Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    >I wonder, did Jesus delibrately seek out fame (or notoriety, if you prefer)?

    It's not obvious in the Bible that He did seek out fame but He clearly did
    not avoid it. I think it was important to Him that as many as possible
    knew about Him and heard His message. I believe that some of the things
    He did were to grab the spotlight a bit. The loaves and fishes bit for
    example. No one would have thought badly if He hadn't done it but let's
    face it He surely caused a lot of talk.

>Was Jesus catapulted to greater fame, as some are, after his death?

    Sure but that's largely due to the limits of communication of the day.
    You could only get the message to as many people as you could talk to.
    Once He died (and rose again) His followers were free to spread out
    and talk to a whole lot more people. This was planned.

    			Alfred

re.0

	Hi Richard,

	A few thoughts in response to your questions:

;I wonder, did Jesus delibrately seek out fame (or notoriety, if you prefer)?

        No, he saught to do God's will (John 4:34). He wanted to please his
        Father and not men, unlike the religious leaders of his time. The
        religious leaders were the ones that saught prominence or fame in the
        sight of men. Many times Jesus taught the lesson of humility to his
        disciples (the Jewish culture was to seek prominence hence the apostles
        bickering about who would be the greater). To me, humility is an
        opposite to seeking out fame.

;Was Jesus catapulted to greater fame, as some are, after his death?

        Jesus was infamous rather than famous during his earthly ministry.
        He was dispised by the religious leaders and they would have no doubt
        influenced the thoughts of many of the common people. Many listened to
        kingdom message that he preached but few responded positively.
        Eventhough, the miracles that he was performing was evidence enough
        that he was indeed the Son of God.

        It was not until after Jesus' death in Pentecost 33 CE that the
        Jews began to respond to the kingdom message. Through the holy
        spirit and the preaching of the "good news" by Jesus' disciples
        others became followers of Jesus.

        One must realise that Jesus is alive rather than  dead and to
        some he is infamous and others famous. However, relatively few
        acknowledge or admire the work that he is doing today.

        Phil.

Re: .1 Alfred

>    It's not obvious in the Bible that He did seek out fame but He clearly did
>    not avoid it.

In some cases, though, after performing a miracle he told the person
healed not to tell anyone what had happened ("Tell no man...").  I wonder
why he said that?

				-- Bob

.Was Jesus catapulted to greater fame, as some are, after his death?


 For me it was two pronged.  His death (payment for my sin) certainly
 was significant, but His ressurection is what sealed it and proved that He
 was just not another prophet.


 Somehow I have a problem talking about Jesus and fame and lumping him in
 with Elvis.





 Jim

    >In some cases, though, after performing a miracle he told the person
>healed not to tell anyone what had happened ("Tell no man...").  I wonder
>why he said that?

    Several possible reasons. One is that He didn't want to get into the
    healing game. Sometimes healing was a useful thing to do but if word
    got around too much He could easily have wound up spending all His time
    healing people. Two is that He was using some "reverse psychology."
    Third is that the purpose of the healing was for recorded posterity
    rather than present fame. I'm sure there are others that do not
    conflict with the notion that fame was a somewhat desirable side effect
    of much of what Jesus did.

    			Alfred

> Somehow I have a problem talking about Jesus and fame and lumping him in
> with Elvis.

No offense intended, of course.

I think we all realize that the fame of Elvis is very different from the
fame of Jesus.

The series I spoke about in .0 included the fame of people such as Hilter,
Saddam Hussein, and Charles Manson.  Clive James concluded the 6 hour essay
with the philosophical idea that famous people are something we seem to
need.  We all need to know at least one person who is filled with more
goodness than we are, at least one person who is more evil than we are, at
least one person who is more daring than we are, at least one person who is
more insane than we are, at least one person who is more intelligent than we
are, at least one person who is more foolish than we are....and so on.

Richard

.No offense intended, of course.


 None taken.





Jim

	Being famous does not necessarily mean that the recipient sought
	fame for their self. Jesus's example is that he sought fame not
	for himself but his Father as brought out in his prayer in John
	17:25-26 RSV "O righteous Father, the world has not known thee,
	but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. I
	made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the
	love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."
	and verse 4a "I glorified thee on earth,". 

	Jesus certainly is a famous person who has left a perfect example
	to follow (1 Peter 2:21). Unlike the example lifestyle of many
	famous people who are living today. Many live decadent lifestyles,
	such as drug taking, heavy drinking, rebellious spirit and 
	immorality, which many imitate. When choosing whom one should 
	admire the following principle comes to mind "Do not be misled. Bad
	associations spoil useful habits." 1 Corinthians 15:33 NWT. Whom we
	choose to admire can effect the way we dress, think and act. This
	is certainly true of the younger generation and should not be
	under estimated as in the case of those misled by Adolf Hitler.

	Phil.

    I think Jesus knew that He should avoid fame as that was what 
    really killed Him.... things got out of hand.

    re: .10
    
    	How do you mean that fame really killed Him? Or that things got out
    of hand?  It would seem that Jesus may have actively worked to fulfill
    many of the Messianic prophecies and as such courted fame.
    
    George
    

    It does seem to me that the conspiracy to silence Jesus permanently
    was largely based on the fears of the Jewish leadership, who felt
    this Upstart might encroach even further upon their comfortable and
    secure authority.
    
    Richard
    

MIMS::ARNETT_G 
    
    	>How do you mean that fame really killed Him? 
    
         I mean He was a threat to the establishment and that's why they
         were gunning for Him... like Richard said.  
    
        >Or that things got out of hand?  
                                                   
        Well... the loaves and fishes stuff... I think He just had a good
        heart and didn't want the people to go hungry.  I don't think he
        did it for publicity at all... as a matter of fact, I'll bet He
        tried to keep it quiet but couldn't.
    
    >It would seem that Jesus may have actively worked to fulfill
    >many of the Messianic prophecies and as such courted fame.
    
     I don't think so, George ... He didn't seem to be very political to
     me.... but... you probably know a lot more about it than I do...
    
                                                     

    Well I mean.. He knew better than to put Himself in that position...
    that's what 'render to Caesar' was all about... don't you think?  But
    it was a small world back then and word got around... 
    
    I think He was trying to be discrete when he said "tell no man of
    this".

Note 705.13

>     He didn't seem to be very political to
>     me.... but... you probably know a lot more about it than I do...
    
I had a communications teacher who said on multiple occasions, "You
cannot NOT communicate."  You actually communicate by your absence of
communication.

And so it is with politics.  You cannot *not* be political.  You make a
political statement by your political silence.

Some of Jesus' closest followers had apparent political ties; Simon the
Zealot, for example.

Richard

    re: .13
    
    	Admittedly Jesus was a threat to the established Jewish authority
    and that same authority was probably out to get Him.  But didn't Jesus
    have to die to save us?  In turn, didn't Judas have to turn Him in so
    He could die?  In turn, didn't there have to be someone to turn Him in
    to?
    	Jesus did little to discredit his image as the Messiah and the fame
    that came with it (riding the ass into town, etc.).  He could not have
    *not* known the sort of attention his actions would garner, especially
    from the established authority.  Again, Jesus very likely courted the
    fame, ultimately knowing where it would lead.  At any time, assuming we
    have free will, He could have turned aside from his path, yet He chose
    not to.
    
    George
    

MIMS::ARNETT_G 
    
    >	Admittedly Jesus was a threat to the established Jewish authority
    >and that same authority was probably out to get Him.  
    
    Yep... if it happened today, they'd probably set the BATF on him.
    
    >But didn't Jesus have to die to save us?  
    
    Well... just the fact that He was born ment that He had to die so being
    born alone ment that He had to die to save us.  I mean He... came into
    the gene pool and spread His Good Word (so to speak) and took on the
    mantle of death as a result of that.... but I don't think it was
    necessary for Him to die the way He did.
    
    >In turn, didn't Judas have to turn Him in so He could die?  
    
    I thought Judas turned Him in for the money.  He sold Him out.  Selling
    out for money happens today a lot too.
    
    >In turn, didn't there have to be someone to turn Him in to?
    
    Well... Judas didn't have to do that.  In my opinion it was wrong. 
    
    >	Jesus did little to discredit his image as the Messiah and the fame
    >that came with it (riding the ass into town, etc.).  
    
    What do you mean?  Maybe He didn't have any other form of
    transportation or something.  Maybe He was being humble.
    
    >He could not have *not* known the sort of attention his actions would 
    >garner, especially from the established authority.  
    
    He might not have realized it.  He was just doing what came naturally
    to Him... He might not have even realized that He was different .. that
    others would view what He could do with such awe.
    
    >Again, Jesus very likely courted the fame, ultimately knowing where it 
    >would lead.  
    
    I don't think so... I think he was a little naive and innocent... He
    never put Himself first... He didn't think about His own protection...
    He always saw the good in people, you know?  He just assumed that they
    would be as He was.. He would never harm anyone.
    
    >At any time, assuming we have free will, He could have turned aside 
    >from his path, yet He chose not to.
    
    Well of course, George ... one never strays from the Path... one's
    destiny is one's destiny, don't you think?  But that doesn't mean He
    *wanted* them to torture and kill Him... that was man's idea, I
    think... not God's.
    
                       

    .15
    
    I have a lot of friends who are a lot of things but that doesn't make
    me those things too.

    Mary,
    
    .18  True.  At the same time I feel a particular affinity to those
    friends I consider like-minded.  Don't you?
    
