Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Good topic.  Isaiah 53 portrays the Messiah who was to atone for the
    sin of the world.  The only other explanation I've heard other than
    Jesus was that it referred to the nation of Israel.
    
    As stated before, Isaiah 53 refers to the bruised reed as a sin
    offering.  This type of offering must be perfect and without
    blemish...which no nation would be able to fulfill!  Israels idolatry
    during that era disqualifies them as the messiah in Isaiah 53.
    
    -Jack

    I'll make this short and sweet:
    
    The OT has 39 books generally dealing with the history of Israel.
    The first section of Isaiah is the first 39 chapters dealing with the
    history of Israel (God's people).
    
    The NT has 27 books generally dealing with the Messiah.  The second
    section of Isaiah is the last 27 chapters dealing with the Messiah.
    
    Both sections are written by the prophet Isaiah.  How do we know? 
    Because in John 12:37-41 the Holy Spirit quotes from both sections of
    Isaiah and attributes both to the same Isaiah.
    
    very simple,
    Mike

"Isaiah may be divided into 3 principal parts:

1) Chapters 1-39 come from a time when Judah was threatened by Assyria.

2) Chapters 40-55 speak to a time when many of the people of Judah were in
exile in Babylon, crushed and without hope.  A notable theme of these chapters
is that God is the Lord of history, and his plan for his people includes a
mission to all nations, who will be blessed through Israel.  The passages
about 'The Servant of the Lord' are among the best known of the Old
Testament.

3) Chapters 56-66 for the most part speak to a time when people were back
in Jerusalem and needed reassurance that God was going to fulfill his
promises to the nation.  A notable passage is 61.1-2, words used by Jesus
at the beginning of his ministry to express his calling."

What length lifespan did Isaiah enjoy (objectively speaking, of course)?

Richard

    Thanks Richard.
    
    -Jack

    Isaiah lived from 739 B.C. to 681 B.C.
    
    The criticisms of the Deutero-Isaiah and the Trito-Isaiah are endless
    despite the unity of the book.  Some have gone beyond Richard's 3 parts
    to say that chapters 13, 14, 24-27, and 34-35 were also written by
    someone else.
    
    As stated, John made it clear in his gospel how many great prophets 
    named Isaiah there are by quoting all sections under fire.  The Holy
    Spirit truly has foreknowledge.
    
    Mike

    Still waiting to see who can answer the 3 questions on Isaiah 53?

    Well, I could go to the trouble of researching and entering it
    all here.  But it's fairly apparent it would be material about
    which you've already made up your mind and stand ready to refute.
    
    So, I'll pass.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    You have a habit of doing this and it Bugs me to no end.  This is
    exactly why I don't know alot of your stand on things!!! 
    
    Even if he refutes it...so what.  I waste disk space on people every
    day.  Besides, I know for a fact there ARE read onlys in here.  Please
    share ze information!!!!!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    How about you just answer my 3 questions then:
    
    1. When was Israel punished for our sins?
    2. When was Israel killed for our sins?
    3. Who is the rich man buried with Israel?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Incidentally, there are only 2 chapters in the entire OT that are not
    read in Jewish synagogues during the sabbath readings.  Guess which
    ones they are.
    
    Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.
    
    Now ask yourself why.
    
    Mike

>    Now ask yourself why.
    
I think I should ask a rabbi.

Richard

    It is true though.  Those tweo passages are purposely omitted!
    
    -Jack

.8

It's not a matter of disk space, Jack.

I just can't get excited about setting up clay pigeons for a skeet shoot,
metaphorically speaking.

Moreover, I've never pretended to have all the answers.  Others might, but
not me.

Bottom line, Jack: I guess it really doesn't matter very much to me what
you or others choose to believe about Isaiah 53.

For the read onlys, the information I have is not classified and can be
obtained with a valid public library card.

Shalom,
Richard

    Still waiting for the answers to my 3 questions...

>        -< he's skirting the issue after claiming it's about Israel >-

Please, don't misrepresent me, Mike.

What I actually said in 1089.20 was:

>>Who the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 is subject to interpretation.  It
>>could very well be that the Suffering Servant represents Israel herself.  But
>>this is grist for another topic.

>    Still waiting for the answers to my 3 questions...

It's clear to me you believe you already have your answers.

Shalom,
Richard

    Spin doctoring and obfuscation isn't getting us anywhere.  
    
>>Who the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 is subject to interpretation.  It
>>could very well be that the Suffering Servant represents Israel herself.  But
>>this is grist for another topic.
    
    Take a stand and tell us what your interpretation is.  Your statements,
    though misleading, seem to be saying you support this view.
    
    Mike

Your benevolent tone makes such an enticing invitation.

    in other words "sorry I can't answer your questions."

    No, rather, "Sorry, I'm not obliged."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Ran across this timeline recently:

ca. 740 BCE

	Isaiah ben Amoz called to prophesy.


    734 BCE

	Syro-Ephraimitic War


ca. 540 BCE

	Second Isaiah prophesies Cyrus will free exiles to return
	to Jerusalem.

Shalom,
Richard

    Re: -1
    
    thanks for taking a stand.  A weak attempt, but at least we now have an
    idea on how you feel about Isaiah.  That still doesn't answer the 3
    proposed questions though.
    
    Mike

    You still don't get it, do you?
    
    .20 is not a stand.
    
    Richard
    

	Richard, Mike just has to get past telling people what they mean, and
start asking them. That's all.

    Sounds me like he is trying to play a game with the passage and is
    getting annoyed because noone wants to play with him!
    
    
                                      Patricia

    Sounds to me like Mike is trying to have dialog on something and the
    other person doesn't want to give a point of view...
    
    which is completely fine but it all goes back Glen to your challenge to
    have me be a spectator and watch the magic happen!
    
    -Jack

	Jack, if ya really want to do that, then pick a topic, and start from
note .0, and read.

    Make me... Nyaaaaahhhhhhhh

>    You still don't get it, do you?
    
    then explain it to me.  Glen is an expert on this so I'm trying out his
    suggestions.
    
>    .20 is not a stand.
    
    as far as stands go in here, it's about as blatant as they come.  
    
    You started off with "some" people think there is more than one Isaiah,
    with no reference to your position.  Then you entered the timeline with
    the implication that you agreed (which is often your style - you imply
    much, but don't explicit state anything, even when asked).  
    
    All the while, you're really avoiding the main issue - the 3 questions
    on Isaiah 53 that were specifically addressed to you for an answer. 
    I'm getting the impression you can't fit Israel into those questions so
    you refuse to answer them.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    I'm not implying anything to anybody specific here.  I'm speaking to
    myself as well.
    
    I've been noting here for three years now...as well as a few other
    conferences.  A flagrent habit noters seem to have is avoiding the
    three magic words....
    
    
    I
    
    
    Don't
    
    
    Know!!!!!
    
    
    There is no shame in this.  After all, there are alot of things we
    don't know!  
    
    -Jack

    The study notes in my Bible cite that these verses are seen as
    messianic expectations by some.  The Bible potrays the first suffering
    servant, the second .., the third, and the forth.  Isaiah 53 discusses
    the forth.
    
    I do not assume that the verses are a prediction of the future.  I do
    assume that the Gospels writers were aware of these versus and to
    varying degrees wove the story of Jesus back into these verses.
    
    As a person who has studied the new testament and not the old testament
    I am intrigued by Isaiah because it seems to have been a favorite book
    or Paul's and perhaps the Gospel writters.  It is easy to see how Paul
    misquoted the old testament to support his conclusions.  It is
    interesting to relate the New Testament quotes to the actual Old
    testament usages.
    
    I personally am much more interested in the God as mother language
    Isaiah than the answer to this particular question.  I am also
    comfortable knowing that most questions about the Bible cannot be known
    with a high degree of certainty and those who claim they can are
    fooling no one but themselves.
    
                                     Patricia

    Prophecy must be in harmony with other prophecies...otherwise, one
    would be that of a false prophet.  
    
    All the prophecies of the Old Testament concur with one another...one
    of the prominent passages being Isaiah 53.  The other prophets...that
    being David, Zachariah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, David, Moses, and
    others, have prophecied the following and I'm sure it isn't complete.
    
    -The messiah must be from the line of David, the root of Jesse.
    -The messiah must be from the tribe of Judah.
    -The messiah must bear the iniquities of the many.
    -The messiah must fulfill the requirements of a sin offering.  He must
     be without blemish and must be perfect before a holy God.
    -The messiah must be born in Bethleham.
    -The messiah must be betrayed.
    -The messiah must be pierced and his blood must be shed.
    -The messiah must have entered into his mission humbly and as a
     servant.
    -The messiah must be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14 has a dual meaning)
    -The messiah must overcome death and be raised on the third day.
    -The messiah must be numbered with other transgressors (the thieves)
    
    Patricia, no doubt I am missing some here.  Isaiah 53 is in harmony
    with the person God had as the messiah.  Also important to note that
    Paul had direct revelation from Jesus after Jesus' ascension.  I am
    convinced that Paul was a prophet and Paul was an authority on the Old
    Testament.  Paul was trained and indoctrinated his whole life in the
    Hebrew scriptures...and was a student of one of the great teachers of
    that time.  
    
