Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    If by victim, you mean someone helplessly set upon and destroyed
    without recourse, - no.
    
    If you mean victim, as one who was a willing sacrifice, whose willing
    participation was required in order for it to take place, - yes. But I
    don't think this could really be considered victimization.
    
    He was a victim in the world's eyes, but not in his own or his
    Father's.
    
    Lisa

Note 302.1,

Hello Lisa,

>    If by victim, you mean someone helplessly set upon and destroyed
>    without recourse, - no.

Actually, I didn't mean helplessly as much as I meant knowingly.
    
This ultimately leads to a question about following Christ and being
Christ-like.

Peace,
Richard

PS. Welcome to C-P, Lisa!  I hope you'll share something about yourself in
Note 3.

    Hi Richard,
    
    Thanks for the welcome. You will find me in 3.72, I guess I kind of
    snuck in there. 
    
    I've been on board for a few weeks, Bob F. and I had a lot of fun in
    the Christian view on capital punishment note.
    
    Back to Christ being a "knowing" victim. I Timothy 1:15b reads; that
    Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Since the writer to
    the Hebrews states that without the shedding of blood there is no
    remission [of sins], I would have to conclude that He in fact came for
    the express purpose of being crucified. 
    
    In that light, yes - he was a victim who set himself up to be killed.
    
    Nice chatting,
    
    Lisa

.3 Lisa,
    
>    Thanks for the welcome. You will find me in 3.72, I guess I kind of
>    snuck in there. 

Oops!  My faux pas!  Please accept my apologies for my lack of recognition.
I'm glad you are here.

Okay, if Christ set himself up as a victim and we find ourselves under
circumstances through following Jesus where it could be construed that we,
too, are setting ourselves up to be victims, what then?

Peace,
Richard

    
                  I do not believe that Jesus was a victum.  I believe that
    he 'gave' his life for the many.  I look on it much like a hero in war
    that dives on a live grenade to save his comrades.  I also believe that
    if Jesus did not "want" to give his life, nothing could have forced him
    to....in other words he had the power to stop it....I'm glad he didn't.
    
    
    Dave

    Jesus certainly sacrificed Himself for us all (as the communion
    service says, 'one sacrifice, once offered..'). The third definition
    of victim is "a living being offered as a sacrifice to a deity"
    so in that sense he was indeed a victim tho a willing one.
    
    Bonnie

    Reply to .0,
    
    Jesus as a victim? Probably not. But the Zealots had plans for him.
    
    Regardless of what he thought of himself as a religious reformer, the
    revolutionaries thought of him as a political tool.
    
    Messiahs have a way of having that happen to them. 

    I would add that the reactionaries considered Jesus a political threat,
    also.  In some ways, his teachings could be construed as subversive
    even in modern times.
    
    Richard

    Reply to .8, Richard,
    
    Probably not renegade. It seems the Zealots needed a figure head who
    attracted people. Jesus was a good candidate. Then, when they came to
    realize that Jesus had his own agenda, they set him up as a martyr for
    the people to rally around.

Re: .9,

Mikie,

	The reason I ask, there's a fascinating book called "The Story
of Christianity," which speculates that Jesus was an Essene priest, though
unquestionably something of a maverick.

	I've always thought of the Zealots as a minority group with little
clout.  Were they around today, they might even be considered terrorists.  On
the other hand, if they were receiving U.S. funding, they'd more likely be
honored as "Freedom Fighters."

	Certainly the Zealots were no strangers to Jesus.  Among the twelve
there was one called Simon the Zealot.  There's some speculation that Judas
Iscariot may have been a member of an even further right-winged alliance
known as the Sicarii, which means "the dagger."

	So, it is your contention that Jesus did not knowingly become a
victim.  Can you fill us in on any details of the conspiracy?

Richard

    Reply to .10, Richard,
    
    It's no secret that Israel was seething with the foement of revolution.
    And it's no secret that some clerics were involved in revolution.
    