    Richard
    

    Oh yes... but I'd feel that even if I didn't share all of their
    particular talents and attributes though... wouldn't you, Richard?

    .20  Perhaps.
    
    I do maintain that Jesus was highly political.  He advocated a radical
    lifestyle which would impact every segment of an individual's life, if
    seriously undertaken.  The Sermon on the Mount is the stuff of
    revolution.
    
    True, he sought no earthly political office.  Nor did Jesus hobnob with
    society's upper crust.  But there's a whole lot more to politics than
    that.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Well... I don't think He *ment* to be political.  I think He might have
    been viewed as political by others but that wasn't His fault really...
    well, maybe it was... for not paying attention.. but... He certainly
    ment well.
    
    And what was so radical about the lifestyle He advocated really?  It's
    common sense stuff for the most part, don't you think?
    
    mary                                                  
    
    p.s.  Tell me about the Sermon on the Mount, please? 
    ... I can't remember what it says.

    .22
    
    Love your enemy?  When someone strikes you, turn the other check?  When
    someone takes from you, let it go and don't try to reclaim it?  Give up
    all your worldly possessions and trust God's provision absolutely?
    
    This sense is far from common, it seems to me, Mary.
    
    The Sermon on the Mount starts somewhere in chapter 5 of Matthew and
    ends somewhere in chapter 7, as I recall.
    
    

CSC32::J_CHRISTIE 
    
    >Love your enemy?  When someone strikes you, turn the other check?  When
    >someone takes from you, let it go and don't try to reclaim it?  Give up
    >all your worldly possessions and trust God's provision absolutely?
    >This sense is far from common, it seems to me, Mary.
    
    So what's so radical about that?   He's saying not to get attached to
    material possessions... they aren't worth fighting over.
    
    All the worlds great systems of thought have said the same or similar
    things.  Lao Tzu said to control your desires because they are the
    source of all trouble.. same thing basically.
    
    It's only good common sense.  The primate that fights over possessions
    is going to be in a lot of fights and sooner or later will be killed.
    He who walks away stands a much better chance of surviving.
    
    >The Sermon on the Mount starts somewhere in chapter 5 of Matthew and
    >ends somewhere in chapter 7, as I recall.
    
     I don't have a bible... I keep meaning to buy one... well... I've got
     one somewhere but I can't find it.
     

    Know what though?
    
    My son just gave me the book of the Essennes for my birthday.  Very
    interesting... *very* interesting.  Supposedly came from a direct 
    translation of the Dead Sea scrolls.
    
    mary

    I think it's more than just don't get attached to possessions.  I
    think that's a watered-down interpretation, made palatable for
    a consumer society.  It takes a lot of the bite out of what Jesus
    really said, especially for Westerners.
    
    Richard
    

    .26
    
    Well of course it's a lot more than that...  it speaks of control... 
    control of one's emotions, one's desires, one's ambitions.  It speaks
    of choice... choosing to turn the other cheek rather than deck the guy
    requires a great deal of inner strength, don't you think?  It talks
    about the kind of person one is.  How many people wouldn't get angry
    at someone who took or damaged some cherished possession?   Only those
    who don't have cherished possessions and control their anger, I guess. 
                                                               

    .28  You and I may be at variance about what constitutes common sense,
    then.
    
    Richard
    

JURAN::VALENZA 
    
    >Biblical scholars, in reference to one of the Gospels--off the top of
    >my head, I think it is Mark, but I'm not positive--use the term
    >"Messianic Secret" to describe its characteristic way of presenting 
    >Jesus as having told others not to divulge information about his
    >miracles.  Since I am pretty sure that Mark was the Gospel for which
    >this term is used, a quick perusal turns up some examples.
    >
    >Mark 1:43: "After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying
    >to him, 'See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to
    >the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a
    >testimony to them.'  But he went out and began to proclaim it freely,
    >and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town
    >openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from
    >every quarter."

    See?  Jesus didn't want him telling everyone... that's what I ment when 
    i said things got out of hand.  He became a prisoner of fame.. it
    interfered with His work and took His life.  I wonder sometimes how
    much we might have learned from Him if He had lived to be an old man.
    But... it wasn't ment to be, I guess.  Everything happens for a reason.
    
    >Another example from Mark 7:11:  "Whenever the unclean spirits saw him,
    >they fell down before him and shouted, 'You are the Son of God!'  But
    >he sternly ordered them not to make him known."

    Course not... He didn't *want* the notoriety.
    
    >From Mark 5:42: "And immediately the girl got up and began to walk
    >about (she was twelve years of age).  At this they were overcome with
    >amazement.  He strictly ordered them that no one should know this, and
    >told them to give her something to eat."
    >
    >From Mark 7:36: "Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more
    >he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it."
    >
    >From Mark 8:26: "Then he sent him away to his home, saying 'Do not even
    >go into the village." (Footnote in NRSV edition says "other ancient
    >authorities add 'or tell anyone in the village'")
    >
    >From Mark 9:29: "He asked them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Peter
    >answered him, 'You are the Messiah.' And he sternly ordered them not to
    >tell anyone about him."

    Thank you,  Mike ... that's exactly what I ment.  He tried to keep it
    quiet but ... things happen the way they happen, I guess.

CSC32::J_CHRISTIE 
    
    >You and I may be at variance about what constitutes common sense,
    >then.
    
    Why, Richard?  I see common sense as being a kind of wisdom that God
    put into the hearts of mankind... sort of His word written on the heart
    of man.  What do you see it as?  I'm just curious... now that you
    mention it.
    
    I mean... I never thought of Jesus as some wild radical.  I mean, He
    wasn't saying very outrageous things that threatened anyone or any
    thing..  they didn't have to kill Him... 
    
                                         

.    See?  Jesus didn't want him telling everyone... that's what I ment when 
.    i said things got out of hand.  He became a prisoner of fame.. it
.    interfered with His work and took His life.  I wonder sometimes how
 

     I believe Jesus knew perfectly well that by telling them NOT to tell
     anyone, that he knew perfectly well that they would.  Who would not
     run out and tell someone they were healed and who healed them?  And, it
     would be quite obvious that the one who was once sick, crippled, whatever
     was indeed healed.




 .   much we might have learned from Him if He had lived to be an old man.
 .   But... it wasn't ment to be, I guess.  Everything happens for a reason.
  

     Humanity didn't learn much from His life, death and ressurection, how
     much would they have learned had he "lived to be an old man".  He was God
     in human form..  He lived, and died so that we may have forgiveness of
     sin, and rose that we might have eternal life with Him.



  
    Jim late for a meeting

    .31
    
    I see common sense as being very common.  Common sense tells you not to
    believe things which seem too fantastic or undo-able.
    
    Jesus may have been a reluctant rebel, I don't know.  But a rebel, he
    was.
    
    Richard
    

CSLALL::HENDERSON 
    
    > I believe Jesus knew perfectly well that by telling them NOT to tell
    > anyone, that he knew perfectly well that they would.  Who would not
    > run out and tell someone they were healed and who healed them?  And, it
    > would be quite obvious that the one who was once sick, crippled, whatever
    > was indeed healed.

     What?  You think He used reverse psychology or something?  You think
     He was looking for publicity and attention?  I don't see Him as being
     manipulative like that.  Aw... I have a whole different opinion of the 
     guy, I guess... I don't see Him that way at all.
  
     >Humanity didn't learn much from His life, death and ressurection, how
     >much would they have learned had he "lived to be an old man".  He was God
     >in human form..  He lived, and died so that we may have forgiveness of
     >sin, and rose that we might have eternal life with Him.

     So.. we might have learned a lot from Him if we hadn't murdered Him.

  
    CSC32::J_CHRISTIE    
    >I see common sense as being very common.  Common sense tells you not to
    >believe things which seem too fantastic or undo-able.
    
    Not mine.. :-)
    
    >Jesus may have been a reluctant rebel, I don't know.  But a rebel, he
    >was.
    
    But... He was God, Richard... what was there for Him to rebel against,
    for heaven's sake?
    
                     

Note 705.35

>    CSC32::J_CHRISTIE    
>    >I see common sense as being very common.  Common sense tells you not to
>    >believe things which seem too fantastic or undo-able.
    
>    Not mine.. :-)

You and I are at variance on what constitutes common sense, then.

Richard                     

Note 705.35

>    what was there for Him to rebel against,
>    for heaven's sake?
    
Interesting choice of words, Mary.  Off hand, my Zen-like response would be,
"Yes!  That's it!"  ;-)

Richard
               

    Besides Jim... if a person isn't going to believe what Jesus Himself said
    but just assume that He didn't mean what He said, then why read the 
    bible at all?  I think He said what He ment and He ment what he said.

 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE 

   
>Interesting choice of words, Mary.  Off hand, my Zen-like response would be,
>"Yes!  That's it!"  ;-)

:-)...
    I ment, that I don't think He made a conscious choice to
    "rebel" per se... I think He just was the way He was and people
    interpreted it that way due to their own fears and insecurities.
               

RE:                      <<< Note 705.34 by VERGA::STANLEY >>>

    
    > What?  You think He used reverse psychology or something?  You think
    > He was looking for publicity and attention?  I don't see Him as being
    > manipulative like that.  Aw... I have a whole different opinion of the 
    > guy, I guess... I don't see Him that way at all.
  