    Paul was indeed fallable just as we all are.  I find it hard to believe
    that Paul who had direct revelation from God would misinterpret or
    misquote Old Testament texts.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I gotta frame that, "I don't know" note.... a classic.... Thanks
fer postin it

    Jack,
    
    I can see where your Faith belief that all the scriptures support each
    other leads to your theology of justification that seems to be central
    to your belief structure.
    
    since I do not begin with the faith assumption that all the prophecies
    support each other, or that all the prophesies are true, then I reach
    very different conclusions.
    
    

    What do you all think of the belief that for a sacrifice to be
    acceptable to God, it had to be physically perfect and without blemish?
    
    Does this assume that God values the Physically perfect more than the
    imperfect.
    
                                              Patricia

re Note 1095.34 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     What do you all think of the belief that for a sacrifice to be
>     acceptable to God, it had to be physically perfect and without blemish?
>     
>     Does this assume that God values the Physically perfect more than the
>     imperfect.
  
        Since we'd be dealing with the transcendent here, I'm not sure
        that one can assume that the first implies the second, or
        anything else, for that matter.

        Perhaps that's another way of saying "I don't know."

        Bob

    Perhaps it also means that Mattel did not invent the
    
    "Barbie doll syndrone"
    
    
                                      Patricia

    In My Opinion (Kay Glen?):-)  In my opinion, I believe the sacrifice
    was what is called a "type of Christ".  There are a few of these in the
    Old Testament.  Jonah for example was a type of Christ...meaning, Jonah
    was a picture of Jesus dying and being raised on the third day.  Jesus
    confirmed this when stating, "No sign shall be given unto except the
    sign of Jonah.  For as Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish,
    so shall the son of man spend three days in the earth."  
    
    I believe the fact the lamb or sacrifice was unblemished was only
    important to continue the picture of messiah.  Ironically, Isaiah 53
    says that the messiah would not be much to look at and without stature.
    Jesus came from a poor background and could possibly not have been very
    handsome.  However, "..Jesus was found without sin...neither was their any
    guile found in his mouth."  Jesus encompassed perfection of holiness
    and this qualified him for messiahship.  The sacrifice of the Old
    Testament had to be without blemish, to complete the picture of a
    perfect sacrifice...that was all.
    
    -Jack

re .34

>   What do you all think of the belief that for a sacrifice to be
>   acceptable to God, it had to be physically perfect and without blemish?
    
patricia, i only answer here because you address the whole forum.

i have never understood why the OT should be relevant to christianty other 
than providing a historical and cultural background.

to your question, as i recall faintly, i think abraham was once asked 
to sacrifice his son, as a sign of his faith as it turned out in the end.

i think the whole concept of sacrifice to god is very pagan. it is reminiscient
of pantheist religious practices and i fail to see the relation to the life
of jesus.

i understand that a link can be made retrospectively from the life of christ
back to the prophets. but wasn't the sacrifice that jesus brought fundamentally
different to that sacrifice that abraham was asked to bring. as far as i 
understand jesus gave his life *for* his fellow humans, *not* to please god.

take this as a layman's opinion. it carries no weight other than asking
what exactly is it that binds the god of the OT to the one which jesus 
knew? 



andreas.

ps. i hope i got the gist of the conversation and that i haven't gone down
    a rathole.

    Andreas,
    
    You absolutely got the drift of the conversation.
    
    I have been told by some that I cannot call myself a Christian unless I
    believe that Jesus' work on the cross was to satisfy the requirement of
    a perfect sacrifice because the 'sins' of humanity had to be paid for.
    
    I do not accept that theology.  I believe that Jesus died on the Cross
    because he was a very revolutionary person and because it was expedient
    for the Romans to execute him.  I believe that he gave his life for
    humankind as other Revolutionaries have also done.  His cause, his
    mission, his love of humanity were all more important to him than his
    life.
    
    I believe that in primitive religions, sacrifice, human or animal was
    required to appease the gods.  The old testament shows the evolution
    from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice.  In the oldest stories, the
    Hebrew God required Abraham to consent to sacrificing Isaac.  That
    story also shows the ambiguity of the author regarding human sacrifice.
    
    Latter on, the prophets condemn that practice of human sacrifice in the 
    Baal religions.  The Christ with ambiguity resembling the ambiguity
    of the Abraham/Isaac story does away with the need for animal
    sacrifice.  Perhaps the myth of the need for the perfect human
    sacrifice was needed to create the change away from the sacrificial
    system of the time.  The myth did accomplish that purpose.
    
    In my opinion, just as God never needed animal sacrifice, God also
    never needed human sacrifice to forgive humanity.  God forgives
    humanity because God is love.  God accepts us even as we are sinners!
    
    
                               Patricia

what _does_ john 11:35 say?

Z    I have been told by some that I cannot call myself a Christian unless I
Z    believe that Jesus' work on the cross was to satisfy the requirement of
Z    a perfect sacrifice because the 'sins' of humanity had to be paid for.
    
    I as you already know, do subscribe to this teaching.  The death and
    resurrection of Christ is paramount to the whole meaning of
    Christianity. 
    
    Let's get back to the Type of Christ issue.  Patricia, what do you
    think Jesus meant when he said, "No sign shall be given you except the
    sign of Jonah"?  Had his death been of no spiritual significance, why
    would Jesus place such an emphasis on it?
    
    -Jack

    I don't believe that Jesus said those words!
    
    I believe that the author made them up to match with his theology.

    Does Martin Luther King Jr's death have spiritual significance?

    Andreas:
    
    I want to very briefly touch on the Abraham issue.  Realize that
    Abraham was well into his 90's at this point in his life...and child
    rearing at that age was somewhat different.  Abraham WAS PROMISED by
    God that from his seed would come a great and mighty nation...that
    being Isaac.  Now suddenly, God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son.  
    Now if you had direct revelation from God, and were promised that your
    seed would bring forth a great and mighty nation, and your wife had
    this son well into her 90's, how comfortable would you feel knowing
    that God was testing your faith?  I for one would feel very
    comfortable.  
    
    Before going up the mountain, Abraham said to the servants, "wait here
    while my son and I go up the mountain to pray.  THEN WE WILL RETURN TO
    YOU."  Now I imagine Isaac was quite uncomfortable with what
    followed...and my guess is that the whole incident changed their
    relationship quite a bit.  When Abraham was just about to kill Isaac
    God said this.  Andreas, this is very important to fully grasp what
    happened.
    
    "Then God said, lay not your hand on the boy, neither do anything unto
    him.  FOR NOW I KNOW THAT THOU DOST FEAR GOD, SEEING THAT THOU HAST NOT
    WITHHELD YOUR SON, THINE ONLY SON FROM ME"
    
    It was all a test Andreas and Abraham passed with flying colors.  
    
    What followed is equally important.  God PROVIDED a sacrifice.  Abraham
    looked up and a Ram was caught in a thicket.  This again is yet another
    picture of Gods provision for sin.  We cannot attain eternal life on
    our own, it must come from God.  
    
    The Old Testament is very much applicable to Christianity.  It is a
    bastion of interesting allegories, pictures, and prophecies of Jesus.  
    Jesus was not just a martyr.  He was much more!
    
    -Jack

 ZZ     I don't believe that Jesus said those words!
        
 ZZ     I believe that the author made them up to match with his theology.
    
    Patricia, {Thud} head hitting desk!  You can't assume this
    Patricia.  
    
    The author is Matthew Mark and Luke, the very people you espouse over 
    Paul and the writers of the other epistles.  
    
    Without intending to, it seems like you are abusing the only resource
    of information we have.  If you were arguing Roe v. Wade in a
    courtroom, our own secular justice system wouldn't allow you the
    privelege you just took.
    
    -Jack

    Oh Well!
    
    
    Jack, I hope your head does not hurt too much?
    
                                  Patricia

    BY the way jack,  if you showed that the verse in question really
    was in Matthew, in Mark, and in Luke,  I would probably change my mind
    about the likelihood that it was an authentic saying of Jesus.  I am
    operating from memory on that verse, but I agree with the idea of
    multiple attestations as a test for authenticity.

    
    > "Then God said, lay not your hand on the boy, neither do anything unto
    > him.  FOR NOW I KNOW THAT THOU DOST FEAR GOD, SEEING THAT THOU HAST NOT
    > WITHHELD YOUR SON, THINE ONLY SON FROM ME"

    So what you're saying is that God isn't omniscient...

    	Eric

  what _does_ john 11:35 say?