    The Messiah, for the Jews, was a political position more than a
    theological title. In fact during the sacking of Jerusalem in 70-72 CE,
    there were 18 Messiahs competiting for public attention.  Like the
    Irish the Jews consumed themselves with internicene strife and others
    ruled them.
    
    Essenine Priest, well that's a viable theory with some support. Martin
    Larson's STORY OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS, takes that track. According to Dr.
    Larson Jesus was either a reject or a refugee from an Essene community
    (the lost years?). Evidently he was stuck on the story of "The
    Teacher", another Essene holyman who was crucified about 150 years
    before Jesus. It appears that he took up "The Teacher's" mantle.
    
    Was he unknowingly a victim? Every reformer during that time knew their
    could be picked up by the Romans. They knew what their chances and
    options were.
    
    I think Jesus was, like his many predecessors and successors, deluded
    just enough to think he could win. And the Zealots, seeing first hand
    his charisma, thought he could pull someting off too. Unfortunately
    delusion doesn't deliever you when you have a Roman short sword fitted
    squarely into your gut.
    
    

Note 302.11

>    Essenine Priest, well that's a viable theory with some support. Martin
>    Larson's STORY OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS, takes that track.

Ahh!...You've supplied the correct title.  This is the book I was referring
to in .10.

Richard

    re:302.4 - J_Christie
    
    >Okay, if Christ set himself up as a victim and we find ourselves under
    >circumstances through following Jesus where it could be construed that
    >we, too, are setting ourselves up to be victims, what then?
    
    GOOOOD question.
    
    1- We can't be in exactly the same position, because no other sacrifice
    for sin is required now that Christ's work is done.
    
    2- Yet Jesus did tell the disciples that the world would hate them as
    it hated him, because the true disciple of God are not of this world as
    he is not. So what? So the believer persecuted under these
    circumstances is to rejoice that he/she is counted worthy of such an
    honor.
    
    3- I don't think I'm there yet.
    
    Any thoughts?
    
    Later, 
    Lisa

    Its reported that Jesus told some who wanted to be His disciples, "Let
    him take up his cross and come after me". This is one verse that a I
    actually prefer the New World Translation. It says, "Let him take up
    his torture stake and follow me."
    	It is the nature of love that it will bring suffering upon its
    originator. Jesus said "If you have seen me you have seen the Father."
    I take this to mean that if the Father had come down exactly the same
    thing would have happened.
    
    john

    What's a New World translation?  Who are the scriptural scholars who
    translated "cross" as "torture stake"?

    Matthew was written in Greek and the English translations I'm familiar
    with always translate Mt 16:24 as "cross"

    Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross.  It is the greatest symbol
    of Christianity.

The word translated to read "cross" in many Bible versions, is the Greek
word stau-ros', which means an upright stake, or pale.  Also used in the
Bible is the word xy'lon which means a piece of wood, beam, post, stake,
or tree.  

So where did Christendom's cross come from?  _An_Expository_Dictionary_
_of_New_Testament_Words_ explains it:  "The shape of the [two-beamed cross]
had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god
Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in
that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt.  By the middle of the
3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied,
certain doctrines of the Christian faith.  In order to increase the pres-
tige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the
churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to
retain their pagan signs and symbols.  Hence the Tau or T, in its most fre-
quent form, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."

Crosses were in use long before Christ:  The Greek Bacchus, the Chaldean Bel,
the Norse Oden, and the Tyrian Tammuz (as mentioned in quote above).  Also,
the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings carried the 'Crux Ansata' (called 'the
Sign of Life') as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god.
The crosses used as symbols of the Babylonian sun god are found on coins struck
by Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.) and his heir, Augustus.  On the coins of Constan-
tine, there is a cross symbol which was venerated as the 'Solar Wheel" (the
emperor Constantine was a sun-god worshiper).

