rules as to what he will do, yes. Believe that Jesus fulfilled these rules
and prophecies, no. That's the Orthodox, religious stance of Judaism. Other
branches have 'dumbed down' the messiah part.
> I thought that Jews believed in a coming of the Messiah, that the
Messiah's coming was prophecised many times, except that they didn't believe
Jesus was THE Messiah.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matthew Small
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
>
>
> I'll agree with you on that one, Michael. Given this viewpoint, I can
see how the Jews would reject Christ based on His overturning of Jewish
laws.
>
> 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]