   "Jesus wept"

    
    >The author is Matthew Mark and Luke, the very people you espouse over 
    >Paul and the writers of the other epistles. 
    
    
    I do not espouse Matthew, Mark, and Luke over Paul.
    
    I espouse the authentic sayings of Jesus over the authentic sayings of
    Paul.
    
    Matthew, Mark, and Luke are three annonymous Gospel writters telling
    the story of Jesus passed on to them by others.  They never intended
    there writings to be read as history.  Their stories are theological
    literature meant to teach their own theology of Jesus.
    
    The Gospels have to be thoroughly analyzed to determine what may be
    authentic sayings of Jesus and what is story.
    
                                 Patricia
    
    
>    Without intending to, it seems like you are abusing the only resource
>    of information we have.  If you were arguing Roe v. Wade in a
>    courtroom, our own secular justice system wouldn't allow you the
>    privelege you just took.
    
    
    The justice system absolutely would allow me to question the validity
    of my sources.  Third hand hearsay evidence would not be allowed.
    
    
                                  Patricia
    

    Eric:
    
    I don't fully understand how to compliment the two...I admit it.  If
    however Abraham was being tested, it was for Abrahams benefit and
    edification, not for Gods.  It could be that Abraham needed to know he
    had found favor with God after his lack of faith with Hagar.  
    
    I don't know...I'm conjecturing.
    
    -Jack

    re .50.
    
    
    I love that verse!
    
    
    It gives a clear message to men, that it is OK to cry!
    
    
    
                                        Patricia

Z       The justice system absolutely would allow me to question the
Z   validity    of my sources.  Third hand hearsay evidence would not be allowed.
    
    But you didn't even question it.  You said the evidence was fabricated
    without any validation to your claim.
    
    -Jack

    Patricia:
    
    I ried this morning.  Never had a problem with it!
    
    -Jack

>    What do you all think of the belief that for a sacrifice to be
>    acceptable to God, it had to be physically perfect and without blemish?
    
    Why was Abel's offering accepted and Cain's rejected?  Why was the
    Passover lamb to be without blemish?  Why were the tithes and offering
    supposed to be based on the first fruits of your labor?  
    
>    Does this assume that God values the Physically perfect more than the
>    imperfect.
    
    It's clear to me that it deals more with the attitude of the heart 
    than with physical perfection.  If God is truly our God, we will serve
    Him with our best in all things.
    
    Mike

    Re: .37
    
    In case some are not familiar with the "type" in Greek literature, my
    intention here is to add some clarity around what Jack is saying. 
    There have been some great books written about the Greek typology in
    the Bible.  A couple I'd highly recommend for more examples are 
    "Word Pictures of the N.T." and "Word Pictures of the O.T." by A.T. 
    Robertson.
    
    A type is one of the Greek figures of speech used in the Bible.  Types
    are a prophetic symbol designated by God.  The word type comes from the 
    Greek word "tupos."  A tupos was a mark formed by a blow or an impression, 
    creating a figure or an image on the object that was struck.  Therefore, a 
    type prefigures something or someone to come.  That which it prefigures is 
    called an antitype.  A type prefigures only one antitype, although it may 
    parallel many points in the antitype.  An illustration of this is the
    tabernacle, a type of man's redemption.  According to Hebrews 10:20, the 
    veil that separated the holy place from the holy of holies prefigured the 
    flesh of Jesus Christ.  When determining types, although it may not be 
    formally stated, there should be some evidence of divine affirmation of 
    the corresponding type and antitype.  For example, Romans 5:14 we read, 
    "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had
    not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him 
    who was to come."  The word translated type is the Greek word tupos.  Adam 
    was a type or figure of Christ, who was to come.  In 1 Corinthians 15:45, 
    Christ is referred to as "the last Adam."  If the Word does not designate 
    something as a type, then the Bible expositor should simply show the 
    parallels without calling it a type.
    
    Mike

>Note 1095.10

>    Incidentally, there are only 2 chapters in the entire OT that are not
>    read in Jewish synagogues during the sabbath readings.  Guess which
>    ones they are.

>    Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.
    
>    Now ask yourself why.

I did go to the trouble of asking the rabbi of the synagogue I sometimes
frequent about this allegation.  Rabbi indicates there is no prohibition
against the reading of Isaiah 53 or the 22nd Psalm on Shabbat.  According
to Rabbi, the assertion above has no basis in fact.

Shalom,
Richard

    Re: .38
    
>i have never understood why the OT should be relevant to christianty other 
>than providing a historical and cultural background.
    
    Andreas, sadly much of Christianity also sees it that way.  I firmly
    believe that at least 35% of Christiandom is confused because of their
    ignorance towards the OT and Judaism.  Judaism is the root of the tree
    from which Christianity the limb has sprung.  To properly understand
    Christianity, you have to have a good understanding of the OT and
    Judaism.  The OT is part of the family album of God and Christians will
    do themselves a great service by studying it.  Ignorance of the OT is
    what has led to denominational divisions and cultic teachings.
    
    There are only a couple "mysteries" that Paul clarifies in the NT that
    aren't in the OT - one being the church.  Otherwise, both testaments are 
    fully integrated.  I once made it a personal challenge to be able to
    share the Gospel with people just using the OT.  Did you know Proverbs
    30:4 references God's Son?  Studying the OT has blessed my life and has
    clarified much of the NT to me in the process.  The study of typology
    in the OT is so fascinating that Christians don't realize the gems
    they're missing!
    
    Finally, this sums it up best:
    
    The OT is the NT concealed; the NT is the OT revealed!
    
    Mike

    >    I don't believe that Jesus said those words!
>    
>    I believe that the author made them up to match with his theology.

    How convenient!  Did Jesus appear to you and exclaim, "I was
    misquoted!"?

>I did go to the trouble of asking the rabbi of the synagogue I sometimes
>frequent about this allegation.  Rabbi indicates there is no prohibition
>against the reading of Isaiah 53 or the 22nd Psalm on Shabbat.  According
>to Rabbi, the assertion above has no basis in fact.
    
    Richard, I've heard similar from another source.  Maybe it's just the
    rabbis here at Temple Beth El, but he seemed very insistent that this
    is common practice in Judaism.
    
    Mike

I will not invest in questions which are clearly disingenuous.

Shalom,
Richard

    some more highlights from Genesis 22:
    
Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, my son, God will provide HIMSELF a LAMB for a burnt
offering: so they went both of them together.

    You can't get much clearer than this.
    
Genesis 22:13
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a RAM caught
in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him
up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

    Notice a ram was caught, not a Lamb.  This isn't what God told Abraham
    to watch for in verse 8.  Abraham knew that the Lamb was coming some
    day, but didn't know when.
    
    Another interesting fact is that this even ocurred on Mt. Moriah, which
    is on the same mountain ridge near the Kidron Valley where Golgotha is
    (i.e., where Christ became the Lamb promised in verse 8).
    
    Mike

    >I will not invest in questions which are clearly disingenuous.
    
    Okay, that's fair, though it wasn't my intention to be crafty.  
    Try this approach:
    
Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

    Who is the "He" in this verse?
    
Isaiah 53:8
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his
generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the
transgression of my people was he stricken.

    Same "He" is still the same subject here as in verse 5.  Why was this
    subject killed for the sins of God's people?
    
Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because
he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

    Again, same subject.  This time we're told the subject was buried with
    a rich man in his death.  Who is the subject?
    
Isaiah 53:10
Yet it pleased the lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou
shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall
prolong his days, and the pleasure of the lord shall prosper in his hand.
    
    God was pleased to destroy this subject as a sin offering for mankind.
    Who is it that God destroyed for the sin of all the world?

Isaiah 53:11
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their
iniquities.
    
    Again, we're told the subject of this chapter bore our sins, but also
    will justify mankind.

Isaiah 53:12
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the
spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he
was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors.

    Again we're told the subject bore our sins in its death.  Who is this?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Isaiah 53:10
Yet it pleased the lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou
shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall
prolong his days, and the pleasure of the lord shall prosper in his hand.
    
    God was pleased to destroy this subject as a sin offering for mankind.
    Doesn't sound like God agrees with Patricia's view of Christ's
    crucifixion.
    
    Mike

RE:        <<< Note 1095.53 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

   > re .50.
    
    
    >I love that verse!
    
    
    >It gives a clear message to men, that it is OK to cry!
    
    
    
     I suspect that the point I was trying to make by posting it where I did
     was missed/ignored.



 Jim

.61

>    Richard, I've heard similar from another source.  Maybe it's just the
>    rabbis here at Temple Beth El, but he seemed very insistent that this
>    is common practice in Judaism.

Surely you realize that to make inaccurate assertions is to risk some degree
of credibility, at least with me.

Shalom,
Richard

OK, Richard, on which sabbath is it the lectionary reading?

/john

    Jim,
    
    Your point was not missed or ignored!
    
