theBlackman on 1/2/2004 at 19:25
"It is the suffering on the cross (which includes the resulting death) which constituted the punishment for our wrong doings. "
Sorry Zaccheus, I meant to include reference to that. But the suffering, not the cross, is the theme, in conjunction with the resurrection. The cross just happened to be the medium, as I said, it could have been impalement which was a not uncommon punishment. So the cross has become the SYMBOL of that SUFFERING. The SYMBOL itself is not central.
One can accept all the tenets of the suffering, redemption, and resurrection without dwelling on the cross.
*Zaccheus* on 1/2/2004 at 19:48
tBm, yes God could have chosen another way of dying. But he didn't.
Crucifixion happens to be a very nasty way of going, and there was no honour associated with it at all. So saying he was crucified carried a certain 'your God was what?' effect in those days. There are other symbolisms associated with crucifixion (Galatians 3:13; for instance) and it also states abundantly clearly that the jews did not kill him, because it was a Roman form of execution.
<hr>
GayleSaver - community / nation / whatever. You call them outsiders.
Why are they outsiders, while others (with all their disagreements) remain (in your view) insiders ?
Lain on 1/2/2004 at 19:59
I agree with tBm, I think all religions have some good points, and they are all made to do one of two things, depending how you view religion.
If you believe religion is good, then each different religion is a guideline set down to tell you how to be a good person while you are on earth, and how to cope with the fact that you will one day die. It can inspire you to greatness, and comfort you when you feel there is no other hope for you, no other place to turn.
Or, if you are pay attention to history and are a bit cynical, they are all ways of controlling the masses. It can be used to justify horrible acts, to gain power over people on both large and small scales.
Either way, I find them all pretty interesting. They are like different flavors of the same brand of ice cream.
How I view religion (hopeful or cynical) changes from day to day and year to year.
EDIT - Not that I'm trying to put words in tBm's mouth - his views sound similar to mine, as far as I can tell, and I was expounding on my own views, not his.
*Zaccheus* on 1/2/2004 at 20:17
I think different religions have developed for different reasons, but there's no doubt that pretty much all of them have been (mis)used for controlling the masses.
GayleSaver on 1/2/2004 at 20:19
We could debate opinions forever, Zacc. Give me something of substance. The best I can tell you is that Messianic Jews are trying to mix oil and water. When the Nazarenes began after Jesus's death, we could not blame them, for they were heretics, and we could not foresee their future. But now, when the divergence of two traditions has been established, Messianism is betrayal.
I strongly suspect that the drift rate from Catholic orthodoxy to Protestant heresy has declined significantly since Martin Luther's time. And rightly.
theBlackman on 1/2/2004 at 20:38
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* ...but there's no doubt that pretty much all of them have been (mis)used for controlling the masses.
Agreed! :thumb:
*Zaccheus* on 1/2/2004 at 20:40
When you say 'Nazarenes', I assume you mean the earliest followers of Jesus?
I agree that we are not really gettng anywhere here.
Ok, one last try and then I suggest we leave it.
:)
I'm saying that the messianics are jews and I think it's good that they are maintaining their jewish culture and identity.
You appear to believe they have no right to that culture and identity, because in your eyes they are traitors.
So what I'm trying to find out right now is:
What is it that makes them traitors, if atheists are not?
Are you are saying that you see Jesus as a false prophet, and following a false prophet is worse than not believing at all ?
... alternatively ...
Are you saying that because christians have persecuted jews (a very tragic historical fact), jews should never join the christians?
... or even ...
The jewish tradition has remained because it has not been changed. Messianics introduce change and are therefore a real threat to jewish tradition ?
... all of the above?
I'm really not trying to change your mind here, I'm just trying to understand it.
theBlackman on 1/2/2004 at 20:41
Quote:
Originally posted by GayleSaver ..."they are members of the Jewish community"?
As you and others have continually lumped CHRISTIANS into a single unit (community) the use of "jewish community" is as valid.
jay pettitt on 1/2/2004 at 23:17
is there anything that differing religeous groups agree on?
GayleSaver on 1/2/2004 at 23:22
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* I'm saying that the messianics
are jews and I think it's good that they are maintaining their jewish culture and identity.
You appear to believe they have no right to that culture and identity, because in your eyes they are traitors.
So what I'm trying to find out right now is:
What is it that makes them traitors, if atheists are not?
Are you are saying that you see Jesus as a false prophet, and following a false prophet is worse than not believing at all ?
... alternatively ...
Are you saying that because christians have persecuted jews (a very tragic historical fact), jews should never join the christians?
... or even ...
The jewish tradition has remained because it has not been changed. Messianics introduce change and are therefore a real threat to jewish tradition ?
... all of the above?
I'm really not trying to change your mind here, I'm just trying to understand it.
Zaccheus, it is difficult to reconcile my position, which means I am at fault for expressing it inadequately. But understand, I'm speaking not of personal perceptions, but of standards of behavior.
A Jewish atheist who preaches his atheism may be Jewish in Israeli law, but he is despised nonetheless; he preaches against tradition.
A Messianic Jew is also, in theory, Jewish in Israeli law. No one will take that away from him. But he has gone further than the atheist; as you have said, he has not simply repudiated a position, but has gone to the other side, as history has defined it. But that is not his offense. His offense is his pretense to a heritage that is no longer his.
Therefore, those he leaves behind deplore him.