       I've done a little reading up tonight on why Jesus told those he healed 
     not to tell anyone.  While I believe (Mark 8:36 seems to support this) that
     He knew they would go out and tell, I also believe He did not want to be
     seen simply as a miracle worker.  He didn't want people to miss His real
     message.  I would hate for anything I wrote to be construed as Jesus being
     manipulative or deceptive.


     >>Humanity didn't learn much from His life, death and ressurection, how
     >>much would they have learned had he "lived to be an old man".  He was God
     >>in human form..  He lived, and died so that we may have forgiveness of
     >>sin, and rose that we might have eternal life with Him.

    > So.. we might have learned a lot from Him if we hadn't murdered Him.



       But, Mary..it was part of God's plan.  Jesus knew it.  Read the account
       of Him praying in Gethsemane in Matthew 26:36-46.  His life told us about
       the Kingdom of God that belongs to those who accept Him;  His death paid
       the price for our sin..the account is settled, paid in full.  There is 
       now NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  All we needed to
       learn from Him is in the Bible and few accept that.  What more would you
       have liked to learn?



 Jim

re .33

	Richard,

	The following comment caught my eye:

;    Jesus may have been a reluctant rebel, I don't know.  But a rebel, he
;    was.

	One needs to keep in mind that Jesus was a righteous person, he
	never compromised God's law even when the religious leaders
	cunningly tried to catch him out. Jesus and the Jewish people
	including the religious leaders where under the Law convenant and
	in reality it was the religious leaders such as the Pharisees who
	were rebelling as they put there oral traditions above God's law
	(Mark 7:13).

	In an earlier reply you mentioned that Simon the Zealot was
	political, please could you expand on this. As far as Jesus
	being political, according to Bible the only government/kingdom 
	that he campaigned for was the one that he would be installed in  
	as leader/king at a later date (Isaiah 9:7 KJV, Daniel 2:44, 
	Matthew 4:17, Psalm 2)

	Phil.

VERGA::STANLEY                            
    
    >>But didn't Jesus have to die to save us?  
    
    >Well... just the fact that He was born ment that He had to die so being
    >born alone ment that He had to die to save us.  I mean He... came into
    >the gene pool and spread His Good Word (so to speak) and took on the
    >mantle of death as a result of that.... but I don't think it was
    >necessary for Him to die the way He did.

     	That is a kind of trite answer.  For us to be saved, Jesus had to die
	in the fashion he did to take the onus of our sins upon himself.

	How else do you think Jesus could have died to take our burden upon
	himself?  Dying of old age wouldn't have done it, nor would death by
	disease or accident.  Not only did Jesus have to suffer, but he had to
	do so in such a manner that many people would either witness it 
	directly, or come to witness it through the words of others.    

    >>In turn, didn't Judas have to turn Him in so He could die?  
    
    >I thought Judas turned Him in for the money.  He sold Him out.  Selling
    >out for money happens today a lot too.
    
	On one level, yes, Judas did it for the bucks and perhaps because he
	believed Jesus really was the Son of God.  But even without that, 
	Judas was apparently predestined to turn in Jesus so he could be 
	crucified.  Without Judas to turn Jesus in, Jesus would not have been 
	crucified and we would not be saved by Jesus's actions.

	Poor Judas may not have even had a choice.  His own fate may have been 
	predestined also by the will of God so that someone would turn in
	Jesus.  Unfortunately, the whole life and death of Jesus, his actions,
	and the actions of many around him give lie to our belief in free will.

    >>In turn, didn't there have to be someone to turn Him in to?
    
    >Well... Judas didn't have to do that.  In my opinion it was wrong. 
    
	What do you think should have happened to Jesus, especially in the
	light of what he was supposed to accomplish with his life and death?
        What should have been the actions of those about him?

    >>	Jesus did little to discredit his image as the Messiah and the fame
    >>that came with it (riding the ass into town, etc.).  
    
    >What do you mean?  Maybe He didn't have any other form of
    >transportation or something.  Maybe He was being humble.
    
     	The whole bit of riding in on an ass was a concious effort on his part
	to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah, to identify himself to the
	masses.  

    >He could not have *not* known the sort of attention his actions would 
    >garner, especially from the established authority.  
    
    He might not have realized it.  He was just doing what came naturally
    to Him... He might not have even realized that He was different .. that
    others would view what He could do with such awe.
    
	How could he not have known he was different.  How many others healed
	the sick and caused the dead to rise?
    
    >>Again, Jesus very likely courted the fame, ultimately knowing where it 
    >>would lead.  
    
    >I don't think so... I think he was a little naive and innocent... He
    >never put Himself first... He didn't think about His own protection...
    >He always saw the good in people, you know?  He just assumed that they
    >would be as He was.. He would never harm anyone.
    
	Innocent yet, but naive?  The fellow was politically savvy enough not
	to tick off the Romans (render under Caesar what is Caesar's).  And
	about being unaware of his own protection, didn't he calm down some of 
	his disciples earlier in the evening of his capture?  The only reason 
	I can reasonably see was to allow his own capture.  If he had wanted 
	to avoid being captured, he could have left anytime after Judas left 
	to foil his persecutors, but he didn't.  He remained behind when he
	knew he would be taken.

    >>At any time, assuming we have free will, He could have turned aside 
    >>from his path, yet He chose not to.
    
    >Well of course, George ... one never strays from the Path... one's
    >destiny is one's destiny, don't you think?  But that doesn't mean He
   
	So you do subscribe to predestination.  While I believe the events of
	Jesus's life and death may have been predestined by God, I do not 
	believe that all of us have the same lack of choice in our own lives.

	I have unfortunately found it impossible to reconcile the belief of our
	free-will with God's omniscience.  Unfortunately, one precludes the
	other.
    
    >destiny is one's destiny, don't you think?  But that doesn't mean He 
    >*wanted* them to torture and kill Him... that was man's idea, I
    >think... not God's.
   	
	He may not have wanted the torture, but he did freely accept it. If
	not, his sacrifice would have had no meaning.  As to the torture and
	death being Man's idea, I think you may be mistaken.  Without the 
	spectacle of Jesus being tortured and crucified, no one would believe 
	that he suffered for our sins, or took upon himself the burden of them.
  	If he had simply said "I accept responsibility for all the sins of Man,
 	and absolve him of all his sins" and then died of old age, it would 
	have meant very little to anyone.  But the way he did die ensured that 
	people would believe and have faith in him and God.  
                       
   George

  
>       I've done a little reading up tonight on why Jesus told those he healed 
>     not to tell anyone.  While I believe (Mark 8:36 seems to support this) that
>     He knew they would go out and tell, I also believe He did not want to be
>     seen simply as a miracle worker.  He didn't want people to miss His real
>     message.  I would hate for anything I wrote to be construed as Jesus being
>     manipulative or deceptive.

      I dunno, Jim... seems to me the man said what he ment.  If He wanted
    them to go out and tell, then why say anything to them at all about it?
    Instead, He *specifically* told them *not* to tell anyone.

>       But, Mary..it was part of God's plan.  Jesus knew it.  Read the account
>       of Him praying in Gethsemane in Matthew 26:36-46.  
    
    Oh sure... by that point He 'saw' it coming... that doesn't necessarily 
    mean it was part of God's plan though... things just worked out that way.
    
    >His life told us about the Kingdom of God that belongs to those who 
    >accept Him;  His death paid the price for our sin..the account is 
    >settled, paid in full.  
    
    That's all well and good, Jim but no where do I see where God planned
    for the barbarians to kill Jesus.
    
    >There is now NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  
    >All we needed to learn from Him is in the Bible and few accept that.  
    >What more would you have liked to learn?

    You just said that you don't even believe what He Himself said... His 
    own very words that *are* in fact contained in the bible.  How bout if
    we learn to accept what He said at face value?

MIMS::ARNETT_G
    
    > 	That is a kind of trite answer.  For us to be saved, Jesus had to die
    >	in the fashion he did to take the onus of our sins upon himself.

    What's trite about it?
    Who says that Jesus had to die in the fashion he did for us to be
    saved?  He probably could have died a simple death in bed of old age
    and it would have had the very same effect.  He *was* God afterall.
    
	>How else do you think Jesus could have died to take our burden upon
	>himself?  Dying of old age wouldn't have done it, nor would death by
	>disease or accident.  
    
    Why not?
    
    >Not only did Jesus have to suffer, but he had to
    >	do so in such a manner that many people would either witness it 
    >	directly, or come to witness it through the words of others.    

    That's very sadistic but hardly a fact and I don't think it's true at
    all. I don't think it was necessary and I don't think it was a part
    of any plan.. I think it was a tragic happening that people made too
    big a deal over until it overshadowed His actual message and His real
    words.
    
	>On one level, yes, Judas did it for the bucks and perhaps because he
	>believed Jesus really was the Son of God.  But even without that, 
	>Judas was apparently predestined to turn in Jesus so he could be 
	>crucified.  Without Judas to turn Jesus in, Jesus would not have been 
	>crucified and we would not be saved by Jesus's actions.

    Oh please... Judas was a greedy slimeball who would have sold his own
    mother down the river for a buck.
    
    It certainly wasn't necessary and since when do Christians believe in
    predestination?
    
>	Poor Judas may not have even had a choice.  His own fate may have been 
>	predestined also by the will of God so that someone would turn in
>	Jesus.  Unfortunately, the whole life and death of Jesus, his actions,
>	and the actions of many around him give lie to our belief in free will.