    I believe that you and the religious right are wrong in insisting that
    your way of interpreting the Bible is the only way.  I think it is
    extreme arrogance to think you have the correct handle on God's
    intentions and everyone else is mistaken.
    
    I suspect that there are a lot of things that make Jesus weep.
    
    My committment to study scriptures, use my rational mind to make sense
    of them, and proclaim my discoveries and my excitement about my
    discoveries to this community is in my opinion pleasing to God and not
    grief making. 
    
    I take seriously, Bishop Spong's committment to "Rescue
    the Bible from Fundementalism.
    

| <<< Note 1095.60 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| >    I don't believe that Jesus said those words!
| >
| >    I believe that the author made them up to match with his theology.

| How convenient!  Did Jesus appear to you and exclaim, "I was misquoted!"?

	Mike... does Jesus ever talk to you? I'm beginning to believe he
doesn't.

	Patricia, your .70 was great! Thanks for posting it!

 Z       I believe that you and the religious right are wrong in insisting that
 Z       your way of interpreting the Bible is the only way.  I think it is
 Z       extreme arrogance to think you have the correct handle on God's
 Z       intentions and everyone else is mistaken.
  
    Basic rule of biblical discourse between two opposing opinions:
    
    One can be right and the other wrong.  Both can be wrong but but CANNOT
    be right.  Incidently, I have not heard anybody here insist their
    interpretation of the Bible is the only way.  I have heard people
    including myself state a point of view and use scripture to corroberate
    an opinion.  It sounds to me Patricia like you are displaying a knee
    jerk reaction here.  
    
    A couple of issues in relation to yesterday.  Regarding the picking and
    choosing of what is forgery and what isn't...it sounds Patricia, like
    you are a habitual charry picker.  That being you choose to cling to
    that which fits your doctrinal beliefs and dispell what doesn't.  By
    doing this, you are claiming a high authority to determine what is "God
    Breathed" and what isn't.  In essence, you are practicing the very
    thing you detest which is insisting on what is right and of free
    volition eliminating what isn't politically correct or molded to your
    faith system.  This is a dangerous practice and you may want to
    consider likewise.
    
    -Jack

   >     Incidently, I have not heard anybody here insist their
   > interpretation of the Bible is the only way.  I have heard people
   > including myself state a point of view and use scripture to corroberate
   > an opinion.  It sounds to me Patricia like you are displaying a knee
   > jerk reaction here.  
    
    Jack, if you and I disagree on our interpretation of the last dozen
    notes here particularly the nuances of the conversation between Jim and
    I, it is no wonder we disagree on our interpretation of a book written
    2000 years ago.
    
    
    >it sounds Patricia, like
    >you are a habitual charry picker.  
    
    >you choose to cling to
    >that which fits your doctrinal beliefs and dispell what doesn't.  By
    >doing this, you are claiming a high authority to determine what is "God
    >Breathed" and what isn't.  In essence, you are practicing the very
    >thing you detest which is insisting on what is right and of free
    >volition eliminating what isn't politically correct or molded to your
    >faith system.  This is a dangerous practice and you may want to
    >consider likewise.
    
    Jack, in spite of your denial of the fact that anybody here would
    insist that there interpretation is true and mine is false, these very
    words say,  
    
     "Patricia, you interpretation is false and dangerous"
    
    So you and I cannot even agree to the interpretation of your one note,
    how could we agree on the interpretation of the bible.
    
    Jack,  I have made it very clear how I evaluate evidence and interpret
    scripture.  You just don't get that I don't test for validity the same
    way you test for validity.

    Oh I get it.  I guess what it comes down to is how can we have
    fellowship in a conference like this when likemindedness doesn't exist.  
    I'm also curious as I asked in the new string why you aren't more
    endearing to religious founders who were more Politically Correct than
    Jesus.  
    
    -Jack

RE:        <<< Note 1095.70 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>
                          -< I wouldn't ignore you! >-

       
   > Your point was not missed or ignored!
    

     Great!  So you agree that Jesus would be upset over those for whom He
     died rejecting the need for His death on our behalf?



    >I believe that you and the religious right are wrong in insisting that
    >your way of interpreting the Bible is the only way.  I think it is


      Please don't include me in the "religious right" label.



    Jim

    Actually I have to agree.  When I hear religious right I identify that
    with a lobbying group where free thought is centralized into some
    political union of think tank.  I don't support lobby groups like that
    even if I happen to agree with alot of their stands.  
    
    I am a registered independent who just happens to have opposed
    democrats all my life.  Only one I ever voted for was John Silber!
    
    -Jack

    Jack/Jim
    
    It is clear to me from your replies that neither of you like the fact
    that I call myself a Christian and don't accept your similiar dogmatic
    interpretation of what christianity is.
    
    Jim, you are making a direct suggestion that I don't use the Bible
    unless I accept the divine origination of the Bible.  I accept the
    human origination of the Bible.
    
    Jack, you are making the direct suggestion that I do not follow Jesus
    unless I accept your interpretation of who Jesus is and what he
    does for us.  I follow Jesus as my role model and not as a harvested
    sacrifice.
    
    The purpose of this conference, as I understand it is to explore
    different perspectives regarding what Christianity is.  That is what I
    am doing.  Offering a different perspective.
    
    If I heard either one of you saying, this is what I believe and this is
    how it impacts my life, then I would accept your belief as a valid
    perpective.  What I in fact hear, is "this is what I believe, and how
    dare you believe differently."  I personally do not want this
    conference to be a constant defending of what each of us  believe.  I would like
    it to be a sharing and listening to of the nuances of many different aspects of
    Christianity.  That can only happen when people stop trying to convert
    each other and start listening to each other.

    
>    Jim, you are making a direct suggestion that I don't use the Bible
>    unless I accept the divine origination of the Bible.  I accept the
>    human origination of the Bible.
 


   I don't believe I did that.  I did comment on your reply that you grasped
   the meaning of why I posted "Jesus wept".

   
       
>    The purpose of this conference, as I understand it is to explore
>    different perspectives regarding what Christianity is.  That is what I
>    am doing.  Offering a different perspective.
 


      And your perspective is to refer to those who offer our perspective
      as "arrogant"?

   

  Jim

    I don't believe perspectives can be arrogant.
    
    Those offering the perspective are arrogant when they offer the
    perspective in such a way as to belittle all other perpectives.

 Oh, I see...

| <<< Note 1095.73 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| One can be right and the other wrong. Both can be wrong but both CANNOT be 
| right.  

	Which is why absolute morals with humans is impossible. 

| Incidently, I have not heard anybody here insist their interpretation of the 
| Bible is the only way.  

	Jack, anytime that someone says <insert person> has the wrong
interpretation of the Bible, they are insisting that their version of
it is the only way. I know I've been hearing what is supposed to be the
right way for years over in the other notesfiles within DEC. The thing is,
there are so many different versions that I have heard over the years...

| I have heard people including myself state a point of view and use scripture 
| to corroberate an opinion.  

	Errr Jack..... if someone comes back and says the interpretation of the
Scripture you have used really means <insert other persons interpretation>, do
you just accept it or tell them they are wrong? Your answer will show you that
what you wrote above is either missing something, or is wrong altogether.

| It sounds to me Patricia like you are displaying a knee jerk reaction here.

	Jack.... you of all people, writing this? I say HA! :-)


Glen

> OK, Richard, on which sabbath is it the lectionary reading?

I don't know.  I've bothered the rabbi enough.  Why don't you just go
ahead and give us your answer, John?

Richard

ZZ    Jack, you are making the direct suggestion that I do not follow Jesus
ZZ    unless I accept your interpretation of who Jesus is and what he
ZZ    does for us.  I follow Jesus as my role model and not as a
ZZ    harvested sacrifice.
    
    No I didn't do that.  I was merely asking why you chose
    Jesus...considering there were founders of other religions who
    displayed the fruits of peace, were espoused by their followers but
    weren't hated and martyred by others.  It seems Jesus actions wouldn't 
    fit into some of your views regarding the respect of others beliefs...
    choosing Paul as an apostle according to your beliefs wouldn't have
    been a wise choice of ambassadorship.
    
    -Jack

    Yesterday I did the I don't know thing.
    
    Today's lesson:  Let's stop assuming that when somebody asks an unusual
    question it is suspect to sarcasm or is disingenuous.  Let's assume the
    best until the asker reveals him/herself in such a way!
    
    -Jack

>    I don't believe perspectives can be arrogant.
    
>    Those offering the perspective are arrogant when they offer the
>    perspective in such a way as to belittle all other perpectives.



  So you didn't mean to use the term "arrogance" in your .70?

    Dear Jack (1095.85),
    
    	I know your "I don't know thing" was aimed at me, though you were
    careful to include a disclaimer stating otherwise.  It could not have
    been evoked by anyone else.  Same with your 1095.85.
    