Ezek. 8:13, 14 shows unfaithful Jews weeping over the death of the false god
Tammuz.  Jehovah called this a detestable thing.  Tammuz was a Babylonian god,
and the cross was used as his symbol.  From the times of Nimrod Babylon was
against Jehovah and an enemy of true worship.  So it's obvious that the cross
is really a symbol of worship that is opposed to the one true God, Jehovah.



Steve

re:  .15

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a translation made 
directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a
committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah.  It is not a loose paraphrase,
but a largely literal and accurate translation.  It also restores the 
personal name of the only true God, Jehovah, where it was used in the
original text; over 7,200 times, in fact.

Steve

    re: .16
    
    The cross is a pretty basic geometric form.  The usage by "Tammuz"
    as "opposed to the one true God, Jehovah" is a bit much.  But I must
    say, I've seen this claim before to undermine the validity of the
    Christian Church as it existed from the time of St. Peter to some time
    in the 19th or 20th when some newer, truer religion was founded.
    
    The cross is a instrument of execution, not torture.  Jesus, the Son of
    God died on the Cross, for our sins.  Do we have Christians in this
    conference who deny this as well?
    
    The form of execution used by the Romans was for a stake to be driven
    into the ground, and for the arms of the victim to be attached to the
    crossbeam.  The only thing not recorded was whether the form was a "T"
    or a "+".
    
    Of course, we know the Greek word for cross and stake is stauros. 
    Christ died on a cross not on a stake.  What sort of doctrine would
    compel one to mis-translate stauros?                            

    It is true that the cross was an instrument of execution, although it
    was certainly tortuous and painful.  It is certainly not a way that I
    would choose to die.
    
    -- Mike

    re .18 (SDSVAX::SWEENEY)
    
>    Of course, we know the Greek word for cross and stake is stauros. 
>    Christ died on a cross not on a stake.  What sort of doctrine would
>    compel one to mis-translate stauros?
    
    	"Stake" for _stauros_ isn't a mistranslation.  In Classic Greek,
    _stauros_ meant just that, a stake or upright pale.  The translation,
    and more importantly, the connotation "cross" (with a cross-piece)
    made its way into the English language via the Latin, which translated
    it "crux".  Originally in Latin, the connotation didn't have so much
    to do with the *form* of the execution rig, but rather with the *kind*
    of death that it inflicted upon the person.  "Crux" is the Latin root
    of the modern day English word "excruciate," which -- as we know -- is
    an adjective describing a degree of pain, and not the form in which the
    pain is inflicted.
    
    	The _stauros_ used by the Romans actually varied in form, being
    either a single stake, a "T", or an "X"; and it's primarily post-1st
    century tradition that says that Jesus died on a _stauros_ in the form
    of a "T".
    
    	As an instrument of execution, the _stauros_ inflicted a *very* 
    torturous death.  In today's English, "cross" makes one think first of 
    the shape; "torture stake" makes one think about the kind of death to
    be suffered upon it.
    
    	Whether it was "I" or "T" shaped is a relatively minor point, since
    the significance of Jesus' death upon it remains the same.  But
    arguments about the shape *do* have some relevance, since they touch on
    the validity of the church's use of the cross as a visible symbol
    (which in some corners of the world is shown worshipful honors and 
    devotion, and thus readily appears to conflict with the Bible's
    injunction for God's people not to 'bow down to' or honor images).
    
    	Questioning whether the form of the _stauros_ was a "T" doesn't have
    to be taken as questioning the validity of the entire Christian church,
    but only whether the church kept itself free from pagan influence, and
    thus remained spiritually pure.
    
    								-mark.

    Being nailed to a stake and left to die slowly sound like the most
    diabolical torture to me. Jesus died very quickly for a victim of
    crucifiction. Many lingered for a week....
    	I didn't mean to rathole this discussion. I'm satisfied that cross
    pieces(horizontal type) were in common uses for crucifictions. My point was
     that Jesus was well aware of the type of execution he would face if
     charged with a capital crime. 
    	To me victim implies suffering without a choice. Jesus showed
    himself wise enough avoid trouble when necessary.
    
    john