    Nonsense... everyone believes what they want to believe.. same as it
    ever was.  "Poor Judas" was scum.  He did exactly what *he* wanted to
    do and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the will of God.
    
    >	What do you think should have happened to Jesus, especially in the
    >	light of what he was supposed to accomplish with his life and death?
    >    What should have been the actions of those about him?

    They could have had a little integrity and honor.  I think He should
    have lived a useful productive life... done his work... had a family
    and a life like everyone else and died a peaceful death at home in
    bed after a good meal.... that's what I think.
    And that's what I think God intended for Him too. 
  
  >   	The whole bit of riding in on an ass was a concious effort on his part
  >	to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah, to identify himself to the
  >	masses.  

    Says you.
    
      >	How could he not have known he was different.  How many others
    healed the sick and caused the dead to rise?  
    
      Easily... very, very easily... He probably didn't even realize that
    other people couldn't do those things for a very long time.
    He probably didn't even associate those things happening with anything
    He was doing for a long time.  He could easily have not known it.
    
       >Innocent yet, but naive?  
    Oh yes... there was a heavy dose of naivety there.
    
    >The fellow was politically savvy enough not
    >	to tick off the Romans (render under Caesar what is Caesar's).  And
    >	about being unaware of his own protection, didn't he calm down some of 
    >	his disciples earlier in the evening of his capture?  
    
    Well He wasn't a fool.  Of course He tried to keep a low profile.. and
    calming down his disciples earlier in the evening was just like Him..
    just exactly the kind of thing He'd do... He was always the one they
    leaned on and depended on.
    
     >   The only reason 
     >	I can reasonably see was to allow his own capture.  If he had wanted 
     >	to avoid being captured, he could have left anytime after Judas left 
     >	to foil his persecutors, but he didn't.  He remained behind when he
     >	knew he would be taken.

    Oh now... of course it wasn't to allow his own capture.  He just 
    didn't realize how crazy they all were.  He must have thought that 
    they'd listen to reason. 
    
    >	So you do subscribe to predestination.  While I believe the events of
    >	Jesus's life and death may have been predestined by God, I do not 
    >	believe that all of us have the same lack of choice in our own lives.

    No I don't... but everything you've said indicated that you do.
    
    One doesn't stray from the Path by choice... one chooses to follow
    one's destiny if one has a grain of sense.
    
    >	I have unfortunately found it impossible to reconcile the belief of our
    >	free-will with God's omniscience.  Unfortunately, one precludes the
    >	other.
    
    Nonsense.  You just refuse to see things the way they are.
    	
    >	He may not have wanted the torture, but he did freely accept it. 
    
    What choice did He have at that point?
    
    >	If not, his sacrifice would have had no meaning.  
    
    Not in my opinion.... it had just as much meaning if not more.
    
    >As to the torture and
    >	death being Man's idea, I think you may be mistaken.  Without the 
    >	spectacle of Jesus being tortured and crucified, no one would believe 
    >	that he suffered for our sins, or took upon himself the burden of them.
   
    Well I don't think I'm mistaken.  This business of suffering for your
    sins and Him taking the burden of them is merely your interpretation of
    the whole thing.  I'll bet you can't find that written in the bible
    anywhere.  Your sins are your sins.. not His.
    
    
     >	If he had simply said "I accept responsibility for all the sins of Man,
    >	and absolve him of all his sins" and then died of old age, it would 
    >	have meant very little to anyone.  But the way he did die ensured that 
    >	people would believe and have faith in him and God.  
                       
    It would have ment little to anyone?  What kind of sadistic fools would 
    insist on their savior being tortured before they would accept
    salvation?  You make humans sound like a bunch of idiots, George.
    Some one is trying to do you a favor but you insist that he be tortured
    and killed before you'd accept it?  You think God would allow His own
    son to be treated like that on purpose?  And for what... a bunch of
    people who will only believe in someone who was tortured?
    
    I dunno about you guys.

>================================================================================
>Note 705.17 
>    >He could not have *not* known the sort of attention his actions would 
>    >garner, especially from the established authority.  
>    
>    He might not have realized it.  He was just doing what came naturally
>    to Him... He might not have even realized that He was different .. that
>    others would view what He could do with such awe.
>

Mary, 
	How could he have not known he was different?  Just by listening to
other people and seeing the world around him he would have known his actions
were extra-ordinary.
   
>Note 705.22
>    Well... I don't think He *ment* to be political.  I think He might have
>    been viewed as political by others but that wasn't His fault really...
>    well, maybe it was... for not paying attention.. but... He certainly
>    ment well.
>    
>    And what was so radical about the lifestyle He advocated really?  It's
>    common sense stuff for the most part, don't you think?
 
	Not political?  He preached against the established Jewish authority,
trashed the moneylenders's stalls in the Temple (who were there with permission
of the Jewish authorities), etc. and you don't think he was political?  Maybe
he wasn't, but by his actions he seems to give another impression.
   
>Note 705.24    
>    >Love your enemy?  When someone strikes you, turn the other check?  When
>    >someone takes from you, let it go and don't try to reclaim it?  Give up
>    >all your worldly possessions and trust God's provision absolutely?
>    >This sense is far from common, it seems to me, Mary.
>    
>    So what's so radical about that?   He's saying not to get attached to
>    material possessions... they aren't worth fighting over.

	You seem to be viewing this a bit out of context for the times in which
Jesus said these things.
   
>    All the worlds great systems of thought have said the same or similar
>    things.  Lao Tzu said to control your desires because they are the
>    source of all trouble.. same thing basically.

	True, but they are still radical sayings in society where status and
position is pretty much based on the goods you own or the amount of influence
you have.  Not very different from society today.
    
>    It's only good common sense.  The primate that fights over possessions
>    is going to be in a lot of fights and sooner or later will be killed.
>    He who walks away stands a much better chance of surviving.

	The primate that walks away exposes his back to the agressor and gets
killed.  While it may make good common sense, it only makes sense if the
agressor believes the same thing.
    
>Note 705.30    
>    See?  Jesus didn't want him telling everyone... that's what I ment when 
>    i said things got out of hand.  He became a prisoner of fame.. it
>    interfered with His work and took His life.  I wonder sometimes how
>    much we might have learned from Him if He had lived to be an old man.
>    But... it wasn't ment to be, I guess.  Everything happens for a reason.
>    
	I don't believe Jesus was a simpleton, he couldn't have been an idiot
and considered by some to be a rabbi.  This being true, there is *little* chance
that Jesus had no conception of the consequences of his actions.

>Note 705.31
>    I mean... I never thought of Jesus as some wild radical.  I mean, He
>    wasn't saying very outrageous things that threatened anyone or any
>    thing..  they didn't have to kill Him... 

	His teachings threatened a rather comfortable pattern of existence for
some of those in positions of authority.  It also changed a lot of the previous
Old Testament beliefs.
        
>    > I believe Jesus knew perfectly well that by telling them NOT to tell
>    > anyone, that he knew perfectly well that they would.  Who would not
>    > run out and tell someone they were healed and who healed them?  And, it
>    > would be quite obvious that the one who was once sick, crippled, whatever
>    > was indeed healed.
>
>     What?  You think He used reverse psychology or something?  You think
>     He was looking for publicity and attention?  I don't see Him as being
>     manipulative like that.  Aw... I have a whole different opinion of the 
>     guy, I guess... I don't see Him that way at all.
>  
	Jesus may have very well manipulated the masses - especially if he
wanted them to listen to his "new & improved" message of salvation & God.  You
can't bring about change without manipulating something or someone and you have
to admit that Jesus did bring about change.

>Note 705.35 
>    >Jesus may have been a reluctant rebel, I don't know.  But a rebel, he
>    >was.
>    
>    But... He was God, Richard... what was there for Him to rebel against,
>    for heaven's sake?
>
	Established religious authority, established secular authority,
previous laws, etc.

>Note 705.38
>    Besides Jim... if a person isn't going to believe what Jesus Himself said
>    but just assume that He didn't mean what He said, then why read the 
>    bible at all?  I think He said what He ment and He ment what he said.
>
	You are assuming that the words in the Bible are direct quotes as
opposed to quotes attributed to Jesus, but perhaps colored with time and the
author's perceptions - the books of the Bible don't do a whole lot to indicate
the mood or settings of many of the teachings and words attributed to Jesus,
mostly just a bare bones account of the surroundings.

>Note 705.39 
>    I ment, that I don't think He made a conscious choice to
>    "rebel" per se... I think He just was the way He was and people
>    interpreted it that way due to their own fears and insecurities.

	He conciously chose to make his actions (or was prompted by the Will of
God, or what have you) - since he chose, he knew what he was doing.

	I don't believe Jesus was as naive and simple as you seem to.  Your
belief seems to be of a man who was swept along by the events around him, who
had little choice in what happened to him (you mention often that "a man's
destiny is his destiny", or that he had to "keep to the Path" - sounds like
predestination to me).  I believe Jesus was intelligent enough to know what was
happening and would happen to him if he made certain choices.  This makes his
sacrifice even more meaningful - a person who conciously takes up a burden as
opposed to someone who had a burden forced upon him.

George
               

 Mary, from near the beginning of the Bible, to the end, God's plan of
salvation through Jesus Christ is described, inluding the death that He
suffered, including Judas' betrayal.  Throughout the Old Testament and
into the New, that thread continues.  Man is lost without Jesus Christ.