    	Still, I appreciate the *intent* of what you're trying to do.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

	I think what Jack wrote IS something that we ALL should do. But if it
does turn out that he was using it as a slam against another, I would be very
saddened. Jack, could you clear this up?

ZZ    I think what Jack wrote IS something that we ALL should do. But if it
ZZ    does turn out that he was using it as a slam against another, I would
ZZ    be very saddened. Jack, could you clear this up?
    
    Beautiful...I just asked that we all not assume ulterior motive and
    even in the process of doing, I am queried whether or not my ulterior
    motive note in itself has an ulterior motive!  You are a trip man!!!!
    A true case of paranoia....
    
    No Glen, it was directed at all of us because we all do it.  I was
    prompted to write it because I've seen it a few times today...but it
    doesn't mean it's a slam.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    perhaps your lesson for the day is to not ask loaded questions.
    
    Your question and Jims question were in affect the same question.  I
    resented the question in both cases.

 Which question did you resent?

 ZZ      Your question and Jims question were in affect the same question.  I
 ZZ       resented the question in both cases.
    
    Not stated smugly but you will most likely be far more offended in your
    ministry than you were here.  Unfortuately, as the spiritual leader of
    a flock, you forfeit the right to be sensitive about challenges and
    questions put before you!  Besides, resentment should only be there if
    I were to imply malicious intent...which you should know by now I have
    no desire to do nor find it beneficial for either of us.  
    
    Perhaps you are mistaking resentment for being removed from your
    comfort zone.
    
    -Jack

>> OK, Richard, on which sabbath is it the lectionary reading?
>
>I don't know.  I've bothered the rabbi enough.  Why don't you just go
>ahead and give us your answer, John?

Excuse me?  My answer?  I don't have a Jewish lectionary.

Mike claimed it isn't read.
You claimed it is.

It's your responsibility to provide the lectionary reference to back up
your claim.

/john

    Excuse me?  I don't have a Jewish lectionary either.  I've never
    even heard of a Jewish lectionary.
    
    All I claimed is to have asked a rabbi.
    
    Richard
    

The question underlying the questions:

	"Don't you realize that unless you see it like we see it,
    Patricia, your efforts are really rather odd and pointless?"

Let me ask you something, Jack.  Would you consider it an
accomplishment if you were actually able to discourage Patricia
to the point of discontinuing her pursuits?

It sounds like it to me.

Richard

 Well, gee whiz.  Sorry to cause any one any resentment, and sorry for
 writing from my Christian perspective (which according to some is 
 arrogant, though another speaking from their perspective pointing
 out my "arrogance" is not considered arrogant).  I popped into here
 having not been active for several months, and will pop right back
 out.


 God Bless!



 Jim

        <<< Note 1095.70 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>
    
>    I take seriously, Bishop Spong's committment to "Rescue
>    the Bible from Fundementalism.
    
    	You would.

        <<< Note 1095.78 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    The purpose of this conference, as I understand it is to explore
>    different perspectives regarding what Christianity is.  That is what I
>    am doing.  Offering a different perspective.
    
    	Are we not allowed to voice our rejection of those different
    	perspectives?
    
>    What I in fact hear, is "this is what I believe, and how
>    dare you believe differently."  I personally do not want this
>    conference to be a constant defending of what each of us  believe.  
    
    	Ah, but I suppose you do not expect us to hear from you, "How
    	dare you believe in a gyno-repressive tradition!"
    
    	No, instead we are supposed to idly sit by as you say, "Hooray 
    	for my new view that rejoices in a looser sexual morality and
    	increased divorce rate, eventhough we know these things are
    	causing great peril to many of those who practice it."
    
>    to be a sharing and listening to of the nuances of many different aspects 
    
    	You have shared.  We have listened.  I can't really speak for 
    	others, but I have rejected your "nuances" as dangerous, not
    	only spiritually, but even as a matter of social danger.

          <<< Note 1095.96 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" >>>

>Let me ask you something, Jack.  Would you consider it an
>accomplishment if you were actually able to discourage Patricia
>to the point of discontinuing her pursuits?

    	I don't know what Jack says, but if Patricia is intent on being
    	a minister with some of the ideas she has expressed in this
    	conference, I'm willing to state outright that that would be the 
    	safest course for society as far as I'm concerned.

| <<< Note 1095.89 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ    I think what Jack wrote IS something that we ALL should do. But if it
| ZZ    does turn out that he was using it as a slam against another, I would
| ZZ    be very saddened. Jack, could you clear this up?

| Beautiful...I just asked that we all not assume ulterior motive and even in 
| the process of doing, I am queried whether or not my ulterior motive note in 
| itself has an ulterior motive!  You are a trip man!!!! A true case of 
| paranoia....

	Jack, the claim was made against you. I asked you to clear it up.
Whatever you're talking about, I'm not sure. 

| No Glen, it was directed at all of us because we all do it.  I was prompted to
| write it because I've seen it a few times today...but it doesn't mean it's a 
| slam.

	Jack.... thanks for answering, but please go back and read a few
notes... you will see what is being talked about....

re .100

>>Let me ask you something, Jack.  Would you consider it an
>>accomplishment if you were actually able to discourage Patricia
>>to the point of discontinuing her pursuits?
>
>    	I don't know what Jack says, but if Patricia is intent on being
>    	a minister with some of the ideas she has expressed in this
>    	conference, I'm willing to state outright that that would be the 
>    	safest course for society as far as I'm concerned.


joe's statement above indicates, that as far as he is concerned, there 
is no space for freedom of speech or freedom of opinion in his view of
the church.



andreas.

 ZZ   Let me ask you something, Jack.  Would you consider it an
 ZZ   accomplishment if you were actually able to discourage Patricia
 ZZ   to the point of discontinuing her pursuits?
    
 ZZ   It sounds like it to me.
    
    Richard, disagreeing on biblical discourse does not preclude the desire
    to see somebody fail.  Therefore, the answer is this.  I as a colaborer
    want to see Patricia where God wants Patricia.  In fact, in the last
    years I have only outright asked Patricia to consider another option of
    training...that being to go to Dallas Theological Seminary where they
    get into the meat of the word.  The Word of God is supposed to mold our
    way of thinking socially...not our social issues molding how we view
    the Word of God...but that is just an opinion and no doubt is disagreed
    upon by many here.  By the way Richard, another example of paranoia of
    ulterior motives...just something to think about.
    
    In Him,
    
    -Jack

>                                   The Word of God is supposed to mold our
>   way of thinking socially...not our social issues molding how we view
>   the Word of God...but that is just an opinion and no doubt is disagreed
>   upon by many here.  

    
not so fast jack! i think you've put this very nicely. 
makes sense, even to me. 

wasn't there something, way back, with paul having much the same view?



andreas.

    Not sure...but thanks for the vote of confidence! :-)

at least as far as i understand from what patricia writes on "1 Corinthian",
we are not free of the task of questioning our hearts and of reaching our 
own opinion. that's what i was referring too.



andreas.

re .91  Which question did you resent?
    
    
    
            <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1098.4              The Authentic sayings of Jesus                  4 of 14
CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean"                 11 lines  16-JUN-1995 12:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 Why even use the Bible at all Patricia? Obviously it is nothing but a bunch
 of "inspirational stories" to you.  Why not toss it out and use Aesop's Fables
 or Grimm's Fairy Tales?




 Jim

   <<< Note 1095.102 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>joe's statement above indicates, that as far as he is concerned, there 
>is no space for freedom of speech or freedom of opinion in his view of
>the church.

    	If "freedom of speech/opinion" -- especially for church leadership
    	-- includes things which are clearly socially harmful, then I agree 
    	with you.  It has no place in Christian churches.  I've pointed out
    	what I see as being clearly harmful.  If you disagree with me then 
    	show me where it is wrong.  But simply dismissing it as witch burning 
    	is disingenuous.

we had this discussion before (217.206)

i consider the law as the highest absolute governing human interaction. 
according to this, opposing someone's right to self-determination at all 
cost, as you seem to imply in .100, is clearly dismissible.

if patricia is to be a minister, i am sure she will be elected to such
a post and will remain accountable to her community. i see no problem with 
this.

i see a problem with your stance though.



andreas.

   <<< Note 1095.109 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>i consider the law as the highest absolute governing human interaction. 
    
    	I'm not surprised that you see a problem with my stance.  
    
    	Remember, though, that this conference is a discussion of
    	CHRISTIAN perspectives, which (I would hope) means the
    	assumption that there *IS* a God (and a Jesus Christ) and 
    	that God is above any principality and power found among 
    	men.  Those who seek authority within God's organization 
    	should be bound by more than just the laws of men -- first 
    	and foremost he should be bound by the laws of God.

Re: .110 Joe

>       Remember, though, that this conference is a discussion of
>        CHRISTIAN perspectives

Not exclusively.

