because I suspected it would get me in trouble. I wish I knew which book it
was that I was reading that talked about the evolution of the christ figure
as social opposition to the Caesar. I don't claim the knowledge for my own
and like I said before, it was over a decade ago that I read it. I'm going
to go further out on my limb and say I don't think most of them were
messianic figures and that would jibe with you're saying.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:04 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]