We can't possibly begin to understand it until we accept the fact that 
we are sinful and there is absolutely *nothing* that we can do to change
that apart from acceptance of Jesus death as payment for our sin.  Only
then can we begin to accept what it means, and even then we have trouble.
To this day and til the day I stand before Him I will ask the question "
How could He have done this for *me*?  Why would He have done this for me?

I may have mistaken the meaning of His telling those He healed not to
tell anyone.  Remember, that is me speaking, not God.  And it doesn't
distort or break that thread running througout the Bible, that Jesus
lived, suffered and died for you and me and it was clearly, without a 
doubt God's glorious, wonderful plan.






Jim

MIMS::ARNETT_G
    
 
>How could he have not known he was different?  Just by listening to
>other people and seeing the world around him he would have known his actions
>were extra-ordinary.
 
    Not necessarily.  He might have just assumed that everyone could do
    the same things He could do or He might not have realized that He was
    the *cause* of the things that happened around him.  He probably was
    older before he saw the connection and realized it.
    
    >	Not political?  He preached against the established Jewish authority,
    
    He wasn't advocating revolution though... He just reminded them that
    all real authority comes from God.
    
   >trashed the moneylenders's stalls in the Temple (who were there with 
   > permission of the Jewish authorities), etc. 
    
    Ok... so He lost His temper once in awhile... but the pigs shouldn't
    have been in there.  He was right about that... a little impulsive
    but we all have our bad days.
    
    >and you don't think he was political?  Maybe he wasn't, but by his 
    >actions he seems to give another impression.
   
    Well that's just because people didn't understand Him.  He just tried
    to do the right thing, that's all.  He wasn't trying to hurt anyone or
    destroy their little profit making system.
    
    >	You seem to be viewing this a bit out of context for the times in which
    >   Jesus said these things.
   
    What do you mean?
    
    >	True, but they are still radical sayings in society where status and
>position is pretty much based on the goods you own or the amount of influence
>you have.  Not very different from society today.
 
    Well that's true... but life itself is a radical concept in a 
    slaughterhouse or a morgue.. it's all in one's perspective, you know?
    
    Know what?  It was the same in Lao Tzu's time too... it's always been
    like this I think... same as it ever was.
       
       >The primate that walks away exposes his back to the agressor and gets
>killed.  While it may make good common sense, it only makes sense if the
>agressor believes the same thing.
 
    Ok then... back away slowley with a club in your hand. :-)   It makes
    sense whether the agressor believes it or not... as long as you are
    armed and don't make yourself too easy a target.
    
       
>I don't believe Jesus was a simpleton, he couldn't have been an idiot
>and considered by some to be a rabbi.  
    >This being true, there is *little* chance that Jesus had no conception 
    >of the consequences of his actions.

    Well that's a matter of opinion, I guess.  I disagree.  I'm sure there
    are rabbis out there in the world somewhere who are foolish men... 
    I've heard that some are even violent men.  Labels don't make the man
    and opinions don't alter history.
    Jesus may have known that He walked a dangerous road fraught with risk
    and peril but that doesn't mean He was suicide prone or that He
    intended that the authorities torture and kill him any more than David
    Koresh intended that to happen.
    

>	His teachings threatened a rather comfortable pattern of existence for
>some of those in positions of authority.  It also changed a lot of the previous
>Old Testament beliefs.
 
    So?  Challenging the oligarchy is a subjective thing... a particularly
    paranoid oligarchy may be prone to call just about anyone a radical.
           

>	Jesus may have very well manipulated the masses - especially if he
>wanted them to listen to his "new & improved" message of salvation & God.
    
    Now you're projecting.  A human would do whatever was necessary to 
    achieve his goal but Jesus was bound by the mystic law of God.
    
    >  You can't bring about change without manipulating something or someone 
    >and you have to admit that Jesus did bring about change.

    Listen... change is the natural order of things... Jesus brought about
    change, spring brings change, winter brings change, time brings
    change... change happens.. it happens without manipulating anyone or
    anything... with Jesus, it happened just by virtue of what He was and
    the effect He had on the world.
    
    He wasn't manipulative.  People see what they want to see.  
    
    >	Established religious authority, established secular authority,
    >   previous laws, etc.

    He was God.. He wasn't subject to any local authority.. secular,
    religious or written... none of that constrained Him.  He did what
    He wanted to do.
    
>	You are assuming that the words in the Bible are direct quotes as
>opposed to quotes attributed to Jesus, but perhaps colored with time and the
>author's perceptions - the books of the Bible don't do a whole lot to indicate
>the mood or settings of many of the teachings and words attributed to Jesus,
>mostly just a bare bones account of the surroundings.

    Well He kept saying it over and over and over..  "don't tell... tell no
    man"... to turn around and say 'well, he didn't mean that' seems silly
    to me.
    
    >	He conciously chose to make his actions (or was prompted by the Will of
>God, or what have you) - since he chose, he knew what he was doing.

    Of course He knew what He was doing... but He didn't use the word rebel
    or the word revolution... humans did.
    
>	I don't believe Jesus was as naive and simple as you seem to.  Your
>belief seems to be of a man who was swept along by the events around him, who
>had little choice in what happened to him (you mention often that "a man's
>destiny is his destiny", or that he had to "keep to the Path" - sounds like
>predestination to me).  
    
    Well it isn't predestination.
    
    Jesus was a man too and as such was subject to all the crap that
    happens in the world.  He knew that's the way things are but that
    doesn't mean it the way He wanted things to be.
    
    >I believe Jesus was intelligent enough to know what was
>happening and would happen to him if he made certain choices.  This makes his
>sacrifice even more meaningful - a person who conciously takes up a burden as
>opposed to someone who had a burden forced upon him.

    It's all in the way one looks at it, I guess.  Life can be a burden or
    life can be an adventure.  We choose.  But within those parameters,
    things happen.. some by chance and some not.. I've never seen any
    indication that Jesus wanted to die a horrible death, George .. any
    more than anyone does.
    
    Hey Goerge... why do you think He asked His father to forgive them and
    tried to tell Him that they didn't know what they were doing?
    
    Would He ask forgiveness for them if that had been part of the plan?
    No!!!  He knew His father was wicked pissed off.  He was trying to 
    protect the people even then... claiming that they didn't know or
    understand what they were doing... and He was right... and they're 
    still pretty stupid today... same as it ever was.
               

CSLALL::HENDERSON 

> Mary, from near the beginning of the Bible, to the end, God's plan of
>salvation through Jesus Christ is described, inluding the death that He
>suffered, including Judas' betrayal.  Throughout the Old Testament and
>into the New, that thread continues.  Man is lost without Jesus Christ.

    So... that doesn't mean it was *supposed* to happen that way.
    
>We can't possibly begin to understand it until we accept the fact that 
>we are sinful and there is absolutely *nothing* that we can do to change
>that apart from acceptance of Jesus death as payment for our sin.  
    
    Oh Jim... why would an omnipotent God make an imperfect creation?
    That doesn't make sense.  We could only be sinful if God ment for us
    to have the opportunity to choose to be sinful... as a learning
    experience.  Doesn't that make sense?
    
>To this day and til the day I stand before Him I will ask the question "
>How could He have done this for *me*?  Why would He have done this for me?

    Because He loved you.  Because He felt responsible for you because He
    created you.  Because He wanted you to make it.. isn't it obvious?
    He loved humanity... he created humanity and He loved the stupid
    violent ignorant humans.
    
>I may have mistaken the meaning of His telling those He healed not to
>tell anyone.  Remember, that is me speaking, not God.  And it doesn't
>distort or break that thread running througout the Bible, that Jesus
>lived, suffered and died for you and me and it was clearly, without a 
>doubt God's glorious, wonderful plan.

    Well.... hindsight is wonderful.. it happened.. it's over.. we might
    as well say it was intended to happen that way.. but in my own very
    humble opinion, it wasn't intended to happen that way at all.  Humans
    murdered Him and then tried to justify their own guilty conscience by
    claiming that it was "God's plan" .... yea... right... it's not YOUR
    fault... YOU didn't kill Him... God killed Him... that's the ticket!

    Humans never want to accept responsibility for the things they do...
    especially terrible things.
                               

>Note 705.43  
>
>      I dunno, Jim... seems to me the man said what he ment.  If He wanted
>    them to go out and tell, then why say anything to them at all about it?
>    Instead, He *specifically* told them *not* to tell anyone.

	True, he told them not to tell, but don't you think he was intelligent
enough to see that that order was having precisely the opposite effect?  And
intelligent enough to see it early on?

>>       But, Mary..it was part of God's plan.  Jesus knew it.  Read the account
>>       of Him praying in Gethsemane in Matthew 26:36-46.  
>    
>    Oh sure... by that point He 'saw' it coming... that doesn't necessarily 
>    mean it was part of God's plan though... things just worked out that way.

	Wait a minute.  Earlier and later than this note you state that Jesus
was God.  I have no problem with that, but if you deny that he knew what was
coming, aren't you limiting His abilities, making finite the infinite?  If
Jesus was God, then he knew it was part of His plan, or knew that it was in the
weave of the future or however you care to phrase it.  The Christ was no idiot
and had a very close relationship with God the Father.    

>    >His life told us about the Kingdom of God that belongs to those who 
>    >accept Him;  His death paid the price for our sin..the account is 
>    >settled, paid in full.  
>    
>    That's all well and good, Jim but no where do I see where God planned
>    for the barbarians to kill Jesus.

