculation>
> It is possible for entire sections to be, if not mistranslated per se,
> misinterpreted. Many of the concepts are presented in such a way that they
> are rife with cultural interpretation. When referring to the "chief
> priests", what does that mean? Are they actually jewish priests? Are they
> roman priests, but maybe that was lost in understanding? Are they jewish
> slaves who the romans used as their figureheads to control the jewish
> population and they are given the title of "chief priests" by the romans?
>
> Take the latter. One reference to a roman installed "chief priest" here or
> there and a translator's approach to later sections will be skewed based
on
> that misunderstanding.
> </cf_speculation>
>
> <cf_sociology>
> It's also interesting to look at the cultural background of the political
> necessity of a christ figure. At the time, the Caesar was god. Perhaps
> self-appointed, but culturally that was his position. There were also
many,
> many jewish tribes/sects/groups what have you. There was particularly a
> differentiation of city and country jewish communities. The jewish people
as
> a whole were trying to come up with a way to get out from under the
romans.
> They needed an alternative to the Caesar. But they were also fighting
> amongst themselves for power, just as people in the city today have
> different social needs than people in the country. I've read accounts of
> many viable christ figures that came out of the jewish communities, but
the
> personage of Jesus as a diametrical opposite to the rich, wealthy,
powerful
> and ruthless Caesar was the one that history remembers and was eventually
> documented in the bible. Documented of course by the ones who put him in
> power.
> </cf_sociology>
>
> I'm just stringing together things I've read years ago and suppositions
> based on that. They provide a viable enough context for me to see the
> Vatacan II pronouncement as credible as any of the religious history. But
> I'm not a believer. If anything these days, I'm an armchair scholar.
>
> So my only question is, if intellectually there's enough reason to cast
> doubt on the story, why stick steadfastly to a story that justifies some
> people's hatred of some other people?
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
>
>
> > OK, that's a single word, but are there entire sections of text which
are
> mistranslated so that it appears that Jews are responsible for the death
of
> Jesus rather than some other group - the Romans, perhaps? Like Brob, I'd
> always thought it was the Romans alone who put Jesus to death, but then I
> started reading the Bible.
> >
> > Matthew 26:14-16
> > 14Then one of the Twelve--the one called Judas Iscariot--went to the
chief
> priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over
to
> you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on
Judas
> watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
> >
> > John 18:12-13
> > 12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish
> officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13and brought him first to Annas,
> who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.
> >
> > I'm not holding anybody today responsible for the death of Jesus, but
the
> Bible does say what it says. Are you saying that these passages are
> incorrect?
> >
> > -Matthew Small
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Dinowitz
> > To: CF-Community
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> >
> >
> > Sorry, the actual word is Michashefa, which is the feminine form used
in
> the
> > particular place. Its from the root Kishuf.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> >
> > > I can document it with a single word. Michushef. This Hebrew word
has
> a
> > > meaning of sorceress or witch. i.e. one who uses impure forces to
> affect
> > > reality. A type of magic basically. Because of the way Greek is, the
> word
> > > they used was basically one who uses herbs or poisons which was
> translated
> > > later on as poisoner and on and on. King James has it as witch,
which
> > pisses
> > > off the modern pagans.
> > > What the word is and what it has become and is becoming over time
and
> due
> > to
> > > 'popular' input shows exactly how the Christian Bible has changed.
> Yes,
> > the
> > > original Greek is the original Greek, but who here reads that? We
all
> read
> > > the English.
> > > A change in a word can be a change in the entire story. Take my
> comment
> > > about the last supper not being able to be the Passover Seder. That
> was
> > > probably added later in a translation.
> >
> >
> >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