				-- Bob

 

    Patricia:
    
    From what I see, you claim the bible is not inerrant, parts of it were
    manufactured for political reasons, social reasons, whatever. 
    Therefore, the question of its validity compared to Aesop and other
    writers is a reasonable query.  Both sources of writings provide a
    lesson in either morality or practicality.  
    
    -Jack

    	re .111
    
    	At least you're honest about it, Bob...

    I see the questions from .65 have still gone unanswered.  Maybe Richard
    can provide his own commentary on the verses in this short chapter
    since he is unwilling to answer questions about it.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    .114
    
    I don't intend to respond to your questions regarding Isaiah 53 at this
    time.  I've already explained more than once why I don't.
    
    Richard
    

    I didn't ask you any more questions.  I issued a request to provide
    your commentary of the chapter.  
    
    Mike

    I respectfully decline.
    
    Richard
    

I would like to know, however, what source supplied the disinformation
regarding the cross, the swastika, and the peace symbol you shared in
1009.58:

>    Look at the swastika symbol.  Straighten the bars and what do you see?

>    It's a broken cross, just like the peace symbol.  It standard practice
>    in the occult to defile anything holy.

Richard

Note 1095.103
    
>    Richard, disagreeing on biblical discourse does not preclude the desire
>    to see somebody fail.

I don't normally file gems like the following under biblical discourse
(your 1095.92):

>>    Not stated smugly but you will most likely be far more offended in your
>>    ministry than you were here.  Unfortuately, as the spiritual leader of
>>    a flock, you forfeit the right to be sensitive about challenges and
>>    questions put before you!

>    Therefore, the answer is this.  I as a colaborer
>    want to see Patricia where God wants Patricia.  In fact, in the last
>    years I have only outright asked Patricia to consider another option of
>    training...that being to go to Dallas Theological Seminary where they
>    get into the meat of the word.

So, you don't want to see Patricia fail (I didn't mention failure in 1095.96).
You merely want her to get it right.  In other words, you would indeed like to
discourage Patricia from continuing the direction she's pursuing, but only
so that she can get it right.

>    By the way Richard, another example of paranoia of
>    ulterior motives...just something to think about.

I know, Jack, I know.  Your motives are more pure than Ivory soap and I'm
paranoid.

Richard

    Ivory soap...yes I like that.  I'm laughing (Not condescending...maybe
    I deserved it! :-))
    
Z    So, you don't want to see Patricia fail (I didn't mention failure in 1095.96).
Z    You merely want her to get it right.  In other words, you would indeed
Z    like to
Z    discourage Patricia from continuing the direction she's pursuing, but
Z    only so that she can get it right.
    
    Richard, a traveler has two choices to get someplace.  They can either
    climb the steep mountain or they can walk the opposite direction, walk
    around the world, and go in through the back door.  I see alot of
    ideals here that should be espoused to but at the same time I see alot
    of doctrinal issues that are downright destructive.  Just my opinion.
    
    As I stated, the Word of God is supposed to mold our social issues, not 
    the other way around.
    
    Jack
    

    I can't speak for Patricia, but I suspect your "guidance" is not having
    the effect you desire.
    
    Richard
    

>I would like to know, however, what source supplied the disinformation
>regarding the cross, the swastika, and the peace symbol you shared in
>1009.58:
    
    I don't see what this has to do with Isaiah 53 and I don't wish to
    answer disingenuous questions.
    
    Mike

My concern is with the accuracy of some of your statements here, including:

>    Incidentally, there are only 2 chapters in the entire OT that are not
>    read in Jewish synagogues during the sabbath readings.  Guess which
>    ones they are.

>    Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.
    
>    Now ask yourself why.

However, I will accept your decision and not bug you about it.
    
Richard

    >My concern is with the accuracy of some of your statements here, including:
    
    You can be assured the concern for the accuracy of statements in here
    is shared by many.

Z    I can't speak for Patricia, but I suspect your "guidance" is not
Z    having the effect you desire.
    
    I don't have expectations.  I am merely hoping...that's all.  If
    anything, I am defending what I believe to be truth.  
    
    -Jack

>    I don't have expectations.  I am merely hoping...that's all.  If
>    anything, I am defending what I believe to be truth.  

I wouldn't doubt that Patricia has similar feelings concerning you.

Richard

    Yeah...by the way Richard, is there anything in Patricia's doctrine you
    might not agree with?  I find it is always certain people here who have
    any dialog with her and was wondering what you think?  
    
    -Jack
    
    P.S. It is alright to have fellowship and disagree on issues.  Married
    couples do this every day!

    No, Patricia and I don't agree entirely on every issue and every point.
    
    On the other hand, I've not made any remarks that would tend to discourage
    Patricia from continuing full-throttle with her theological pursuits
    and ministry.
    
    Neither do I have any plans to marry her. ;-}
    
    Richard
    

Note 1095.2
    
>    Both sections are written by the prophet Isaiah.  How do we know? 
>    Because in John 12:37-41 the Holy Spirit quotes from both sections of
>    Isaiah and attributes both to the same Isaiah.
    
I meant to mention this earlier.  Quoting from the book of Isaiah in John
verifies nothing.

Richard

    I'm pleased by the number of people who have sent me mail saying how
    they can see my expression of faith becoming more clear and lucid. 
    Part of this for me has been learning how to deal with the criticism of
    those who think that absolute truth can be known, and that they know
    it.  I have been criticized, even to the point of condemnation, my
    faith has been criticized, and my pursuit of the ministry have been
    criticized.  I have decided to take the route that conservatives
    Christians do not take nor do many Unitarian Universalist.  That is the 
    route of accepting that the Bible is revelatory even as it is an
    imperfect document that is fully tainted with what Christians
    themselves call "Original Sin" and what liberationists call systemic
    prejudices, sexism, rascism, heterosexism.
    
      Jack,  I welcome questions
    that push me outside my comfort zone.  Your questions do not push me
    outside my comfort zone.  I, like Richard, can decline to answer
    disengenous questions.   All of those whom I accept as spiritual
    advisors easily push me outside my comfort zone.
    
    
     I do find it interesting that I now have
    conservative Christians asking me why I would want to follow Jesus and
    why I would want to rely upon the Bible.  I guess in someways I
    consider that a real achievement.
    
    I am grateful for all the people in here who both in this file and in
    mail messages support me in my pursuit.  You my friends sustain me as I
    confront those who would rather not see me preaching the  Christian
    message as I understand that message in its simplest form.
    
    "Love thyself, Love others, Love God"
    
    

>I meant to mention this earlier.  Quoting from the book of Isaiah in John
>verifies nothing.
    
    It verifies that John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is
    correct and the critics are not.  It also verifies that John is
    historically and culturally closer to the truth than the critics.
    
    Mike

>     I do find it interesting that I now have
>    conservative Christians asking me why I would want to follow Jesus and
>    why I would want to rely upon the Bible.  I guess in someways I
>    consider that a real achievement.
    
    Sometimes it strikes me as logically inconsistent because I see Christ
    and the Bible as going hand-in-hand.  I can't see how you can have one
    without the other.
    
    Mike

>    It verifies that John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is
>    correct and the critics are not.  It also verifies that John is
>    historically and culturally closer to the truth than the critics.

Objectively speaking, quoting Isaiah means that John had some familiarity
with the text.  More than this is dogma, not evidence.

Richard

>Objectively speaking, quoting Isaiah means that John had some familiarity
>with the text.  More than this is dogma, not evidence.
    
    Richard, then you 2000 years removed should show us where John and
    Isaiah erred.  Otherwise, we're back to those questions you refuse to
    shed light on.
    
    Mike

I never said John erred.  And I never said Isaiah erred.

Richard

    Well...what did you say?

    .136
    
    At the notes prompt press "b" and then the "return" key.  Repeat as
    needed.
    
    Richard
    

    Some quick thoughts on Isaiah 53...

    Placed between two chapters regarding Israel, this indicates to me
    that this chapter should also be read in that light.

    There is no sense of divinity in the servant. That is, the servant
    is of this earth and not sent down from Heaven:

    	"...like a shoot from the parched earth." (V 2)

    In the Gospels, Jesus often speaks before great crowds and people
    would seek him out. This is quite different than the picture
    painted in verse 3:

         "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man suffering,
         accustomed to infirmity, one of those from whom men hide
         their faces, spurned and we held him in no esteem."

    In the Gospels, Jesus is pictured as anything but infirmed. He was
    the a carpenter, spent much of his time traveling, and spoke to
    great crowds. Hardly a man plagues with infirmity. (eg V3-4)

    The servant in Isaiah 53 took on the sins of many, not all.
    Certainly not the sins of the Gentiles. 

    Isaiah 53 also speaks of the descendants of the servant? I didn't
    think Jesus had children. How many children did he have? And the
    servant, though "bruised," would live a long life.