	Without suffering the sins and pains of this earth, how could he rise
above them - in effect showing us that salvation was possible and that he would
help up attain Heaven?  Our sins had to be taken from us, washed away as it
were.  Jesus's crucifixion is how that was accomplished.  Without him suffering
the torments saved for us (both on earth and in Hell), we would have to suffer
for them ourselves.
    
>Note 705.44    
>    > 	That is a kind of trite answer.  For us to be saved, Jesus had to die
>    >	in the fashion he did to take the onus of our sins upon himself.
>
>    What's trite about it?
>    Who says that Jesus had to die in the fashion he did for us to be
>    saved?  He probably could have died a simple death in bed of old age
>    and it would have had the very same effect.  He *was* God afterall.

	How else could he have taken on the burden of our sins for us?  Someone
had to pay the price (i.e. suffer the pains) for the sins.  Where is the
sacrifice of dying of old age in bed?

>	>How else do you think Jesus could have died to take our burden upon
>	>himself?  Dying of old age wouldn't have done it, nor would death by
>	>disease or accident.  
>    
>    Why not?

	See above.

>    >  Not only did Jesus have to suffer, but he had to
>    >	do so in such a manner that many people would either witness it 
>    >	directly, or come to witness it through the words of others.    
>
>    That's very sadistic but hardly a fact and I don't think it's true at
>    all. I don't think it was necessary and I don't think it was a part
>    of any plan.. I think it was a tragic happening that people made too
>    big a deal over until it overshadowed His actual message and His real
>    words.

		No, not sadistic, just acceptance of the fact that either Jesus
	died for our sins and suffered for us, or I will have to suffer for 
	my sins - sins for which a Christian  there would be no absolution for
	without Jesus's intercession.

>	>On one level, yes, Judas did it for the bucks and perhaps because he
>	>believed Jesus really was the Son of God.  But even without that, 
>	>Judas was apparently predestined to turn in Jesus so he could be 
>	>crucified.  Without Judas to turn Jesus in, Jesus would not have been 
>	>crucified and we would not be saved by Jesus's actions.
>
>    Oh please... Judas was a greedy slimeball who would have sold his own
>    mother down the river for a buck.

		Why?  His faith in Jesus's divinity may even have been greater
	than your own.  If God had a plan, or Jesus did without consulting 
	with God, then Jesus had to die to save us from our sins.  As such, 
	someone had to be the scapegoat that turned Jesus in to the authorities
 	-  Judas was the one who fell, or was forced into, that role.  Without
	Judas's actions there would have been no crucifixion.  Without 
	crucifixion there would be no sacrifice and no salvation. QED. 
   
>    It certainly wasn't necessary and since when do Christians believe in
>    predestination?

		It isn't necessary, but it has been a teaching of Christianity 
	in many forms for quite a long time.  In effect, if God is omniscient 
	then He can not only see what has happened and what is happening, but 
	what will happen also.  For God there are no surprises as He knows how 
	things will happen.  Since He knows what will happen, there is no 
	random chance, no possibility we will act outside of His knowledge.  
	We become fated, or predestined, to act in the way he knows we will 
	act.  For God, there may not be a past, present and future, just an all
	pervasisve Now.
		For myself, I only think God forced things a couple of times
	and the rest of the time has left us to our own devices.  For if
	predestination does exist for all of us, then we are all already saved 
	or damned no matter what we think we are doing.  We have no free will, 
	just the illusion of it.  I prefer to believe that we do have free will
 	and that my ultimate fate has not already been decreed.  This is where
	my personal leap of faith comes in, for I cannot, with any logic, 
	rhyme, or reason, reconcile God's omniscience, the resulting
	predestination and my own belief in our free-will or ability to 
	ultimately determine our own fate of Heaven or Hell.       

>>	Poor Judas may not have even had a choice.  His own fate may have been 
>>	predestined also by the will of God so that someone would turn in
>>	Jesus.  Unfortunately, the whole life and death of Jesus, his actions,
>>	and the actions of many around him give lie to our belief in free will.
>
>    Nonsense... everyone believes what they want to believe.. same as it
>    ever was.  "Poor Judas" was scum.  He did exactly what *he* wanted to
>    do and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the will of God.

		That scum made it possible for us to be saved - for someone 
	else to help us with our sins and get past the "karmic" burden of them.
    
>    >	What do you think should have happened to Jesus, especially in the
>    >	light of what he was supposed to accomplish with his life and death?
>    >  What should have been the actions of those about him?
>
>    They could have had a little integrity and honor.  I think He should
>    have lived a useful productive life... done his work... had a family
>    and a life like everyone else and died a peaceful death at home in
>    bed after a good meal.... that's what I think.
>    And that's what I think God intended for Him too. 

		In some of my more obscure readings it has been said that Jesus
	may not have died on the cross, but rather was spirited away to 
	eventually die in either England or Masada.  This wouldn't negate his
	suffering on the cross, but it is a bit far-fetched.  

>  >   	The whole bit of riding in on an ass was a concious effort on his part
>  >	to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah, to identify himself to the
>  >	masses.  
>
>    Says you.

		I'm not the only one who says so.  Many scholars (no, I won't 
	parade names in front of you, you can just as easily come up with ones 
	who believe otherwise) also believe this.  Jesus, being a learned man 
	and possibly a rabbi, was well aware of the Messianic prophecies and 
	couldn't miss the significance of his actions.  Heck, even the 
	unlearned were aware of the significance of his acts.
    
>    >	How could he not have known he was different.  How many others
>    >  healed the sick and caused the dead to rise?  
>    
>    Easily... very, very easily... He probably didn't even realize that
>    other people couldn't do those things for a very long time.
>    He probably didn't even associate those things happening with anything
>    He was doing for a long time.  He could easily have not known it.

		Mary, I have great difficulty in believing Jesus was as great a
	simpleton as that.  With all the furor his own miracles caused,
	wouldn't true miracles performed by others garner as much excitement as
	his own.  Wouldn't he have heard about them.  If they had been
	commonplace, why did everyone make such a fuss when he performed his? 
	Why did he, according to the Bible, tell no-one to speak of them?  If
	you re-think this, I think you will find your argument that he didn't
	know he was special is inconsistent with your previous arguments. 
>    
>   >   Innocent yet, but naive?  
>    
>   Oh yes... there was a heavy dose of naivety there.

	How so?  I see no evidence of the absent-minded-professor syndrome.
>    
>    >  The fellow was politically savvy enough not
>    >	to tick off the Romans (render under Caesar what is Caesar's).  And
>    >	about being unaware of his own protection, didn't he calm down some of 
>    >	his disciples earlier in the evening of his capture?  
>    
>    Well He wasn't a fool.  Of course He tried to keep a low profile.. and
>    calming down his disciples earlier in the evening was just like Him..
>    just exactly the kind of thing He'd do... He was always the one they
>    leaned on and depended on.

		Why would he keep a low profile if he didn't expect trouble 
	from the authorities or didn't realize how special he was?
    
>     >   The only reason 
>     >	I can reasonably see was to allow his own capture.  If he had wanted 
>     >	to avoid being captured, he could have left anytime after Judas left 
>     >	to foil his persecutors, but he didn't.  He remained behind when he
>     >	knew he would be taken.
>
>    Oh now... of course it wasn't to allow his own capture.  He just 
>    didn't realize how crazy they all were.  He must have thought that 
>    they'd listen to reason. 

		"He must have thought" - reading things into the Bible instead
	of what is just stated there? :-)
    
>    >	So you do subscribe to predestination.  While I believe the events of
>    >	Jesus's life and death may have been predestined by God, I do not 
>    >	believe that all of us have the same lack of choice in our own lives.
>
>    No I don't... but everything you've said indicated that you do.

		Nope, see my earlier statement.  But what is this "Path" you 
	keep mentioning and Jesus following his destiny?  How are they
	different from predestination?
    
>    One doesn't stray from the Path by choice... one chooses to follow
>    one's destiny if one has a grain of sense.
>    
>    >	I have unfortunately found it impossible to reconcile the belief of our
>    >	free-will with God's omniscience.  Unfortunately, one precludes the
>    >	other.
>    
>    Nonsense.  You just refuse to see things the way they are.

		Nope, see my earlier statement.
>    	
>    >	He may not have wanted the torture, but he did freely accept it. 
>    
>    What choice did He have at that point?

		He could have agreed with Pilate, or been less ambiguous.  He
	could have prevented by his actions earlier in his career.  Jesus was
	no idiot and was aware for a long while where his "Path" would lead
	him.    

>    >	If not, his sacrifice would have had no meaning.  
>    
>    Not in my opinion.... it had just as much meaning if not more.

	How or why?  I'm genuinely curious.
    
>    >  As to the torture and
>    >	death being Man's idea, I think you may be mistaken.  Without the 
>    >	spectacle of Jesus being tortured and crucified, no one would believe 
>    >	that he suffered for our sins, or took upon himself the burden of them.
>   
>    Well I don't think I'm mistaken.  This business of suffering for your
>    sins and Him taking the burden of them is merely your interpretation of
>    the whole thing.  I'll bet you can't find that written in the bible
>    anywhere.  Your sins are your sins.. not His.