    In short Isaiah 53 describes an earthly servant of God. A humble
    man who takes upon himself the sins of many, but not all. A man
    who is rewarded by God with a portion among the great. This is not
    describing to me the Son of God or the "Word" of the Gospel of
    John. The man in Isaiah 53 does not attract a great number of
    followers; he is not a charismatic character. For all intents and
    purposes, he could be an anonymous figure.

    The closest thing in Isaiah 53 to the image of Jesus in the
    Gospels is verse 7:

         "Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and
         opened not his mouth; like a lamb led to the
         slaughter, or a sheep before the shearers, he was
         silent and opened not his mouth."


    Well that's what I read anyway...
    
    	Eric

    ZZ    Isaiah 53 also speaks of the descendants of the servant? I didn't
    ZZ    think Jesus had children. How many children did he have? And the
    ZZ    servant, though "bruised," would live a long life.
    
    In Colossians, Jesus is referred to as the firstborn of all creation.  
    The word, Firstborn in the greek, Prototokos, meaning to have
    preeminence.  I also take this to mean he is the head of the body...the 
    church.  This too is mentioned in Colossians 1.  Jesus is also referred
    to as the high priest in Hebrews and we are of the high priesthood
    meaning the church.  
    
    But getting back to Isaiah 53.  It also states that God was pleased
    that he was to be a sin offering...as in...without blemish.  Jesus was
    without sin.."For he became sin for us, who know no sin.  That we might
    be made the righteousness of God in Him."  The person identified in
    Isaiah 53 had to be a sacrifice, pleasing to God, and without sin.
    
    As far as his humility, Philippians 2 touches well on this aspect of
    his personhood.  He took on the form of a bond servant and subjected
    himself to death, even death on a cross.  A few verses later it says
    that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.
    
    As I said, Philip recognized who the person in Isaiah 53 was and it is
    affirmed by Dr. Luke in the book of Acts.  That's proof enough for me.
    
    -Jack

re .138

>   In short Isaiah 53 describes an earthly servant of God. A humble
>   man who takes upon himself the sins of many, but not all. A man
>   who is rewarded by God with a portion among the great. This is not
>   describing to me the Son of God or the "Word" of the Gospel of
>   John. The man in Isaiah 53 does not attract a great number of
>   followers; he is not a charismatic character. For all intents and
>   purposes, he could be an anonymous figure.


if the prophet was right and if jesus of nazareth was this suffering servant,
then if the gospels (and much of the NT) have little resemblance to the 
prophecy, this would mean 
a) that jesus of nazareth was not the one described in the prophecy, or
b) that jesus of nazareth was the one described in the prophecy, and that 
   much of the gospels and the NT contain man-made additions/poetry which 
   are historically untrue.

this would make the issue of believing the prophet or the NT a great dilemma,
would it not?



andreas.

 ZZZ    -< wow! i think i can see the bug >-
    
    Errrr....I don't.  Could you splain that to me again..?
    
    -Jack

erm, seems to me that isaiah 53 is the prophecy announcing the messiah, right?

though i might have easily got it wrong, having only logic and zilch theology
to rely on!


andreas.

                     <<< Note 1095.138 by APACHE::MYERS >>>

>         "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man suffering,
>         accustomed to infirmity, one of those from whom men hide
>         their faces, spurned and we held him in no esteem."
>
>    In the Gospels, Jesus is pictured as anything but infirmed.
    
    	I guess you haven't read any of the passion narratives where
    	every follower deserted Him -- and even Peter denied Him.
    
>    Isaiah 53 also speaks of the descendants of the servant? I didn't
>    think Jesus had children. How many children did he have? 
    
    	We are all his brethren. Sons of God.
    
>    And the
>    servant, though "bruised," would live a long life.
    
    	Jesus lives.

    Joe,
    
    Obviously you have not read all the passion narratives either.
    
    Every follower did not desert Jesus.
    
    Only the male followers desserted Jesus.
    
    The women were there with him to the end!
    
    Now how could you overlook that?
    
                                            Patricia

Re: .144 Patricia

Well, it does say that that he was spurned and avoided by *men*. :-)

However, for most of his life Jesus was not spurned and avoided.

				-- Bob

    You are right Bob!
    
    On both accounts  :=)
    
    
    

    
    > I guess you haven't read any of the passion narratives where every
    > follower deserted Him -- and even Peter denied Him.

    I've read the passion narratives, smart guy. I believe Isaiah 53 is
    speaking of the nature of the servant, not a particular incident.
    Isaiah 53 does not describe the life of Jesus as a man. It could easily
    be describing the life John the Baptist, though. (at least this verse)

    > We are all his brethren. Sons of God.

    While this is poetically beautiful, we are, nonetheless, not his
    descendants, his seed. 

    > Jesus lives.

    Indeed. But not in the same form as before his crucifixion. Nor is the
    death and resurrection described in Isaiah 53. 

    These are just my observations, and I'm sure you'll agree, I could be
    wrong. I'm pretty much taking Isaiah 53 at face value and not reading
    too much into it.
    
    	Eric

re Note 1095.138 by APACHE::MYERS:

> 
> >         "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man suffering,
> >         accustomed to infirmity, one of those from whom men hide
> >         their faces, spurned and we held him in no esteem."
> >
> >    In the Gospels, Jesus is pictured as anything but infirmed.

        Agreed -- assuming that "infirmity" means what it usually
        means, that quote implies a sickly or disfigured person --
        and with the word "accustomed", it can't simply refer to the
        wounds of the passion, but implies a chronic condition.

        Perhaps Isaiah 53 portrays a composite of many believers,
        Jesus included -- thus it would refer to Jesus (as well as to
        others) but wouldn't necessarily apply 100% to Jesus (or to
        any other single person).

        Bob

    >    Only the male followers desserted Jesus.
    
    John, the one you don't care for, did not leave Christ.

 <<< Note 1095.147 by APACHE::MYERS "Which we all know means, ''to bluff''" >>>

>    I've read the passion narratives, smart guy. I believe Isaiah 53 is
>    speaking of the nature of the servant, not a particular incident.
    
    	Thus our disagreement on this point.  So be it.
    
>    I'm pretty much taking Isaiah 53 at face value and not reading
>    too much into it.
    
    	Or, you may be reading too much.  Same for me.
    
    	I don't see hope for much more that agreeing to disagree here.

    	re .144
    
    	Quite selective in what you believe to be true, huh Patricia?  :^)

    Joe:
    
    They struck the Shepherd and the sheep were scattered.
    
    The apostles were men...
    The men are equated to sheep...
    Sheep are very stupid animals...
    Therefore, men are stupid!
    
    Women should rule the earth!
    
    -Jack

    No, you were wrong in stating all the followers deserted Jesus. 
    Clearly the women did not.
    
    regarding Mikes quip about John being there, Only the Gospel of John
    identifies one of the 13 Male disciples at the Cross.  The Johanine
    community supported the leadership of John over Peter, so in John's
    account, the beloved disciple, who is never named plays top dog in a
    number of places including being one of the first at the tomb and being
    the only Male disciple at the Cross, and in fact the disciple to whom
    Jesus supposedly entrusts his mother.
    
    As I have stated before, John's Gospel is the most historically
    innaccurate.  This account at the Cross is a direct contradiction of
    the accounts in the synoptic Gospels.  Since this is a piece of
    information, not any any of the other sources, because of the nature of
    John as being highly symbolic, and because of the practice of the
    Johanine church in recognizing John as the beloved disciple and leader,
    this account is normal viewed as not authentic. 
    
                                            Patricia

>The Johanine community supported the leadership of John over Peter,

You've stated this before, but I've never seen any evidence of it.

/john

    John,
    
    The evidence is found throughout the gospel of John, written for the
    Johanine community.  It is evidence that is lost when one insists that
    there are no descrepencies in the Bible.  If one reads the Gospel of
    John consciously analyzing the role and position of "the beloved
    disciple" who is assumed to be John, one will see the primacy of this
    disciple.  If one reads the Gospel of let's say Matthew, and studies
    the role of the disciples, one sees that Peter is the disciple given
    primacy.
    
    Hierarchical politics is very much alive in well in the Gospels.  It is
    fascinating to give John and Matthew a reading, just concentrating on
    the politics of the disciples.  What is the pecking order in each one.
    
                                          Patricia 

 ZZ   If one reads the Gospel of let's say Matthew, and studies
 ZZ   the role of the disciples, one sees that Peter is the disciple
 ZZ   given primacy.
    
    Peter is shed in a negative light quite a bit in the gospel of Matthew.
    Peter of course blows it when walking on water.  Peter denies Jesus
    three times.  Peter is strongly rebuked by Jesus (Get thee behind me
    Satan)...
    
    Hierarchy had little to do with anything.  I believe it was the
    apostles temperaments that made their attributes stand out.  John was
    certainly amongst those arguing around the last supper dining area
    staking a claim as to who would be the greatest.  
    