		Yes, my sins are my sins, but without Jesus's intercession for
	my I would have no means of cleansing myself of them and attaining 
	Heaven.  Whether you believe Man is born sinful and has to work hard
	within the framework of acceptable behavior supplied by the Church or
	he is born without sin and has to work to remain that way,  the only
	way to make it upstairs is through Christ's help - and the reason he 
	can help is because he died and suffered in our place.
		This all sounds rather conservative, more conservative than I
	would attribute to myself as I think I'm rather broad-minded (I support
	gays as ministers, but still have some problems with women as priests -
	probably more habit than anything else - , I don't believe Ghandi and 
	Buddha are burning in Hell or even Purgatory or floating around in 
	Limbo, etc.), but I do know I owe my option of salvation to Jesus.    

>    >	If he had simply said "I accept responsibility for all the sins of Man,
>    >	and absolve him of all his sins" and then died of old age, it would 
>    >	have meant very little to anyone.  But the way he did die ensured that 
>    >	people would believe and have faith in him and God.  
>                       
>    It would have ment little to anyone?  What kind of sadistic fools would 
>    insist on their savior being tortured before they would accept
>    salvation?  You make humans sound like a bunch of idiots, George.

		Just how many folks believed in him before he was crucified?  
	Didn't his Ressurrection allow even more people to hear the word,
	believe it, and in turn spread it themselves?  Without the crucifixion
	and ressurrection, Christianity would have probably died a quiet death 
	as a footnote in history.
 
>    Some one is trying to do you a favor but you insist that he be tortured
>    and killed before you'd accept it?  You think God would allow His own
>    son to be treated like that on purpose?  And for what... a bunch of
>    people who will only believe in someone who was tortured?

		I don't think it is us accepting him because he was tortured
	and killed, but God accepting him in our place.  You begin to sound a
	bit Arianist :-).  I don't believe in Jesus because he was tortured,
	but because he was tortured in my place, suffered death and Hell all 
	so I could have a shot at Heaven.


George

    Mary, et al,
    	I'll be out on STD for a few weeks due to CTS surgery, so please don't 
    take any silence on my part the wrong way.  I'll check into the conference
    when I get back and see what progress or revelations have come about. 
    Ya'll take care of yourselves while I'm gone.
    
    George
         

    
MIMS::ARNETT_G 
    
    >	True, he told them not to tell, but don't you think he was intelligent
    >enough to see that that order was having precisely the opposite effect?
    
    I think He was innocent enough to think that He could trust the
    people that He had helped.  I think He thought that they would be
    grateful enough to honor His request.  I think he knew there was a 
    possibility that they'd betray Him but I think He gave them the benefit
    of the doubt.
    
    >  And intelligent enough to see it early on?

    Well... it must have been obvious to Him that they couldn't be trusted
    ... but He loved humanity and couldn't just write them off... He kept
    trusting them and hoping that they'd be worthy of His trust.
    

>	Wait a minute.  Earlier and later than this note you state that Jesus
>was God.  I have no problem with that, but if you deny that he knew what was
>coming, aren't you limiting His abilities, making finite the infinite?  
    
    No.  He was God... but He was also a man.  
    
    He could 'see' ... but He was confined by the limits of his own humanity.
    
>If Jesus was God, then he knew it was part of His plan, or knew that it was 
    >in the weave of the future or however you care to phrase it.  
    
    Maybe it *wasn't* a part of His plan.. just one possible ramification
    of His life... one He wished to avoid.
    
    >The Christ was no idiot and had a very close relationship with God the 
    >Father.    

    Then why do you think His father wanted to see Him suffer and die?

>Without suffering the sins and pains of this earth, how could he rise
>above them - in effect showing us that salvation was possible and that he would
>help up attain Heaven?  
    
    Well He didn't have to be crucified to rise above the sins and pains of
    Earth for heaven's sake.
    
    >Our sins had to be taken from us, washed away as it were.  
    
    Sins are actions that effect you spiritually.. that effect what you are
    as a being... not ink you spilled on yourself or objects that can be 
    taken away.
    
    >Jesus's crucifixion is how that was accomplished.  Without him suffering
>the torments saved for us (both on earth and in Hell), we would have to suffer
>for them ourselves.
 
    Oh.. and humanity is not suffering on Earth now, huh?
    
    Why would anyone *have* to suffer?  That doesn't make any sense at all.
    God makes the rules, why make some arbitrary rule that His son has to
    be tortured to death.  You make God sound like a lunatic.          

	>How else could he have taken on the burden of our sins for us?  
    
        I don't understand this whole concept of "burden of our sins for
        us".  We do something wrong... *we* do it... it effects *us* ..
          
        >Someone had to pay the price (i.e. suffer the pains) for the sins.  
    
         What is this price stuff?  We're not talking about KMart here. 
         When you sin, you really hurt yourself and the god within you..
    
    >Where is the sacrifice of dying of old age in bed?

    What sacrifice?  Who is it that demanded a sacrifice?
    
    	>No, not sadistic, just acceptance of the fact that either Jesus
	>died for our sins and suffered for us, or I will have to suffer for 
	>my sins - sins for which a Christian  there would be no absolution for
	>without Jesus's intercession.

        Who told you that? 

	>Why?  His faith in Jesus's divinity may even have been greater
	>than your own.  
    
        Well... 'judge not less you be judged'.
    
        >If God had a plan, or Jesus did without consulting 
	>with God, then Jesus had to die to save us from our sins.  
    
        Why?  Where do you get that from?
    
        >As such, someone had to be the scapegoat that turned Jesus in to 
        >the authorities
 	>-  Judas was the one who fell, or was forced into, that role.  Without
	>Judas's actions there would have been no crucifixion.  Without 
	>crucifixion there would be no sacrifice and no salvation. QED. 
   
        I really don't understand that at all.  It's like humans took what
        happened historically and made up this whole thing around it to 
        justify it or explain it or something.
    
	>It isn't necessary, but it has been a teaching of Christianity 
	>in many forms for quite a long time.  In effect, if God is omniscient 
	>then He can not only see what has happened and what is happening, but 
	>what will happen also.  For God there are no surprises as He knows how 
	>things will happen.  
    
         What if God *wants* to be surprised?
    
        >Since He knows what will happen, there is no 
	>random chance, no possibility we will act outside of His knowledge.  
	>We become fated, or predestined, to act in the way he knows we will 
	>act.  For God, there may not be a past, present and future, just an all
	>pervasisve Now.
    
        But God set things up so the system incorporated random chance..
        that's how God wants it and that's how it is.
	
    >	For myself, I only think God forced things a couple of times
    >	and the rest of the time has left us to our own devices.  For if
    >	predestination does exist for all of us, then we are all already saved 
    >	or damned no matter what we think we are doing.  We have no free will, 
    >	just the illusion of it.  
    
    Nah...  that's just a misconception..
    
        >I prefer to believe that we do have free will
 	>and that my ultimate fate has not already been decreed.  This is where
	>my personal leap of faith comes in, for I cannot, with any logic, 
	>rhyme, or reason, reconcile God's omniscience, the resulting
	>predestination and my own belief in our free-will or ability to 
	>ultimately determine our own fate of Heaven or Hell.       

    George... we create it ourselves by our own choices... heaven or hell,
    I mean.. that's the true burden of sin... the experience of heaven or
    hell we create for ourselves and those around us.
    
	>That scum made it possible for us to be saved - for someone 
	>else to help us with our sins and get past the "karmic" burden of them.
    
    Oh now Judas is the savior, huh?  Well.. I suppose he is... 
    
    Is it karma?  Is that what it's about?  Can you explain for me?
     

	>In some of my more obscure readings it has been said that Jesus
	>may not have died on the cross, but rather was spirited away to 
	>eventually die in either England or Masada.  This wouldn't negate his
	>suffering on the cross, but it is a bit far-fetched.  

        YES!!!  OK!  Now that makes me feel a lot better.  He faked His
    death and escaped... that's my boy!
    
	>I'm not the only one who says so.  Many scholars (no, I won't 
	>parade names in front of you, you can just as easily come up with ones 
	>who believe otherwise) also believe this.  
    
       doesn't matter... I wouldn't know who they were anyway...
    
    >Jesus, being a learned man and possibly a rabbi, was well aware of 
    >the Messianic prophecies and couldn't miss the significance of his 
    >actions.  
    
    He was a carpenter's son.  Where do you get the learned man and
    possibly rabbi stuff?  
    
    Are you talking about his time with the Essennes?  They were mystics
    and magickians.
    
    >Heck, even the unlearned were aware of the significance of his acts.
    
    And what else would he have been riding?  He wasn't a rich man.
    
	>Mary, I have great difficulty in believing Jesus was as great a
	>simpleton as that.  
    
    What do you mean "simpleton"?  It has nothing to do with being stupid.
    Many people have strange talents and abilities that they don't realize
    they have for a long time.
    
        >With all the furor his own miracles caused, wouldn't true miracles 
    >performed by others garner as much excitement as his own.  
    >Wouldn't he have heard about them.  
    
    He was probably experimenting to see what he could do and didn't
    realize what a fuss it would make until it was too late.
    
    >If they had been commonplace, why did everyone make such a fuss when 
    >he performed his? 
    
     I didn't say they were commonplace.  I said, He probably found out 
    what he could do gradually and tried to keep it quiet but those 
    blabbermouths went shooting their mouths off and got Him in all kinds
    of trouble and attracted all the wrong kinds of attention.
    He *tried* to keep them quiet... obviously... you'd think they'd be
    appreciative enough to respect his wishes and not talk about it but
    no...
    
    >Why did he, according to the Bible, tell no-one to speak of them?  If
    >you re-think this, I think you will find your argument that he didn't
    >know he was special is inconsistent with your previous arguments. 
 
    No not at all.  It didn't all happen overnight.  He gradually found out
    he was special and tried to help people and asked them to please not
    talk about it cause He knew it would get Him into trouble sooner or
    later because humans are so crazy.  
        
	>How so?  I see no evidence of the absent-minded-professor syndrome.
    
    Well... even asking them not to talk about it was a little naive... He
    should have denied everything.. pretended it was all an accident.. but
    ... He wasn't very good at deception..  He *wasn't* very manipulative.
    He was just so open and honest and trusting. 

	>Why would he keep a low profile if he didn't expect trouble 
	>from the authorities or didn't realize how special he was?
    
     Well by then He knew He was special and He knew He was in danger...
     but He probably thought that they'd leave Him alone as He was harmless
     really... but it was too late.. things were out of control by then..

	>"He must have thought" - reading things into the Bible instead
	>of what is just stated there? :-)
    
        Well what do you guys do when you assume His father wanted Him
    dead?  Or when you assume He didn't mean what He actually said?
    
	>Nope, see my earlier statement.  But what is this "Path" you 
	>keep mentioning and Jesus following his destiny?  How are they
	>different from predestination?
    
    They're very different... very, very different.  One is about choice..
    about free will and finding the right Way and the other is a pipedream.
    
	>He could have agreed with Pilate, or been less ambiguous.  He
	>could have prevented by his actions earlier in his career.  Jesus was
	>no idiot and was aware for a long while where his "Path" would lead
	>him.    

    Oh you don't know that... it was a set-up... He was framed.. it
    wouldn't have mattered what He said at that point... they were
    determined to kill him and they did.
    
       >How or why?  I'm genuinely curious.
    
        Because it would have ment that his gift was accepted by humanity
        with love ... instead they tortured him to death... what kind of
        barbarians are they anyway?
    
	>Yes, my sins are my sins, but without Jesus's intercession for
	>my I would have no means of cleansing myself of them and attaining 
	>Heaven.  
    
        Well just don't do them... try anyway.
    
        >Whether you believe Man is born sinful and has to work hard
	>within the framework of acceptable behavior supplied by the Church or
	>he is born without sin and has to work to remain that way,  the only
	>way to make it upstairs is through Christ's help - and the reason he 
	>can help is because he died and suffered in our place.
	
        Upstairs?  
    
        You are going to die.. that's a fact... and to live means that one
        is subject to suffering.. the wrong that you do is what causes the
        suffering.. killing an innocent man doesn't change that, does it?
    
    >	This all sounds rather conservative, more conservative than I
    >	would attribute to myself as I think I'm rather broad-minded (I support
    >	gays as ministers, but still have some problems with women as priests -
    >	probably more habit than anything else - , I don't believe Ghandi and 
    >	Buddha are burning in Hell or even Purgatory or floating around in 
    >	Limbo, etc.), but I do know I owe my option of salvation to Jesus.    

    ... and I respect your opinion... of course... I don't share it.. but I
    certainly do respect it.
    
    I don't understand it at all.. but that's neither here nor there, I
    guess.
	
        >Just how many folks believed in him before he was crucified?  
	>Didn't his Ressurrection allow even more people to hear the word,
	>believe it, and in turn spread it themselves?  Without the crucifixion
	>and ressurrection, Christianity would have probably died a quiet death 
	>as a footnote in history.
 
    Well I don't know the numbers, George but I imagine He had about the
    same number of followers after the crucifixion as He did before.
    Oh sure... people jump off bridges and burn themselves alive to get
    publicity but He wasn't like that.  Christianity was ment to be and it
    would have flowered whether He died or not, I think... stories spring
    up... myths... legends... it was it's time (Christianity, I mean) and
    nothing could have stopped it.

	>I don't think it is us accepting him because he was tortured
	>and killed, but God accepting him in our place.  
    
    Where do you get this conception of God?  Why do you think God is some
    kind of seriel killer?
    
    >You begin to sound a bit Arianist :-).  
    
    I don't know what that means.  Should I be insulted? :-)
    
    >I don't believe in Jesus because he was tortured,
    >but because he was tortured in my place, suffered death and Hell all 
    >so I could have a shot at Heaven.

    Well.. does that sound fair to you, George?  Or reasonable?  Or just?
    
    What is heaven anyway?  Some country club that one buys one's way into
    with the torture and death of someone else?
                                               

    re .50
    
    Oh... I'm sorry, George... I'll be layed off by then if something 
    doesn't happen soon.
    
    You take care now... I have a feeling that you'll breeze through
    surgery and have a speedy recovery..
    
    Good luck now.
    
    mary

    705,46 (Jim)
    
    > Mary, from the beginning of the Bible, to the end, God's plan of
    >salvation through Jesus Christ is described, including the death that
    >He suffered, including Judas' betrayal. Throughout the Old Testament
    >and into the New, that thread is continued.
    
    Jesus Christ is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. He first
    appears in the NT most likely out of Paul's pen.
    
    All attempts to shoehorn Jesus Christ into OT verses are of Judeo-
    Christian origin.
    
    I appreciate that you see this otherwise and I would be happy if you
    would weave your "thread" here so that I may be give the opportunity
    to reconsider my mileage. 
    
    Greetings, Derek.  

    The concept of salvation is a uniquely Christian one, and is not a part
    of Judaism.  This was discussed in 19.35.  Christians often take for
    granted that their own concept of atonement for sins resides in the Old
    Testament, but this is not the case.
    
    -- Mike

    So where did it come from?  Does anyone know?

    
    The following note is posted with permission from the author.  If this is 
    not the right place for it, the Moderator can move it to a better place.
    
    			Juan
    
================================================================================
Note 1800.17                World Vision 2000 Program                   17 of 17
TNPUBS::PAINTER "remembering Amber"                  53 lines  15-JUN-1993 16:23
               -< Celebrating the Centenary of Swamiji's Visit >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   
Swami Vivekananda:  1893 Chicago Addresses 
------------------------------------------

Swami Vivekananda at the First World Parliament of Religions, Chicago

11th September 1893 - Response to Welcome

"Sisters and Brothers of America,

It fills my heart with joy unspeakable to rise in response to the warm 
and cordial welcome which you have given us.  I thank you in the name of 
the most ancient order of monks in the world; I thank you in the name of 
the mother of religions; and I thank you in the name of the millions and 
millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects.  My thanks, also, to 
some of the speakers on this platform who, referring to the delegates 
from the Orient, have told you that these men from far-off nations may 
well claim the honour of bearing to different lands the idea of 
toleration.  I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the 
world both tolerance and universal acceptance.

We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions 
as true.  I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the 
persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the 
earth.  I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the 
purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to the southern India and 
took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was 
shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny.  I am proud to belong to the 
religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the 
grand Zoroastrian nation.  I will quote to you, brethren, a few lines 
from a hymn which I remember to have repeated from my earliest boyhood, 
which is repeated by millions of human beings: 

    'As the different streams having their sources in different 
     places all mingle their water in the sea, so, O Lord, the
     different paths which men take through different tendencies,
     various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead
     to Thee.'

The present convention, which is one of the most august assemblies ever 
held, is in itself a vindication, a declaration to the world, of the 
wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita: 'Whosoever comes to Me, through 
whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which 
in the end lead to Me.'  Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible 
descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth.  They 
have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with 
human blood, destroyed civilization, and sent whole nations to despair.  
Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far 
more advanced than it is now.  But their time has come; and I fervently 
hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honour of this convention 
may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the 
sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons 
wending their way to the same goal.
    

RE:  <<< Note 705.53 by VNABRW::BUTTON "Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !" >>>
                           -< The invisible thread. >-

       
   . Jesus Christ is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. He first
   . appears in the NT most likely out of Paul's pen.
    

     No, He is not mentioned by name.  But there is prophecy after prophecy
     of His coming, each of which is fulfilled in the New Testament.  The
     thread begins early in Genesis and continues...Isaiah refers to him
     being called "Emannuel, meaning God with us", for example.  There are
     references in Isaiah, Psalms, etal about His Death... 
   
   . All attempts to shoehorn Jesus Christ into OT verses are of Judeo-
   . Christian origin.
    
     In your opinion of course.

   . I appreciate that you see this otherwise and I would be happy if you
   . would weave your "thread" here so that I may be give the opportunity
   . to reconsider my mileage. 
    
    
  I'm afraid I don't have my Bible with me today, and I haven't the time
  at the moment for an exhaustive study.  Perhaps tonight or in the next
  couple of nights I can dig them up, or perhaps there is someone in here
  now that would be interested in posting them.

  



 Jim

    .57
    
    I'm curious...where in the Torah is a messiah prophecized?
    
    The only Hebrew Bible reference I know well that refers to a messianic
    figure is in the second half of the Book of Daniel (which is not Torah,
    btw).  I know people cite others in the books of various
    prophets...could you maybe cite a few?
    
    thanks,
    
    Daniel
    
    p.s. "Torah" being defined as the first five books of Moses

    .58
    
    There's a very brief and inconclusive reference in Deuteronomy, 18th
    chapter, verses 17 through 19 or so.
    
    It doesn't use the term "messiah," but a "prophet like Moses."
    
    Richard
    

I did some reading last night after church in between phone calls.  Check 
out Isaiah 52:13 (or thereabouts) and all of chapter 53.  Genesis 3:15 
is said to refer to Jesus and there are passages in Numbers, et al.  More
reading to do, but, its in there.






Jim