    I believe the apostles were made up of teenagers who still had to
    wrestle with adolescence.  I believe DaVinci's painting is innacurate.
    
    -Jack

    Is it not the Gospel of Matthew that says
    
    "Upon this Rock(Peter) I build my church."  That statement in matthew
    is the basis for Apostolic succession in the Petrine community.  That
    statement is not found in the gospel of John.  
    
    Is that statement in either Luke or Mark?
    
    Wouldn't it be somewhat of a tragedy if that statement was not
    authenticate and a 2000 year church hierarchy was founded upon it?
    
    Particularly when that statement is one of the major sources of
    excluding women from full participation!

        <<< Note 1095.157 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Wouldn't it be somewhat of a tragedy if that statement was not
>    authenticate and a 2000 year church hierarchy was founded upon it?
>    
>    Particularly when that statement is one of the major sources of
>    excluding women from full participation!

    	That certainly WOULD be tragic.  Of course, your thesis 
    	depends on this (and other) tragedy, but until you can
    	show that it is not authentic you are putting the cart
    	before the horse.

    Joe,
    
    THat statement identifies that it is important for every Christian to
    not only know what is in the Bible, but to also be able to articulate
    how the Bible speaks authoritatively to them.
    
    It is important for every Christian to know to some extent, the kinds
    of Biblical studies that are being done.
    
    It is important for every Christian to decide for themselves whether
    everything that the bible identifies as coming from Jesus' mouth,
    actually came from Jesus' mouth.
    
    If a Christian decides that not everything came from Jesus, then that
    Christian should know what may have and what probably did not come from
    Jesus.
    
    This is particularly important when those Christians themselves are
    called to make decisions based on what is from Jesus and what is not
    from Jesus.  If the Bible is being used as the basis of authority, it
    is important for those using it as a basis of authority know how and to
    what extent they hold it authoritative.

Concerning some of the main points of this string I would recommend reviewing
Note 1464.* in the BAGELS conference.

To add BAGELS to your notebook type

	ADD ENTRY TAVENG::BAGELS<return>

at the Notes prompt or press KP7.

Shalom,
Richard

>    "Upon this Rock(Peter) I build my church."  That statement in matthew
>    is the basis for Apostolic succession in the Petrine community.  That
>    statement is not found in the gospel of John.  
    
    the foundation of the church is Peter's faith, not Peter himself.  This
    is clear in context (previous few verses).

        <<< Note 1095.159 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    It is important for every Christian to decide for themselves whether
>    everything that the bible identifies as coming from Jesus' mouth,
>    actually came from Jesus' mouth.
    
    	And I think it is important for every Christian to accept as
    	Gospel what the Gospels say Jesus said.  Should be no surprise
    	to you, as we have already clearly defined our viewpoints to
    	each other.  So I guess our votes cancel each other...
    
>    If a Christian decides that not everything came from Jesus, then that
>    Christian should know what may have and what probably did not come from
>    Jesus.
    
    	Through what channels?  Channeling?  That would be about as
    	valid to me as any others...

    "I hereby proclaim that anything Jesus stated about Love was not
    actually stated by him!"
    
    Don't you see how dangerous your supposition is?  This is exactly the
    mistake that has been made throughout history...by religious leaders no
    doubt!
    
    -Jack
    

    Jack,Joe,
    
    I realize that both of you accept that the Bible is Inerrant. 
    Therefore you don't need to do the searching I suggested to arrive at a
    theory of Biblical authority.
    
    Jack,  your statements show that you either do not read what I write or
    that you do not comprehend what I write.  I have provided sufficient
    examples for you to know that arriving at what Jesus may have said or
    may not have said is not the arbitrary, simplistic excercise that you
    make fun of.
    
                                        Patricia
    
    

    I don't make fun of anything here and I have read everything you wrote. 
    The conclusion I drew was illustrated in my example a few replies back
    so apparently I am not comprehending what your saying.  
    
    If we should test which words of Jesus are authentic and which aren't,
    then why should his messages on love be of any less scrutiny?
    
    -Jack

>    "I hereby proclaim that anything Jesus stated about Love was not
>     actually stated by him!"
    
>    Don't you see how dangerous your supposition is?  This is exactly the
>    mistake that has been made throughout history...by religious leaders no
>    doubt!
    
>    -Jack
    
The above is a statement that only disparages without showing any evidence
    of comprehending anything that I have written.   
    
    The are many techniques used to reach conclusions regarding what Jesus
    may have actually said.  I have listed some of them in my notes.
    
    Sometimes Jack, I respond to you as curtly as you respond to me, such
    as in replying to your note that said, "well, what do you say about
    Jesus saying there will be no sign, except the sign of Jonah"
    
    I responded back, simply, that I did not accept that as something that
    Jesus actually said.  When you pushed the issue, I gave you the
    evidence that I used to reach my conclusion.  When I was asked about
    the beatitudes, I discuss the two versions and the difference between
    "blessed are the poor  " and "blessed are the poor in spirit" and my
    conclusion that the actual words of Jesus probably were blessed are the
    poor" with Matthew adding the "in spirit".  I try not to make arbitrary
    remarks and when sincerely asked for more information, I give it.
    
    Your statement,
    
    "I hereby proclaim that anything JEsus stated about Love was not
    actually stated by him" is a ridiculous, arbitrary statement with no
    reason or argument to support it,(other than perhaps if you believed
    nothing attributed to Jesus was spoken by him)
    
    Then you attempt to use your own ridiculous statement as evidence that
    my supposition is dangerous and exactly the mistake made throughout
    history.
    
    Perhaps it is just a style issue Jack, but if you are sincere about
    discussing the issue, then you need to look at how you ask questions
    and the suppositions you make in your presentation of the questions.
    
    I wouldn't be studying theology if I didn't enjoy challenging
    questions.  I believe that the formation of my theology is a lifelong
    endeavor and I value every question and opinion that contributes to my
    refining of my beliefs.
    
    I dislike the ping pong games that are played in notes even though I
    don't always do as well as I should in avoiding the ping pong games.
    Unfortunately, I fear that many persons don't participate in the
    discussions because they don't want to have their opinions pounced on. 
    I would like to encourage an environment in which everyone is
    encouraged to participate without any fear of having their opinions
    pounced on.
    
                             Patricia
    
                                 Patricia 
    
    

    Joe,
    
    I hear, and accept, and respect your belief that everything attributed
    in the Bible to Jesus was actually said by Jesus.
    
    I don't agree with you, but have no need or desire to change your mind.
    
    As stated in my other notes, I reach my conclusions by reading what
    scholars have said and analyzing whether I agree with their
    conclusions.  The conclusions are reached by studying side by side all
    similar passages and comparing differences in the passages.  When there
    are differences and other analysis.
    
    Channeling plays no role whatsoever in the analysis.
    
    Direct intuition does play an important role in my theology, but not in
    my analysis of what Jesus may have said and did not say.
    
                              Patricia

        <<< Note 1095.167 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Channeling plays no role whatsoever in the analysis.
    
    	I hope I did not imply that I think that channeling is part
    	of your discernment.  I see no reason to suggest that about 
    	you from anything you've written, and if I came across as making
    	that suggestion about you, I apologize.  My purpose in saying
    	what I did was that I wanted to suggest that your logic leaves
    	open for others all other sorts of input vectors -- some
    	quite extreme.  I used the word channelling because I found
    	it to be a somewhat clever play on the previous use of the
    	word channel (as in "vector") in that sentence.

    Patricia:
    
    Why don't we just clear the air once and for all.  I don't make curt
    remarks.  You may perceive I make curt remarks...but I don't make curt
    remarks.  I like exchanging ideas with you.  I find some of the
    doctrine in this file blasphemous....but hey, that's an opinion and 
    comes with the territory.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .123
    
    Just a quick note that may be of interest and I'll disappear again...
    
    I've been taking a class at ASU this semester on the Tanakh and it is
    taught by Rabbi Plotkin of Temple Beth Israel.  I asked him about .123
    and he said that it sounded like an anti-semitic remark and is not true
    at all.
    
    So now we have 2 rabbis that disagree with each other.  Reminds me of
    the old saying that whenever you have 2 rabbis gathered together
    you'll have 3 opinions.  ;-)
        
    Mike

           Manuscript              Description                 Completion Date
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Septuagint    Greek translation of entire        285 B.C.
                            Tanakh
    
          Dead Sea      Qumran community writings          100 B.C.
          Scrolls
    
          Targum        Oldest Tanakh commentaries         200 A.D.
                        (written in Aramaic)
    
          Mishnah       Oral traditions preserved since    200 A.D.
                             450 B.C.
    
          Babylonian    Commentary on Mishnah              400 A.D.
          Talmud
    
          Massoretic    JPS Tanakh based on this text      1000 A.D.
          Text
    
          Midrash       Commentary on Tanakh               300 A.D.
                                                        (addendum to 1600 A.D.)